CIA Rove

Parent Cafe
1

<p>Yea, I’ve missed a lot of news. What’s up with the CIA leak. SO what if a name is leaked out. I have no idea what the big idea is. Can anyone explain to me. Thank You</p>

2

<p>Just google ‘Rove Plame’ or ‘Karl Rove’ and follow the stories as you go along. There’s a ton of info out there, and you can form your own opinion after catching up…
Then there are several good blogs out there,too, each with their own slant, but if you read enough you can begin to sort out the truth.<br>
If you’re an American, you are missing out on an important piece of history if you don’t stay informed.</p>

3

<p>Without commenting on the merits of the arguments swirling around, the “So what” if a CIA covert agent’s name is leaked is potentially huge: all their contacts in foreign countries, once the local counter-intelligence realizes that so-and-so was an American agent, are compromised. Aside from damage to existing or past intelligence gathering operations, this can make potential foreign agents less likely to work with Americans in the future. </p>

<p>In the case at hand, it also makes things more difficult when the ostensible “employer” is known to be a front for CIA agents, making thing dicey for other agents who may be on the payroll.</p>

<p>As a general rule, it’s also bad ju-ju to give away any information about your methods, tradecraft, etc., because the Opposition–whoever the Opposition is–will tailor their own efforts against what they think they know.</p>

4

<p>It’s really not about Rove or Plame, but about the President, who promised the American people he would dismiss anyone in the White House who was involved in revealing the name of a CIA operative. He didn’t say a crime had to be committed, or that the revelation had to be intentional, or that the White House employee had to be the only source; simply that he’d dismiss him.</p>

<p>So this is a test of the President’s truthfulness and trustworthiness - frankly, being neither a Democrat nor a Republican, there’s a piece of me that hopes that he passes it - what he said he would do seems reasonable to me, and it seems ridiculous to have this get in the the way of the people’s business. And then there’s a piece of me that hopes he stonewalls for as long as possible, calling into question whether he himself knew the truth and has been lying all this time, or whether his top appointees and closest friends keeps him in the dark. The questions are the same about the WMD and the bio labs and the terrorist connections, but this one locates the questions in the White House itself.</p>

5

<p>

Perhaps there is another quote available in which he says what you claim; but the quote from a press conference that was re-played on the morning talk shows this morning most definitely included the phrase “if laws were broken.” Which they do not appear to have been, given that Plame has been assigned in-country for 6 years prior to the Novak article.</p>

<p>But, even if the conditions were loosened, it is now apparent that Rove was not the source for Novak’s outing of Plame.</p>

6

<p>Bush was asked by a reporter back when this first came out if he would fire the person resonsible and he answered “yes”.</p>

<p>Q: Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President [Dick] Cheney’s discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent’s name. . . *and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?</p>

<p>BUSH: Yes. And that’s up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.</p>

7

<p>“Perhaps there is another quote available in which he says what you claim; but the quote from a press conference that was re-played on the morning talk shows this morning most definitely included the phrase ‘if laws were broken.’”</p>

<p>And several more quotes I’ve heard replayed on NPR talk about leaking classified material, which would mean that the “leaker” knew about it from classified sources. I know you can find quotes where that isn’t said, but it and the above were said so often it’s clear that’s what they meant when ever they said it.</p>

<p>Then, too, I’m having trouble believing that it can be considered a leak when a member of the Administration learns about it from a reporter first, as appears to be the case with both Rove and Lewis Libby (who is said to have learned it from Tim Russert).</p>

<p>The issue of who’s covert comes into play with this, too. It’s clear from articles in the NY Times and LATimes that Plame was no longer acting in a covert capacity what ever her official status was with the CIA. Covert agents don’t drive to CIA headquarters to work everyday if they want to be kept secret. That’s what analysts do. </p>

<p>From the point of view of the applicable law, if, as Vanity Fair has reported, Plame was brought back to her current job in DC 1997 because the CIA believed her identity had already been given to the Russians in 1994, she was not technically a covert operative because she hadn’t acted as a covert operative in the last 5 years.</p>

<p>Of course, knowing that she had already been brought home because her identity was compromised and that she had married highly visable public servant, it would have probably been wiser if she had stopped telling people she worked for her old front company (she listed it on a compaign contribution for Al Gore in 1999), if that was supposed to stay a secret, of course. The CIA should have reclassified her and given her a new cover if that’s what they wanted.</p>

8

<p>"McClellan vowed: “The president has set high standards, the highest of standards, for people in his administration. He’s made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.”</p>

<p>Bush replied “yes” when asked in June 2004 if he would fire anyone who leaked the agent’s name."</p>

<p>Frankly, I think Bush didn’t know when he made the pledge. But how long didn’t he know? For how long has he been covering up? Or was he kept barefoot and ignorant the whole time? </p>

<p>You can cavil about the words, but the fact is that the President’s trust was betrayed, and now the public’s trust in him is at risk. (and I’m not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing, but if I were a Republican, I’d be demanding Rove’s head tomorrow, regardless of whether a crime was committed or not. And I think the Democrats are just plain stupid to ask for it.)</p>

9

<p>great piece in the Washington Post today.</p>

<p>And didn’t the CIA request the investigation? Why?</p>

10

<p>Larry Johnson, former CIA:
<a href=“http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/07/mr_bush_have_yo.html[/url]”>http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/07/mr_bush_have_yo.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Niger Mischief
MR. BUSH, HAVE YOU NO SHAME?
The Intelligence Challenge: Can We Trust Our President?
Kindi hospital
THE REAL OUTRAGE IN THE ROVE PLAME AFFAIR
Four men alone?
The Plame Game
THE LONDON BOMBING AND IGNORANT REPORTERS
Al “K
Mind Control </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/[/url]”>http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://www.antiwar.com/justin/[/url]”>http://www.antiwar.com/justin/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/15/225611/396[/url]”>http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/15/225611/396&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<br>

<br>

<p>And Best of All for the best timeline anywhere. Revised Plame timeline (updated): </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/16/22536/4169[/url]”>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/16/22536/4169&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

11

<p>The Intelligence Challenge: Can We Trust Our President?</p>

<p>By Larry Johnson</p>

<p>From: TPMCafe Special Guests
By Brent Cavan, Jim Marcinkowski, Larry Johnson, and Jane Doe</p>

<p>We trained and worked at the CIA with Valerie Plame. We presented the following statement at a hearing on Capitol Hill in October 2003. In light of the latest White House sanctioned assault on Valerie Plame and her character, our testimony remains relevant and accurate.</p>

<p>Jul 15, 2005 – 10:59:46 PM EST
We slogged through the same swamps on patrols, passed clandestine messages to each other, survived a simulated terrorist kidnapping and interrogation, kicked pallets from cargo planes, completed parachute jumps, and literally helped picked ticks off each other after weeks in the woods at a CIA training facility. We knew each other’s secrets. We shared our fears, failures, and successes. We came to rely on each other in a way you do not find in normal civilian life. We understood that a slip of the tongue could end in death for those close to us or for people we didn’t even know. We were trained by the best, to be the best. We were trained by the Central Intelligence Agency. They may not appreciate what they have created.</p>

<p>Our joint training experience forged a bond of trust and a sense of duty that continues some eighteen years later. It is because of this bond of trust that the authors of this piece and two other colleagues, all former intelligence officers, appeared on ABC’s Nightline to speakout on behalf of the wife Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a sensitive undercover operative outed by columnist Robert Novak. The Ambassador’s wife (we decline to use her name) is a friend who went through the same training with us. We acknowledge our obligation to protect each other and the intelligence community and the information we used to do our jobs. We are speaking out because someone in the Bush Administration seemingly does not understand this, although they signed the same oaths of allegiance and confidentiality that we did.</p>

<p>Many of us have moved on into the private sector, where this Agency aspect of our lives means little, but we have not forgotten our initial oaths to support the Constitution, our government, and to protect the secrets we learned and to protect each other. We still have friends who serve. We protect them literally by keeping our mouths shut unless we are speaking amongst ourselves. We understand what this bond or the lack of it means.</p>

<p>Clearly some in the Bush Administration do not understand the requirement to protect and shield national security assets. Based on published information we can only conclude that partisan politics by people in the Bush Administration overrode the moral and legal obligations to protect clandestine officers and security assets.</p>

<p>Beyond supporting Mrs. Wilson with our moral support and prayers we want to send a clear message to the political operatives responsible for this. You are a traitor and you are our enemy. You should lose your job and probably should go to jail for blowing the cover of a clandestine intelligence officer.</p>

<p>You have set a sickening precedent. You have warned all U.S. intelligence officers that you may be compromised if you are providing information the White House does not like. A precedent, as one colleague pointed out during our brief appearances, allows you to build out a case based on previous legal actions and court decisions. It’s a slippery slope if it lowers the bar.</p>

<p>Ambassador Wilson’s political affiliations are irrelevant. Political differences serve as the basis for the give and take of representative government. What is relevant is the damage caused by the exposure that Ambassador Wilson’s wife as a political act intended to undermine Wilson’s view.</p>

<p>It is shameful on one level that the White House uses the news media, its own leaks, and junior Congressmen from Georgia, among others, to levy attacks on Ambassador Wilson. Moreover they discount what he has to say, his value in the Niger investigation, and suggest his wife’s cover is of little value because she was “a low-level CIA employee”. If Wilson’s comments or analysis have no merit, why does the White House feel the need to launch such a coordinated attack? Why drag his wife into it?</p>

<p>Not only have the Bush Administration leakers damaged the career of our friend but they have put many other people potentially in harm’s way. If left unpunished this outing has lowered the bar for official behavior. Further, who in their right mind would ever agree to become a spy for the United States? If we won’t protect our own officers how can we reassure foreigners that we will safeguard them? Better human intelligence could prevent any number of terror incidents in the future, but we are unlikely to get foreign recruits to supply it if their safety cannot be somewhat assured. If more cases like Mrs. Wilson’s occur, assurances of CIA protection will mean nothing to potential spies.</p>

<p>Politicians must not politicize the intelligence community. President Bush has been a decisive leader in the war on terrorism, at least initially. What about decisiveness now? Where is the accountability he promised us in the wake of Clinton Administration scandals? We find it hard to believe the President lacks the wherewithal to get to bottom of this travesty. It is up to the President to restore the bonds of trust with the intelligence community that have been shattered by this tawdry incident.</p>

<p>We joined the CIA to fight against foreign tyrants who used the threat of incarceration, torture, and murder to achieve their ends. They followed the rule of force, not the rule of law. We now find ourselves with an administration in the United States where some of its members have chosen to act like foreign tyrants. As loyal Americans and registered Republicans we implore President Bush to move quickly and decisively against those who, if not apprehended, will leave his Administration with the legacy of being the first to allow political operatives to out clandestine officers.</p>

12

<p>Here’s a question for those who buy into the covert nature of Plame (after being out of the field for 6 years):</p>

<p>While she was truly covert, don’t you think the CIA is smart enough to provide an alias to be used for covert agents? Perhaps she was Jamie Bond or something. So, now 6 years later, you are a bad guy who wants to harm Jamie Bond or one of her snitches and suddenly you read in Robert Novaks column that someone by the name of Valerie Plame works for the CIA. OK, the CIA employs thousands and thousands of people and you have never heard of Valerie Plame, so nothing clicks. However, then you see Joe Wilson making a big stink about his wife being a covert agent who had been outed and maybe you start to take notice of the situation, but you still have never heard of Valerie Plame. But, then you pass by a news stand and you see the cover of Vanity Fair and there’s Jamie Bond coyly behind some sunglasses and a scarf. AHA - Jamie = Valerie!!!</p>

<p>So, either Valerie and Joe are the dumbest spy and spymate in history or perhaps they knew they really didn’t have anything to hide anymore - especially since it was common knowledge on the DC coctail circuit. You can hyperventilate all you want about national security being jeopardized but this just doesn’t stand the smell test. Take a deep breath and all you can smell is politics at work.</p>

13

<p>Update [2005-7-14 20:21:3 by Sherlock Google]: VICTORY! COUNTDOWN JUST HAD A FORMER AGENT ON TALKING ABOUT ALL THE COLLATERAL DAMAGE TO THE AGENCY!! AND HOW HAVING GUYS IN PINSTRIPE SUITS, WRAPPING THEMSELVES IN GOD COUNTRY AND THE FLAG, THEN REVEAL THE NAMES, NO AGENTS WILL WANT TO WORK FOR THE CIA!!</p>

<pre><code>Leak of Agent’s Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm

The leak of a CIA operative’s name has also exposed the identity of a CIA front company, potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure, Bush administration officials said yesterday.

The company’s identity, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, became public because it appeared in Federal Election Commission records on a form filled out in 1999 by Valerie Plame, the case officer at the center of the controversy, when she contributed $1,000 to Al Gore’s presidential primary campaign.

After the name of the company was broadcast yesterday, administration officials confirmed that it was a CIA front. They said the obscure and possibly defunct firm was listed as Plame’s employer on her W-2 tax forms in 1999 when she was working undercover for the CIA. Plame’s name was first published July 14 in a newspaper column by Robert D. Novak that quoted two senior administration officials. They were critical of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, for his handling of a CIA mission that undercut President Bush’s claim that Iraq had sought uranium from the African nation of Niger for possible use in developing nuclear weapons.

…
The inadvertent disclosure of the name of a business affiliated with the CIA underscores the potential damage to the agency and its operatives caused by the leak of Plame’s identity. Intelligence officials have said that once Plame’s job as an undercover operative was revealed, other agency secrets could be unraveled and her sources might be compromised or endangered.

A former diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said yesterday that every foreign intelligence service would run Plame’s name through its databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited their country and to reconstruct her activities.

“That’s why the agency is so sensitive about just publishing her name,” the former diplomat said.

…It could not be learned yesterday whether other CIA operatives were associated with Brewster-Jennings.

…The name of the CIA front company was broadcast yesterday by Novak, the syndicated journalist who originally identified Plame. Novak, highlighting Wilson’s ties to Democrats, said on CNN that Wilson’s “wife, the CIA employee, gave $1,000 to Gore and she listed herself as an employee of Brewster-Jennings & Associates.”

“There is no such firm, I’m convinced,” he continued. “CIA people are not supposed to list themselves with fictitious firms if they’re under a deep cover – they’re supposed to be real firms, or so I’m told. Sort of adds to the little mystery.”

In fact, it appears the firm did exist, at least on paper. The Dun & Bradstreet database of company names lists a firm that is called both Brewster Jennings & Associates and Jennings Brewster & Associates.

The phone number in the listing is not in service, and the property manager at the address listed said there is no such company at the property, although records from 2000 were not available.

Staff writers Dana Milbank, Susan Schmidt and Dana Priest, political researcher Brian Faler and researcher Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.

Oct 3 2003 WP

AND Knight Ridder:

CIA Identity Leak Far Worse Than Reported

by Warren P. Strobel

Knight Ridder Newspapers

October 11, 2003

WASHINGTON – It’s just a 12-letter name - Valerie Plame - but the leak by Bush administration officials of that CIA officer’s identity may have damaged U.S. national security to a much greater extent than generally realized, current and former agency officials say.

Plame, the wife of former ambassador and Bush critic Joseph Wilson, was a member of a small elite-within-an-elite, a CIA employee operating under “nonofficial cover,” in her case as an energy analyst, with little or no protection from the U.S. government if she got caught.

Training agents such as Plame, 40, costs millions of dollars and requires the time-consuming establishment of elaborate fictions, called “legends,” including in this case the creation of a CIA front company that helped lend plausibility to her trips overseas.

Compounding the damage, the front company, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, whose name has been reported previously, apparently also was used by other CIA officers whose work now could be at risk, according to Vince Cannistraro, formerly the agency’s chief of counterterrorism operations and analysis.

Now, Plame’s career as a covert operations officer in the CIA’s Directorate of Operations is over. Those she dealt with - whether on business or not - may be in danger. The DO is conducting an extensive damage assessment.

And Plame’s exposure may make it harder for American spies to convince foreigners to share important secrets with them, U.S. intelligence officials said.

Larry Johnson - a former CIA and State Department official who was a 1985 classmate of Plame’s in the CIA’s case officer-training program at Camp Peary, Va., known as “the Farm” - predicted that when the CIA’s internal damage assessment is finished, “at the end of the day, (the harm) will be huge and some people potentially may have lost their lives.”

“This is not just another leak. This is an unprecedented exposing of an agent’s identity,” said former CIA officer Jim Marcinkowski, who’s now a prosecutor in Royal Oak, Mich., and who also did CIA training with Plame.

The name suggested work in the energy field: The late Brewster Jennings was president of the old Socony-Vacuum oil company, predecessor to Mobil, now Exxon Mobil Corp.

A June 2000 listing in Dun & Bradstreet for a Boston-based “Brewster Jennings & Associates” names the company’s CEO and only employee as “Victor Brewster” and says it had annual sales of $60,000.

While that might seem like flimsy cover, former intelligence officials say that in fact meticulous steps are taken to create a life-like legend to support and protect CIA officers operating under nonofficial cover.

It appears that the Brewster-Jennings front was more than what is called “nominal cover,” and was used as part of Plame’s espionage, Johnson said.

That means anyone she met with could be in danger now, said Johnson, who described himself as “furious, absolutely furious” at the security breach.

Researcher Tish Wells contributed to this article.

Knight Ridder Oct 11 2003
</code></pre>

<p><a href=“http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/14/125141/367[/url]”>http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/7/14/125141/367&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

14

<p>according to Joe Wilson, they knew her as an energy analyst I believe he said. This damage is far more extensive than people who aren’t keeping pace with the issue realize. This is and was a war started by neocons(AIPAC) against lthe old guard CIA in their zeal to go to war against Iraq, something Israel very much supported through AIPAC. WHIG members in the Bush administration are up to their eyeballs in this. I will post a link to info on the WHIGS.</p>

<p>In October 2003, Time magazine reported that Plame was a “CIA spy tracking weapons of mass destruction (WMD).” Former CIA officer Jim Marcinkowski told Time, “Her career as an undercover operative is over. … She will no longer be safe traveling overseas.” In other words, the outing cost the CIA an intelligence asset – and may have put Plame’s life at risk.</p>

<p>But that’s not all, as Time explained:</p>

<pre><code>*n this case, the officer was one who was working on the most vital security issue of all, the proliferation of WMD. At a time when good intelligence and successful spying has never been more essential to the nation’s defense, the deliberate unmasking of a spy sent shudders through the secret web of spooks worldwide. When a U.S. operative is unmasked, foreign spy agencies go back, retrace his steps, review his contacts and try to figure out how the CIA operated in their country. “Anyone who was seen with her overseas is tainted now,” warns a former officer who knew Plame. “If she went to the grocery store and talked to the grocer, people will say, ‘I wonder if he was working for her?’”

In Plame’s case, the damage may go even deeper. Plame was an NOC, meaning she did her job overseas under nonofficial cover and not out of an embassy or government office. Many in her family did not know she worked for the agency. Such unofficial covers are often with private companies to further disguise an operative’s real work. Plame had worked with Brewster Jennings & Associates, an obscure energy firm that may have been a CIA front company. Deep covers take time, luck and work to develop; the outing of an NOC also blows the cover of the involved business or private entity.
</code></pre>

<p>Maybe that’s why former President (and Director of Central Intelligence) George H. W. Bush said at the 1999 dedication of a CIA building named for him, “I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.” And why then-RNC chairman Ed Gillespie conceded in a 2003 interview with MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews that the outing of Valerie Plame would be “worse than Watergate”:</p>

<p><a href=“http://mediamatters.org/items/200507150009#3[/url]”>http://mediamatters.org/items/200507150009#3&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

15

<p>Interesting article, mini. Here’s what Plame’s former boss said about it:</p>

<p>

NY Times
</code></pre>

<p>“And didn’t the CIA request the investigation? Why?”</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>An automatic reflex. As one very wise columnist pointed out, neither side seems to believe that Rove is likely to be indicted by the grand jury. If it seemed likely, the Democrats would be quite and let the news of the indictment damage the Administration for them. They could non-partisan things about no one being above the law and such. If the Republicans thought Rove was going to be indicted, they’d be distancing themselves from him at a rate we don’t see.</p>

<p>The best rumor, backed by several reports in various newspapers, is that no crime was committed. The special prosecutor is hoping that he can turn up evidence that someone committed perjury. Interestingly enough, that someone wouldn’t have to be any of the people the witch hunt is calling for now. </p>

<p>I do understand that the special prosecutor has been at this for over 18 months. Why go so long if there was no crime? At least 12 of that was trying to get Cooper and Miller to talk. Besides special prosecutors have a deliberate, glacial inertia all their own; they essentially get paid by the hour.</p>

16

<p><a href=“http://www.pacificviews.org/weblog/archives/001267.html[/url]”>http://www.pacificviews.org/weblog/archives/001267.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>White House Iraq Group</p>

<p>Both Billmon and Digby noted that E & P had posted [and then pulled] a story from last year about the Plame investigation which has this interesting tie back to the Niger yellowcake forgery. The piece mentioned the Iraq Group – the White House marketing arm for the war on Iraq. As Digby said, it then brings into play the work by Ret. Lt. Colonel Sam Gardiner: Truth From These Podia (pdf). Digby posted this intro of this study from the Edge:</p>

<pre><code>According to Gardiner, “It was not bad intelligence” that lead to the quagmire in Iraq, “It was an orchestrated effort [that] began before the war” that was designed to mislead the public and the world. Gardiner’s research lead him to conclude that the US and Britain had conspired at the highest levels to plant “stories of strategic influence” that were known to be false.

The Times of London described the $200-million-plus US operation as a “meticulously planned strategy to persuade the public, the Congress, and the allies of the need to confront the threat from Saddam Hussein.”
</code></pre>

<p>Rereading Gardiner’s piece last night was definitely worth the time. In there, he lists out the members of the Iraq Group:</p>

<pre><code>* Karl Rove (will he finally be frog-marched out of the WH in handcuffs?)

  • Karen Hughes
  • Mary Matalin
  • Jim Wilkinson
  • Nicholas Callo (Leg. Liaison)
  • Condi Rice
  • Stephen Hadley
  • Scooter Libby
    </code></pre>

<p>What an interesting cast of characters, huh? And they were responsible for ginning up propaganda to support Bush’s war. As Gardiner shows, this group provided direction to the Global Office of Communication and coordinated their message with the British through the Coalition Information Center. So much for the canard that the CIA was responsible for providing bad intelligence.[**]</p>

<ul>
<li>Remember Steve Soto recommended that Rep. John Conyers invite Sam Gardiner to his DSM hearings. Hopefully, Patrick J. Fitzgerald has already asked him to come before the Plame grand jury. It sure is interesting how all these stories are starting to come together.</li>
</ul>

<p>** This sentence was poorly stated. The real canard was the assertion that the Bush administration was the innocent victim of bad intelligence. Both the DSM and a potential Rove conviction go a long way in making it clear that the architects of the lies came from the highest levels of the administration. And the CIA had many willing accomplices.</p>

17

<p>StrickII: This is incorrect, Plames Neighbors contradict his statements, saying no, they did not know. Get your facts straight.</p>

<p>From Wickipedia</p>

<p>These statements are contrary to information in an older October 1, 2003 Knight Ridder report entitled “Justice Launches Probe Into CIA Leak,” where an anonymous CIA official was quoted as saying, “If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral,” referring to the referral by the CIA to the Justice Department that a crime may have been committed. Further, Rustmann’s claims are allegedly contradicted by the Wilsons’ actual neighbors, who have stated in several interviews that they had no idea she worked for the CIA. For example, Christopher Wolf wrote in a letter to the Washington Post, “Even I, Ms. Plame’s lawyer and neighbor, was unaware of her status until Mr. Novak blew her cover.”[5]</p>

<p>The day following the CNN interview, Wilson clarified his statement, saying that what he had meant to say was, that, as a result of Novak’s column, Plame was effectively no longer a clandestine officer. He stood by his assertion that it was Novak’s disclosure which made her job thenceforth untenable. Although the Associated Press had initially reported the interpretation that Wilson was claiming that his wife was not an operative at the time of the Novak column, they eventually retracted that report. [6]</p>

<p>If Plame’s identity as a CIA employee was in fact classified, Rove’s leak may also have violated other U.S. laws, including the Espionage Act. Failure to protect classified information, criminal or not, is often grounds for the revocation of one’s security clearance.</p>

<p>There is precedent for prosecuting a leak under the Espionage Act. In United States v. Morison, Morison was convicted of espionage for leaking classified surveillance photos of a Soviet aircraft carrier to Jane’s Defence Weekly. The court specifically found that there in no need under this law to show any “evil purpose.” Morison unsuccessfully argued that he was trying to help the media avoid incorrect reporting on an alleged Soviet military buildup.</p>

<p>Another law that could apply in the Plame case is 18 U.S.C. 641, theft of public property. Morison was also convicted of breaking this law, as the court found that an intangible including classified information can be covered by the law, even where First Amendment issues may be implicated. In 2002, the Bush administration also used this law to convict Jonathan Randel for leaking to the media non-classified information about Drug Enforcement Administration files on a contributer to American and British conservative causes. The files related to investigations into drug trafficking and money laundering in Belize.</p>

<p>John Dean, best known as Richard Nixon’s lawyer during Watergate has argued that Federal conspiracy and fraud statutes may apply in this case. “If two federal government employees agree to undertake actions that are not within the scope of their employment,” he argues, “they can be found guilty of defrauding the U.S. by depriving it of the ‘faithful and honest services of its employee.’”</p>

<p>Finally, Rove has been interviewed by the FBI and the independent counsel and has testified before a grand jury. He may also have made statements to White House officials or to the President. Misrepresentations to any of these could be a crime.</p>

<p>Further, it is of course possible that Rove may not be indicted on espionage(treason) but not as likely will he escape perjury. Also, look at members of the WHIG, Libby to be indicted. Its too soon to tell if Rove was a Cheney patsy, cut out of the info on deep CIA operations Plame spent 26 years developing and 70 operatives in foreigh countries were exposed and liquidated because of Libby, Hannah, etc.</p>

<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

18

<p>Quoting blogs could get us no where. Both sides can quote the most outrageous things that haven’t been vetted to any journalistic standard, even one so week that it assumes saying “Yeah, I heard that, too” constitutes a confirmation.</p>

<p>What is true is that what Wilson wrote in his NY Times op-ed piece, that if the Administration ignored his opinion, it could only be because they were fixing the evidence is simple arrogant nonsense based on an egotists misperception about how important his opinion was. The real reason Wilson’s opinion was ignored by the Administration, at least according to a CIA investigation and the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee report (read it for yourself on pages 36-40), was that the CIA staff who debriefed Wilson found his report had little or no new information, so they spiked it. The Administration didn’t really ignore it. It was never important enough for any of them to have seen it.</p>

<p>Except in Wilson’s bloated opinion, of course.</p>

19

<p>Wikipedia is not a blog, and quoting sources that have been refutted by Wilson and his neighbors is furthering untruths. That truely isn’t helpful.</p>

20

<p>“I do understand that the special prosecutor has been at this for over 18 months. Why go so long if there was no crime?”</p>

<p>Because they want to ascertain “What did he know, and when did he know it.”</p>