Did Karl Rove leak the CIA status of Valerie Plame?

What's up Learner?

This is a place for political debate. If you wanna play "one upmanship" go to the JCC where trash like that belongs. We don't need anyone ruining our boards just see what he can get away with.

At the same time, we don't want the mods to get so strict that we can not have personallities. That last bit was lsightly over the edge.

 

Hey, I was just watching Dayside on FNC and they just showed the White House press corps grilling Mcclellin about his statements reguarding Rove that was also shown in Flyer's video. Hell, Fox's own Carl Cammeron has a biting sound bite. Then they had discussion from both sides...

Hmmmm...fair and balanced? Yup.

 

And your comments are only contributing, J-Rod, let it go. I guess I'm contributing here too. D'OH!

Regardless, I see a couple of things being key here:

1.) No one has said they know that Rove broke the statute. But what we do know is that there seems to be AT LEAST probable cause for an arrest. What do you think Mr. 44?

2.) Bush made a pledge to get rid of anyone in the White House involved with this leak. Rove was involved.

3.) Rove has apparently committed perjury. I hope the Republicans go after him with as much ferver as they did Clinton.

 

1.) No one has said they know that Rove broke the statute. But what we do know is that there seems to be AT LEAST probable cause for an arrest. What do you think Mr. 44?

Probable cause for the investigation.

2.) Bush made a pledge to get rid of anyone in the White House involved with this leak. Rove was involved.

Agreed. That was, after all, the question the White House spokesman was avoiding.

3.) Rove has apparently committed perjury. I hope the Republicans go after him with as much ferver as they did Clinton.

Ifthat bears out after the investigation, agreed. Only let's hope they don't spend $44,000,000 to do it. But bear in mind, this is different than the president committing perjury.

 

Well considering he's half of Bush's Brain, (the right half, with Darth Cheney being the MORE right half), I think it MIGHT qualify as the same...

 

Well considering he's half of Bush's Brain, (the right half, with Darth Cheney being the MORE right half), I think it MIGHT qualify as the same...

You can't convict on opinion. I've seen that SNL skit as well, but it would be inadmisable.

 

Huh? What SNL skit? What opinion?

 

That Bush is just an automation of Rove and Cheney.

Funny skit. But not that same as Bush lying.

 

First, let's be fair. Bush didn't promise to "fire" anyone in the administration who leaked the name. He said: "If someone did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."

I think it should be obvious to everyone that the "appropriate action" in this case is to accuse Democrats of playing partisan politics by making an issue of some random comment Bush made about "taking action" and administration tactics that Federal statutes define as "illegal."

Let it never be said that George Bush is not a man of his word.

My prediction: Rove will keep his job through the end of Bush's term. Why?

The one sure, foolproof path to longevity in the Bush administration is to make a mistake so egregious that for the administration to admit the mistake would mean to cast fundamental doubt on Bush's leadership. Call it the Rumsfeld doctrine.

 

Let's look carefully at 50 USC 421 before we go any farther. Just for review, that section states:

421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, 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, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify 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, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual?s classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(d) Imposition of consecutive sentences A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.

Let's break down and summarize the sections here. I will ignore (d) because it is fairly self-explanatory.

Section (a) deals with a person who is directly given access to the identity of a covert agent through classified material. Section (b) deals with a person who has access to classified material who discovers (as a result of that material) the identity of a covert agent. Section (c) deals with someone who doesn't have access to the classified information, but acts in a pattern intended to reveal the identity of a covert agent.

Other than those differences, the three different offenses have the same criteria. 1) The individual has to disclose information identifying the covert agent to someone without authorization to receive it. 2) The individual has to know that the information identifies the agent. 3) The individual has to know that the US is taking "affirmative measures" to protect the identity of the covert agent.

Unless an individual meets all of those criteria, no crime has been committed (At least under 50 USC 421).

However, simply reading the text of the law itself doesn't cut it. For example, who is considered a "covert agent"? It's not just someone who works for the CIA, even in a classified capacity. It's defined in 50 USC 426:

(4) The term ?covert agent? means?
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency?
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified inform

 

Kimball, I think you are continually using a straw-man, because I have yet to see anyone here post that they know for sure that Rove is conclusively guilty. This whole thing is speculation at this point, and continually bringing that up does not strengthen your case. It isn't a manufactured scandal, it appears Rove's action skirted the law. It's a scandel because it's still as of yet unclear whether he actually broke the law or not. It's a scandal because the White House continually made claims for years that Rove had nothing to do with it, and now, the White House will no longer make such claims nor comment on earlier claims. The White Hosue also claimed that they would get rid of anyone involved with such leaks, even if President Bush did not say so himself.

However, regarding Plame, one would have to presume that she was a covert operative within the meaning of the statute. I mean, if she weren't, why on earth would their be an investigation? Why would Ashcroft assign Pat Fitzgerald to the case?

We don't know everything about the CIA or Plame's activities, and its very unlikely that we will know. However, just plain common sense tells you that she must qualify because otherwise, there would be no need for an investigation, whether or not Rove intentionally leaked classified material. You dig? Otherwise, the case would already be over. Fitzgerald would have nothing to investigate becasue no crime was committed.

Therefore, we are back to square one, back to where we were just a page before. Did Rove intentionally leak the information? There is at least probable cause, I think, considering the fact that we know he gave the information to someone without authorized access, and that that information helped identify a covert agent (again, it seems quite clear that the Plame WAS a covert agent given that their doesn't seem to be any point to investigating something if there was no chance of it being a crime.)

Therefore, the ONLY thing that really matters right now is whether Rove did in fact have authorized access. If he did, it seems like he's guilty.

 

Theres a larger issue here. Ethics, which IMO Rove doesnt have, is what this is about. The CIA asked the state department to investigate the leak wich to me is tantamount to revenge against the administration for exploiting their anaylysts to help the White House to start a war. You think politicans would learn from history, because this is exactly the reason Felt leaked to Woodward - because he felt that Nixon was exploiting the FBI. Point is the leak is not what this is about at all. Its the CIA pissed off at the administration for handicapping them .

 

Theres a larger issue here. Ethics, which IMO Rove doesnt have, is what this is about. The CIA asked the state department to investigate the leak wich to me is tantamount to revenge against the administration for exploiting their anaylysts to help the White House to start a war. You think politicans would learn from history, because this is exactly the reason Felt leaked to Woodward - because he felt that Nixon was exploiting the FBI. Point is the leak is not what this is about at all. Its the CIA pissed off at the administration for handicapping them .

This, I think is very close to the truth. I don't think the exact reasoning here is correct (i.e. over the Iraq War), because there are some bigger issues at stake as well (i.e. a culture war within the CIA).

However, remember that the independent counsel was only appointed after there was a lot of crying about it in the press. As has been the case with practically every independent counsel in history (on both sides), it is more of a political weapon than a law enforcement tool.

At this point, just as I said almost 2 years ago, it is all about spin and political manipulation, rather than the truth.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I mean, if she weren't, why on earth would their be an investigation? Why would Ashcroft assign Pat Fitzgerald to the case?

Again though, this statement is exactly why it isn't a straw man argument.

OWM, we've discussed independent counsels before, and the major flaws that come with them. You have said what amounts to the same thing in this very forum.

Independent counsels aren't organized to prove facts after a crime has occured, they are set up to find facts relating to allegations, regardless if wrongdoing is ever found.

One of the most telling statements relating to this incident is one you, yourself made in the original Plame thread. You specifically made the claim that "the GOP put your main man Slick through an investigation, and now it's their turn."

So basically, back then, you admitted the potential failings of the independent counsel, you basically admitted it was about revenge, and yet still manage to act coy about it now.

This entire affair was no big deal because everyone around Washington knew of Plame before it was ever published. Suddenly, through media manipulation, it's supposed to be some huge treasonous scandal...?

 

If everyone knew about Plame then why was Cooper sworn to double secret probation (I deserve points for the Animal House reference)? This was done as retribution for Joe Wilson calling George Bush a liar and undermining one of the main reasons to go to war with Iraq. The administration knew they could not intimidate Wilson, look at his history and whom he has dealt with, so the best way to get at him was through his wife. Wilson was hailed as a hero by Bush 41 for standing up to Saddam Hussein & protecting US citizens in the Baghdad embassy. Bush 41 also publicly stated how terrible a crime it was for outing a CIA operative. On no less than 5 occasions did Bush/Rove/McClellan publicly state that Rove was in no way involved with the leak. The Bush administration is in trouble right now. They have stated that no leaks came from the White House & if they found out who was responsible they would be fired and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Whether or not that will apply to Rove is in question now & as of yesterday they are not about to answer any questions.

 

If you know all of that for sure, maybe you could call up Patrick Fitzgerald and tell him. It would save all of us taxpayers a lot of money.

 

Everyone involved in this thread should have in interest in viewing Larry King tonight. They went over the law and the emerging arguments.

 

At this point, just as I said almost 2 years ago, it is all about spin and political manipulation, rather than the truth.

I see. But the administration's runup to war was all on the up and up?

 

But bear in mind, this is different than the president committing perjury.

Also bear in mind, this is (allegedly) lying about something much worse than whether or not he got head.

As Eddie Izzard says:

So, perjury, umm, you know. If you commit perjury, I don?t care. Don?t give a ****. I don?t think you should because you grade murder. You have murder one, murder two. You realize that there can be a difference in the level of murder. So there must be a difference in the level of perjury. Perjury one is when you?re saying when you?re there?s no Holocaust when, you know 10 million people have died in it, and perjury nine, is when you said you shagged someone when you didn?t.

 

Also bear in mind, this is (allegedly) lying about something much worse than whether or not he got head.

HA! In what way? Remember, she had never been undercover. She was in no way put into danger and no CIA operation had been placed in jeopardy.

Meanwhile, all the questions I asked in my previous post have been ignored. That post:

Let it be known that if Karl Rove did leak that info, I believe he should be fired.

That said, why didn't anyone question why a female CIA agent, who is on record as not liking Bush, can send her own husband on an official fact finding mission? I mean, if she was writing editorials for a newspaper, I think it was the NYT, her own husband would at least be resistant to publicly embarrassing his own wife.

Could inspection bias have affected the results of his findings?

Would the appearance of a conflict of intrest at least show an unprofessional conduct?

All these questions got swept under the rug in favor of "the scandel", which involved a CIA agent that had never been undercover in the first place.

 

The Big Lie About Valerie Plame
By Larry Johnson

"Valerie Plame was a classmate of mine from the day she started with the CIA. I entered on duty at the CIA in September 1985. All of my classmates were undercover--in other words, we told our family and friends that we were working for other overt U.S. Government agencies. We had official cover. That means we had a black passport--i.e., a diplomatic passport. If we were caught overseas engaged in espionage activity the black passport was a get out of jail free card.

A few of my classmates, and Valerie was one of these, became a non-official cover officer. That meant she agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport. If caught in that status she would have been executed.

The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O'Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey. Yet, until Robert Novak betrayed her she was still undercover and the company that was her front was still a secret to the world. When Novak outed Valerie he also compromised her company and every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company and with her.

The Republicans now want to hide behind the legalism that "no laws were broken". I don't know if a man made law was broken but an ethical and moral code was breached. For the first time a group of partisan political operatives publically identified a CIA NOC. They have set a precendent that the next group of political hacks may feel free to violate.

They try to hide behind the specious claim that Joe Wilson "lied". Although Joe did not lie let's follow that reasoning to the logical conclusion. Let's use the same standard for the Bush Administration. Here are the facts. Bush's lies have resulted in the deaths of almost 1800 American soldiers and the mutilation of 12,000. Joe Wilson has not killed anyone. He tried to prevent the needless death of Americans and the loss of American prestige in the world.

But don't take my word for it, read the biased Senate intelligence committee report. Even though it was slanted to try to portray Joe in the worst possible light this fact emerges on page 52 of the report: According to the US Ambassador to Niger (who was commenting on Joe's visit in February 2002), "Ambassador Wilson reached the same conclusion that the Embassy has reached that it was highly unlikely that anything between Iraq and Niger was going on." Joe's findings were consistent with those of the Deputy Commander of the European Command, Major General Fulford.

The Republicans insist on the lie that Val got her husband the job. She did not. She was not a division director, instead she was the equivalent of an Army major. Yes it is true she recommended her husband to do the job that needed to be done but the decision to send Joe Wilson on this mission was made by her bosses.

At the end of the day, Joe Wilson was right. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It was the Bush Administration that pushed that lie and because of that lie Americans are dying. Shame on those who continue to slander Joe Wilson while giving Bush and his pack of liars a pass. That's the true outrage."

 

HA! In what way? Remember, she had never been undercover. She was in no way put into danger and no CIA operation had been placed in jeopardy.

J-Rod, I don't believe you're thinking clearly. Even if her identity was not protected, which it was, Rove never double-checked the information he was giving out. He was leaking information about other agents concerning events he was uninvolved in in the effort to win a political argument, and he lied about doing it.

In contrast, Clinton lied about getting a BJ. Not even (supposedly) to his wife, but to the public in general. Which is actually expected if you respect the dignity of the person giving you a BJ. It's a private thing that has nothing to do with his job or the CIA. So how can you say Clinton lying about a BJ is worse than Rove lying about leaking information, which at least skirts the realm of relevancy?

 

J-Rod, I don't believe you're thinking clearly. Even if her identity was not protected, which it was, Rove never double-checked the information he was giving out. He was leaking information about other agents concerning events he was uninvolved in in the effort to win a political argument, and he lied about doing it.

1) We don't know whether it was protected or not. That is pure speculation. No information one way or the other has been put forward to show that she met the requirements listen in 50 USC 426.

2) Rove was under no obligation to double-check the information.

3) Which other agents did he leak information about? Remember that under 50 USC 421, it requires that the intent to disclose the identity of a protected agent has to be there (go back and read the linked law).

4) Have you read the email describing the 2 minute conversation? He was basically stating that Wilson's trip was not authorized by DCI nor by the Vice President. That's not an "effort to win a political argument". That's simply the truth of the matter, as the Senate investigation demonstrated (with documentation).

Kimball Kinnison

 

1) We don't know whether it was protected or not. That is pure speculation. No information one way or the other has been put forward to show that she met the requirements listen in 50 USC 426.

There's at least a debate about it at this point and federal investigators involved, so in the debate at this point we can at least say it's a good possibility and follow to the next point:

2) Rove was under no obligation to double-check the information.

WRONG. He ABSOLUTELY was. That should be presumed by his position. Look, I can buy that Rumsfeld cannot reasonably be expected to check every single element of Iraq every day to check and re-check that no abuses are taking place. He is responsible for the orders he gives but if he's clear there is to be no torture and there is, you can't resonably hold him responsible for something that could theoretically take place on any single day over what is now the course of two years for 150,000 people.

But Rove's instance is dealing with information he already has. Of course he should double-check -- after all if the president is to be believed he shouldn't be doing this at all! Of course everyone does it and the President's remarks about leaks are posturing but, posturing or not, if you ARE going to leak you should at least be careful about doing it. He was under every moral and ethical obligation to check through what he was leaking and make sure no harm would come by it. To suggest that he wasn't is just advocating irresponsibility. If you're already going outside your authority, you should always throughly check, and re-check unless the situation is dire. Heck, you should check and re-check even if you're exercising rarely used powers that are IN your authority, like declaring war. If that means that by re-checking your information you never get around to leaking it, well maybe it wasn't worth leaking anyway. After all, you're expected not to be leaking anyway, right?

3) Which other agents did he leak information about? Remember that under 50 USC 421, it requires that the intent to disclose the identity of a protected agent has to be there (go back and read the linked law).

It doesn't matter if he's disclosed about other agents. Treason isn't always defined as working as a mole for another nation, you can commit treason and be acting purely in self-interest. At the very least Rove is guilty of disclosing the identity of an agent. The caveat is that yes, she just happened to be protected.

I am saying that this doesn't matter because if you're at the point of leaking information and you don't know that, too bad: you should have. And if you don't agree than I am sorry you don't ask for more from your elected and non-elected officials.


4) Have you read the email describing the 2 minute conversation? He was basically stating that Wilson's trip was not authorized by DCI nor by the Vice President. That's not an "effort to win a political argument". That's simply the truth of the matter, as the Senate investigation demonstrated (with documentation).

If it's not an effort to win a political argument, then why is the conversation taking place to begin with and why is Rove telling this to a reporter? Why does he care if the reporter knows where Wilson's trip came from or not and how is that relevant to the information that Wilson found unless the trip was UNauthorized? Why is he speaking for the SCI and the Vice President even in this unofficial regard?

 

Mr. 44, you are again comparing two completely different situations. If this wasn't an attack on your team, you'd be the first person to get everyone to remember that.

Now, Django just posted that article above. However, it still defies all common logic to believe that PLame was NOT undecover even without the article. She was the VICTIM. If there is no VICTIM, there is no CRIME. That's the difference between Clinton's alleged misdealings with watergate, there was not victim requirement, it was alleged HE and his WIFE committed fradulant activities, so the only thing to determine was whether there were fraudulent activities.

Here, there is the baseline necessity have having a valid victim. If there was no valid victim, then teh investigation stops right there. That's the real difference. That's why it would be just ludicrous, and I would be the first person to say Pat Fitzgerald is a partisan hack who has wasted a lot of time and money on NOTHING.

However, it seems like wishful thinking on your part (and the part of the other conservatives) to believe she wasn't covered by the statute.