Did Karl Rove leak the CIA status of Valerie Plame?

That wasn't news to me. I had been told that ? but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhand manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of.

So then, of course, my argument is that if it was known to insiders, what does Karl Rove think he's doing talking to outsiders about it for?

Ah, memories of George Kastanza come to mind. "Should I have not had sex with the cleaning lady in the the office? Was that wrong? I'm sorry, I gotta plead ignorance on this..."

 

If she really was a covert agent, why did she treat her identity as "Jane Bond" at cocktail parties, as an ice breaker?

You have evidence of this, right? I mean, other than RNC and conservative jabber?

How did dozens of people in Washington know of her identity before it was even leaked to Novak?

You need to better qualify this question. Are you saying that dozens of people in Washington DC who were not fellow agents or employees of the CIA with access to her identity knew her identity specifically as a covert CIA operative prior to the Novak article? Because I'm many people knew her identity, as well as her employment with her "cover company", Brewster, Jennings & Associates, a company that was a front for CIA operations, including many other NOC agents and undercover analysts.

By the way, when Plame's cover was blown, so too were the covers of all operatives and, in fact, that entire CIA cover operation affiliated with her through Brewster, Jennings & Associates.

That's the main reason why it's taking the investigation so much time, the simple fact that SO many people knew of her, it's been difficult to pinpoint who said what to even establish that a crime was committed.

And what's your source for this "reason" the investigation is taking so long?

If she really was a covert agent, why was the first thing she did after the story was willingly accept money from Vanity Fair to pose on the cover?

Once you're outed, you can't exactly be "inned", can you. Her cover was already blown at that point.

Seems to me, if she was a case officer, national security was the last thing she had on her mind, until of course, she could use it for her advantage.

Because, of course, you know the most about Plame and her assignments, as well as her intentions. Good to know. when will you be testifying before the Grand Jury? or have you already?

 

So then, of course, my argument is that if it was known to insiders, what does Karl Rove think he's doing talking to outsiders about it for?

What makes you think that the press are considered "outsiders" in Washington? Often, the terms "insiders" and "outsiders" refer to people inside and outside the Beltway (respectively). At least, that's how a lot of people I know use the terms.

But then, what would I know, since I only live 7 miles outside the Beltway?

Kimball Kinnison

 

What makes you think that the press are considered "outsiders" in Washington?

Nothing. Apparently Rove didn't know either, so he shouldn't have assumed.

 

That wasn't news to me. I had been told that ? but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhand manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of.

Doesn't that come across as highly self-aggrandizing and a bit suspect, the guy who says, "well, I knew that too," or risk giving the impression that he is not an insider's insider?

But assume he did know. This seems like a classic case of pscyhological and social distortion of information. An insider knows. He assumes that other insiders know. That somehow blooms into "that was common knowledge on the cocktail party circuit" which distorts into "Plame flaunted her covert identity at parties."

That process of information erosion is fascinating. Call it the "Blog Telephone Game." If there are any social sciences grad students out there in need of a dissertation topic, look no further.

This is why the Internet has taken over as the cradle of the world's misinformation.

 

Isn't it also possible she was using her "secret" status to attack the Bush Administration by sending her own husband on this "fact" finding mission and she knew that the public could never find her inpropriety? She ain't exactly an innocent bystander in all of this.

Isn't it also possible that we should be looking at this as well?

Or, as E_S claims that the neocons do, should we dismiss the facts in favor of how they were gathered?

 

Nothing. Apparently Rove didn't know either, so he shouldn't have assumed.

Gonk, you seem to have already convicted Rove in your mind, and are rejecting anything that might contradict that.

In Washington terms, "insiders" and "outsiders" refer to the Washington social scene, which includes government officials, press, and many private individuals (such as lobbyists, businessmen, etc).

Cooper is a White House correspondant for Time. That would make him very much a member of the Washington social scene, and also considered an "insider".

Kimball Kinnison

 

What makes you think that the press are considered "outsiders" in Washington? Often, the terms "insiders" and "outsiders" refer to people inside and outside the Beltway (respectively). At least, that's how a lot of people I know use the terms.

Yes, the press are always considered "insiders" when classified material is divulged. Absolutely, that makes sense. That's why the press knows where all CIA operatives are, and who they are, and where US troops will strike next, and how...

How easy it is to toss reality out the window when defending those who share your ideals.

 

Gonk, you seem to have already convicted Rove in your mind, and are rejecting anything that might contradict that.

Of course not. As far as I know, we do not know for CERTAIN he was the one that leaked the information. We don't know that yet. It SEEMS likely, but we don't know it.

What I am getting at is that if he did leak the information, ignorance on his part as to the level of the information's confidentiality is an insufficient excuse. It is sufficient to take into account if you're deciding to sentence the man to 2 billion years in jail or to be fined $3.50, but not in terms of guilt or innocence as to the law. People should not be excused from the ramifications of actions they should not be doing just because what resulted went beyond thier intentions.

As for if that reporter was an insider or not, the term is not what you'd call an official designation, and is not to be assumed by someone in a professional position.

 

Yes, the press are always considered "insiders" when classified material is divulged. Absolutely, that makes sense. That's why the press knows where all CIA operatives are, and who they are, and where US troops will strike next, and how...

Cheveyo, it still has not been shown that it was classified information. Even if it were classified information, if Rove was not authorized to have access to the information, or cannot be shown to have been given access to that information (in a manner where it was designated classified), then he did not divulge classified information.

To use an analogy, the way that a certain weapon system works may be classified information. However, if I am able to figure out from non-classified information how it works, and then tell someone else, I have not revealed classified information. The whole "classified" designation only indicates how the information is supposed to be handled. It is not a blanket label for information that no one can know except for a select group of people.

What I am getting at is that if he did leak the information, ignorance on his part as to the level of the information's confidentiality is an insufficient excuse. It is sufficient to take into account if you're deciding to sentence the man to 2 billion years in jail or to be fined $3.50, but not in terms of guilt or innocence as to the law. People should not be excused from the ramifications of actions they should not be doing just because what resulted went beyond thier intentions.

Again, as I said to Cheveyo, the designation of "classified" (or "confidential", if you prefer) refers to how the information is to be handled. If you are not given information that is designated classified, then you do not have to treat it as classified information. If he was not informed that it was classified, then the information that he provided was effectively not classified, and he was under no ethical or legal obligations respecting its confidentiality.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Not to mention that she was abusing her secret status to make up her own results on a fact finding mission...

 

If you are not given information that is designated classified, then you do not have to treat it as classified information.

Then by logic, again, if nuclear codes, high-grade weapons systems or financial information on CIA front companies falls into my hands without being designated "classified" as a member of the government I can share it wherever and however I like with my rationale being that if it was classified, someone would have told me and I am under no obligation to make efforts to discover if it is classified or not. By stating information I know about people working in the CIA and what they do, I am taking liberty with that information when I talk to the media about it, instead of referring the reporter to the CIA where that query is properly addressed.

If I'm going to be taking those liberties with that information, I had better have better motives than Karl rove apparently had.

However, if I am able to figure out from non-classified information how it works, and then tell someone else, I have not revealed classified information. The whole "classified" designation only indicates how the information is supposed to be handled. It is not a blanket label for information that no one can know except for a select group of people.

If you are not a member of government, this can certainly apply. But of course, Karl Rove is a member of government and by that designation he is expected not abuse information concerning other branches of the government. You are speaking of Karl Rove as an ordinary citizen when his position means that he will invariably run across more information than a regular citizen might. If a regular citizen says he heard from someone that Valarie Palme is an undercover operative, you can accuse him of just being a jerk. But if someone in government is doing it, it's a breach of security no matter who was already in the know.

 

Then by logic, again, if nuclear codes, high-grade weapons systems or financial information on CIA front companies falls into my hands without being designated "classified" as a member of the government I can share it wherever and however I like with my rationale being that if it was classified, someone would have told me and I am under no obligation to make efforts to discover if it is classified or not. By stating information I know about people working in the CIA and what they do, I am taking liberty with that information when I talk to the media about it, instead of referring the reporter to the CIA where that query is properly addressed.

If you get information, any information, and it is not designated classified (including the level of classification), then you are under no obligations whatsoever respecting that information. Classification of information only dictates how that information is to be handled. If you receive it without classification, then you are under no limitations imposed by whatever classifications someone else may give it.

That's how classified information works.

Kimball Kinnison

 

If you get information, any information, and it is not designated classified (including the level of classification), then you are under no obligations whatsoever respecting that information.

Take another look at my post RE obligations of those employed within the federal government. A higher standard ought to be applied here.

 

Cheveyo, it still has not been shown that it was classified information. Even if it were classified information, if Rove was not authorized to have access to the information, or cannot be shown to have been given access to that information (in a manner where it was designated classified), then he did not divulge classified information.

Whic is why I said above:

Actually, a crime has been committed. The law was broken. The WH has even acknowledged it. Divulging the identity of a covert agent of the US government is a crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

The question lies in the circumstances, not in the action.
Did Rove leak her name?
If no, who did?
If yes, then did he know that Plame was a covert operative?

That is why there is an investigation. It is not an investigation to discover whether the law was broken. It is an investigation to discover who broke the law, and whether or not it was intentional.

It is already known by Fitzgerald (the investigator) that Plame was an undercover agent for the CIA. That is why is investigation is not "was she an agent?" but rather, "Who outted her?" that is also why Rove is saying, "I didn't divulge her name" instead of "Her identity isn't protected."

What evidence do you have that suggests she was not undercover?

Not to mention that she was abusing her secret status to make up her own results on a fact finding mission...

What? PPOr, J-Ron.

If you get information, any information, and it is not designated classified (including the level of classification), then you are under no obligations whatsoever respecting that information.

I refer you back to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, KK.

 

Have you read the Act? Do you know what it says?

To clarify the "authorized access" part I quoted above, read on:

The law only restricts those people who are given authorized access to the information, and only covers that information that is "clearly marked or clearly represented" as being classified.

If it wasn't clearly marked as being classified, then Rove was not under any obligation to treat it as such.

Look at the law again, Gonk. For the most part, it only applies to those within the federal government. It is a very simple common-sense approach to information.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I don't understand this line of reasoning very well. Is the argument that Karl Rove was not authorized to have access to this classified information, but that he was the innocent victim of someone who impishly handed him a memo filled with classified tidbits of info not clearly marked as such?

Or maybe Plame told Rove about her covert identity at a cocktail party.

 

Look at the law again, Gonk. For the most part, it only applies to those within the federal government. It is a very simple common-sense approach to information.

That's not common sense! That means, again, if you're an intern and you come upon the nuclear launch codes on a scrap of paper and you suspect they're nuclear launch codes -- but, hey, you don't know for certain -- then you can distribute them as you like because you have had unauthorized access to the information and so are under no liability to inform your superiors you have them, or to suffer any recrimination in handing them out to other people. It would mean someone in the CIA could sell someone in the KGB documents not labeled classified that he found sitting on his desk by accident in CIA headquarters.

That's just rediculous. We can't expect the average joe to always do the right thing regarding information, but we should expect government employees to do the right thing with information they've come upon whether in authorized or unauthorized access.

 

I don't understand this line of reasoning very well. Is the argument that Karl Rove was not authorized to have access to this classified information, but that he was the innocent victim of someone who impishly handed him a memo filled with classified tidbits of info not clearly marked as such?

Or maybe Plame told Rove about her covert identity at a cocktail party.

The point is that for all some people are trying to claim that a crime has definitely been committed, there are a lot of factors that need to be considered, and that can disprove the notion of a crime being committed.

For example, we don't know how Rove found out about Plame's status. Ot could have been anything from reading a clearly marked classified memo, to him talking to someone who said "Oh, she works for the CIA in WMD". If it's the latter, then it is not Rove who violated the law, but possibly that other individual.

Similarly, we don't know for sure if Rove actually had "authorized access" to the information about Plame. (Note that the part of the law I quoted only deals with the definition of "authorized". Even if you are authorized to access the information, you have to actually access it to be covered by the law.) He may have been cleared for it, but never reviewed that information before speaking to the reporter.

There are a lot of unknowns, and too many people are going off half-cocked.

Kimball Kinnison

EDIT:

Gonk, there's also a big difference between information that is obviously supposed to be classified and information like employment.

Just because someone works for the CIA does not mean that their employment there is classified. I have several friends who work at the CIA (Langley is less than 10 miles from my home), and none of their jobs are classified there. If I hear from someone that Joe works for the CIA, it's simply where he works, nothing more. By far, classified employees are the exception, not the rule, for CIA employees.

It is a reasonable assumption that if someone tells you openly that someone is an employee of the CIA (especially in what appears to be an analyst position), then that is not classified information. Otherwise, you are setting what is essentially an impossible standard.

 

Jabba, Now you're catching on..

The line of reasoning is simple. The federal law only applies to those it applies to. You can't make something illegal just because you don't like a guy.

This example was used in the previous Plame thread:

During WWII, in the lead up to D-Day, a newspaper starting publishing allied code words in its crossword section. The Allied command was worried that the entire operation was compromised, but the newspaper provided the original puzzles that had been written long before then.

The entire thing was just a weird coincidence. The newspaper certainly didn't know it was revealing allied code words, and therefore didn't violate any laws.

If however, a military intelligence colonel, who was authorized access to the codes, revealed them to the paper, he could be held liable under the law.

As it's been pointed out, the classifiaction exists to guide handling and dissemination of information, not to remove the very existence of the info itself.

Similiarly, if Rove, not working for the CIA, tells a reporter, "Hey, did you know Wilson's wife recommended him for the job?" What laws has he broken?

Or let's use another example. Say you see an old friend of yours from college, and you yell out "Why Joe Smith, I haven't seen you for 5 years!"

Joe just happens to be undercover as "Franco," and yells back "You idiot, you just ruined my cover!!"

So, you're saying you should be arrested for outing an undercover agent, even if you didn't know him as such?

The law says no such thing.

That's the center of the debate. Rove knew that Wilson's wife recommended him for the job, he didn't know if she was supposed to be undercover, if she even was.

As you said above, the fact that she kept her identity an "open secret" doesn't help her case very much.

 

Gonk, there's also a big difference between information that is obviously supposed to be classified and information like employment.

Well if it's not letter for letter written in the law, how can we be sure of it? Where's the difference in situations written out in the law? Are we to govern this by common sense? Apparently we can't agree just on what common sense is.

Just because someone works for the CIA does not mean that their employment there is classified. I have several friends who work at the CIA (Langley is less than 10 miles from my home), and none of their jobs are classified there. If I hear from someone that Joe works for the CIA, it's simply where he works, nothing more. By far, classified employees are the exception, not the rule, for CIA employees.

1. Are you a federal employee?

2. Are you privy to information on what your friend is capable of doing, such as high-level duties in authorizing overseas trips?

3. Are you leaking this information to the media?

If we treat this on the same level as an intern or desk clerk telling you over the BBQ that he works at the CIA and he typed until he got carpal tunnel and you say "Wow, Joe. You know, that is uninteresting and has absolutely no bearing on my life at all" and think no more about it and tell no one, then we're not at the same level of common sense. There's got to be a difference between you, the non-federal common(-er than Karl Rove) individual and a theoretical low-level employee (I am not presuming you only know low-level employees: I am assuming so to provide a contrast) talking about unimportant job related issues that you will never comment to the media about, and THE Karl Rove
leaking information about a much higher employee.


It is a reasonable assumption that if someone tells you openly that someone is an employee of the CIA (especially in what appears to be an analyst position), then that is not classified information. Otherwise, you are setting what is essentially an impossible standard.

How can it be an impossible standard when you're already doing what is frowned upon in the first place? It would be an impossible standard if Karl Rove was supposed to investigate each peice of information he came across before talking about it to Lucy the Secretary. It would be just as impossible for Rumsfeld the superman to monitor every soldier every second of the day to make sure he's not abusing Iraqis. It is NOT an impossible standard to apply to information you are either supplying, or just talking about, to the *media*. That's why people have press secretaries, to find stuff like that out. That's why people create formal press briefings instead of gathering the press together for a game of poker, or to watch a movie, or go to a nudi bar where everyone can ramble at length and not care if the information isn't so 100% accurate.


The entire thing was just a weird coincidence. The newspaper certainly didn't know it was revealing allied code words, and therefore didn't violate any laws.

If however, a military intelligence colonel, who was authorized access to the codes, revealed them to the paper, he could be held liable under the law.

This isn't the same thing as a mere cooincidence like that, mr44. A more accurate analogy would be if we knocked your allied general down a few ranks, made him a staff officer, and told his friend who made the crosswords at the local paper to use words like "Overlord" and "Market Garden" because they were snazzy terms he'd heard thrown about the office for some reason nobody was telling him.

 

Have you read the Act? Do you know what it says?

Yes, and yes, but htank you for posting it for everyone.

The law only restricts those people who are given authorized access to the information, and only covers that information that is "clearly marked or clearly represented" as being classified.

Exactly, which is why Novak, Cooper and Miller are not being charged with breaking this law.

This is also why Rove is being investigated. Fitzgerald is seeking to discover if Rove had the security clearance and had access to her identity, and then whether or not he revealed her identity to outside sources.

If it wasn't clearly marked as being classified, then Rove was not under any obligation to treat it as such.

You are suggesting that our government is so inept that they do not properly mark as "classified" information pertaining to undercover agents?

FoxNews has an intriguing quote:

The leak case is problematic for the administration on two fronts. First, is the question of whether Rove, or another administration official, broke the law in revealing Plame's identity. The 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act makes it a crime to knowingly reveal an undercover agent. Only one person has ever been convicted of violating the act...

...Democrats say Luskin's attempt to distinguish that Rove never actually used Plame's name is nothing more than an attempt to parse Rove's comments. Legal experts agree that Rove did not have to mention Plame by name to have violated the law. FauxNews.com

There are a lot of unknowns, and too many people are going off half-cocked.

You say I'm going off half-cocked because you're not reading what I'm writing. You're jumping on the assumption that I have already single-handedly convicted Rove. You further suggest that the law says a crime was not committed. Problem is, even if you are defending Rove to the death, he has already admitted to revealing her identity as "Wilson's wife", thiough he argues he did not speak of her by name. So if Rove was not privy to the classified material, he himself would be a pawn, just as the reporters are; however, the question would remain: "Who leaked that info to Rove?" At some point the law was violated. If not by Rove, then by whomever fed him the classified info.

 

As you said above, the fact that she kept her identity an "open secret" doesn't help her case very much.

I didn't say that. I have not seen any evidence from anyone in this thread or anywhere else for your claim that Plame flaunted her covert status at cocktail parties, or that in any way she "kept her identity an 'open secret.'"

Now is your chance to list all your sources for this claim.

Also, Rove's problems go potentially deeper than whether he violated the statute the language of which Kimball keeps posting.

Rove may have lied to the FBI about his involvement in the leak, and he may have lied to the grand jury about it.

As Clinton will tell you, it's no small matter to be caught lying in an official proceeding about a matter which was never illegal to begin with. Martha Stewart also has some experience with this kind of thing.

Also, the denial of Rove's involvement in the leak seems so pointless if those involved are confident that no laws were broken. Now, years later, it's a little bit late to be saying that "sure, Rove leaked Plame's name, but here's why that doesn't matter and Rove broke no law and he continues to enjoy the confidence and full blown support of the President of the United States."

Way too late for that. Now it's "Sure we denied Rove's involvement and Bush promised to fire anyone involved and Rove lied about his involvement both on tv and under oath, but here's why that doesn't matter and Rove broke no law not relating to perjury and he continues to enjoy the confidence and full blown support of the President of the United States."

 

A more accurate analogy would be if we knocked your allied general down a few ranks, made him a staff officer, and told his friend who made the crosswords at the local paper to use words like "Overlord" and "Market Garden" because they were snazzy terms he'd heard thrown about the office for some reason nobody was telling him.

No, because he would still be bound by the classificaion system. Secret terms aren't thrown around the office for those who aren't cleared for the information.

It's either secret (or top secret, or confidental) or it's not.

See, maybe the entire controversy continues to breed because most people aren't familiar with the actual process.

So if Rove was not privy to the classified material, he himself would be a pawn, just as the reporters are; however, the question would remain: "Who leaked that info to Rove?" At some point the law was violated. If not by Rove, then by whomever fed him the classified info.

Chev, this is where you are making your assumption. The main thing you are overlooking is that maybe, NO ONE leaked this information.

If Plame was undercover, and the CIA was taking active and real measures to conceal her identity, why did she pubically use her own name to recommend Wilson for the original trip?

Removing Rove and Novak for a minute, don't you think there might have been a very real conflict of interest by Plame linking herself to her husband in the first place?

Plame used her own name "Valerie Plame" when she recommend Wilson for the trip. If she outed herself, no crime was ever committed.

If someone came along, be it Rove, or Novak, or Michael Jackson, and said "Hey, look, Wilson's own wife recommended him for the trip, that seems strange.."

Why would they have any expectation that Plame's identity was protected, especially since it was known that Plame simply worked for the CIA?

 

Similiarly, if Rove, not working for the CIA, tells a reporter, "Hey, did you know Wilson's wife recommended him for the job?" What laws has he broken?

At least one. A reporter isn't supposed to be treated like your neighbor Barney unless you're talking about things unrelated to your jobs. After all, that one statement is impossible unless Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, and had a hefty enough position in the CIA for her opinion to be considered on such an important issue as sending someone to Niger to investigate -- wait for it -- WMDs.

Gee whiz officer, whod'a thought someone like that might have responsibilities I might put in jeopardy? Next thing you'll be telling me I can't say Victor Grushenko told me the KGB was spying on the Manhattan Project because the CIA didn't bother to tell me Victor was a high-level defector. How wuz I to know? How can I guide the media away from directions I'd rather not have thier storys take if I can't assume CIA high-level operatives have no tasks the CIA hasn't informed me of?