<p>
</p>
<p>Oh, yep, lies that involve publicizing intelligence assets or leading the nation into a conflict are the equivalent of lying about a private consensual sex act. What lunacy.</p>
<p>I hereby give all the True Believers the right to lie about their adulteries, consumption of pornography, etc. Doesn’t make a damned bit of difference to me.
</p>
<p>There’s a new leak on the Rove matter in tomorrow’s NY Times. A “person who has been briefed on the matter” and who believes Rove is innocent says Rove was the second source for Novak - that Novak had heard about Valery Plame from someone else, and called Rove to confirm on July 8, 2003. Rove, says the source, replied, “Oh, you know about that?” Rove says he heard about Plame from a reporter, but can’t remember which one.</p>
<p>Yeah, Novak has such a sterling reputation…</p>
<p>There’s a follow-up story in the Washington Post, as well on the “Rove was Second Source” for Novak angle.</p>
<p>Is it plausible that Rove would clearly remember the conversation when a second reporter told him about Valery Plame, and would remember the circumstances under which he told another reporter about Valery Plame, but somehow has forgotten which reporter first broke the news to him?</p>
<p>“Gee, I’m sure it was a reporter.” That would let him off the hook for having learned it through access to classified reports. “I just can’t remember which one.” That way his story can’t be verified with the “mystery reporter.”</p>
<p>Given how much Rove made of the Plame-CIA connection, why can’t he remember which reporter told him? And why is he so sure it was a reporter? And why didn’t THAT reporter break the story?</p>
<p>And who was the first “Senior administration official” who told Novak?</p>
<p>And who was the other senior administration official who says two senior administration officials called six reporters to retaliate against Wilson?</p>
<p>Thank you Paul Krugman, Well said!
Op-Ed Columnist
Karl Rove’s America</p>
<p>Deleted - Check TOS</p>
<p>An honest political system requries an educated citizenry. Since so many Americans get their news from corporate owned, and often blatently partisan television stations like Fox, digested and spewed out into sound bites, people don’t think anymore.</p>
<p>Josh Mashall has some insights into the Rove leak which I find shed a bit of light on why it seems like we’re living in oz right now.</p>
<p>(July 14, 2005 – 10:41 PM EST // link // print)
</p>
<p>Here is a timeline of Rovegate from DailyKos: <a href=“http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Plame_Leak_timeline[/url]”>http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Plame_Leak_timeline</a></p>
<p>And this also from Kos, detailing Rove’s history of vindictive political maneuvering.
<a href=“http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/10/174425/431[/url]”>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/10/174425/431</a></p>
<p>Note that under the statute, even if everything leaked on Rove’s behalf in the Washington Post and New York Times was true (that Rove was Novak’s “second source,” and that he had learned about Plame from some forgotten reporter), he’s not necessarily off the hook, if you look at the wording of the statute (quoted below). The question is, when Rove revealed “any information that identified the covert agent” (saying “I also heard that [she’s a CIA agent]” qualifies, I’d argue) as follows:</p>
<p>(1) Did Rove have access to classified information identifying Plame as a covert agent? or </p>
<p>(2) Had Rove had access to such information?</p>
<p>If the answer is yes to either of that above, this element of the crime is established. The statute doesn’t require that Rove learned the information from a classified source, only that at the time he gave information, he he had had authorized access to that classified information. That’s easier to prove than how he first learned of it.</p>
<p>Fitzgerald would still have to prove that Plame was a covert agent, and that Rove knew the CIA was taking active steps to conceal her identity.</p>
<p>(We’ve heard plenty of naked assertions by Rove’s defenders that Plame wasn’t a “covert agent” as defined by the statute, but Wilson refused to confirm that on CNN this morning. Why? One simple possibility is that (a) he has had access to classified information establishing that she is, and (b) revealing information that would establish that fact to pesons not authorized to receive it would (i) violate the statute, and (ii) reveal information about other covert agents, possibly endangering their lives.)</p>
<p>Here’s the statute:</p>
<p>50 USC Sec. 428</p>
<p>(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information</p>
<p>Whoever, 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, shall be fined under Title 18 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.</p>
<p>“What did he know, and when did he know it?”</p>
<p>Susu, that was a <em>really</em> nice rant. Focused, restrained. yet pungent and on-point. If you lived in SoCarolina, then you may have been familiar with the Rovian destruction of John McCain in the 2000 Republican primary. Can’t prove it, of course, no fingerprints on the push-polls, etc. But entirely conisistent with his M.O. and he had motive, means, opportunity.</p>
<p>Yes, I remember poor McCain getting pictured as a pathetically brain-damaged wacko by pudgy little Karl. It was a preview of how he would depict John Kerry, another decorated veteran, as a self-serving frat boy. What’s sickening is how GULLIBLE people are in believing this sort of nonsense. It’s so third-grade, yet it works.</p>
<p>Did you here this about South Carolina:</p>
<p>The Exodus</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.fox21.com/Global/story.asp?S=3592505&nav=2KPpc7ZV[/url]”>http://www.fox21.com/Global/story.asp?S=3592505&nav=2KPpc7ZV</a></p>
<p>Christian Exodus Planned For South Carolina
July 14, 2005, 03:43 PM
Email to a Friend Printer Friendly Version *“I think it’s fantastic, I think we need more of that actually. I don’t know which direction our government is heading in, but I think they need Christian influence, it would go a long way, I really think so,” says Mauldin resident, Reggie Brown.</p>
<p>According to Windy Sizemore of York, SC, “I don’t think that any one group trying to take over is good in anything.”</p>
<p>Christian Exodus Planned For South Carolina
Associated Links
Christian Exodus</p>
<p>“Plans to reform our government to more Christian-like principals are in the works and we may feel the effects, right here in the Upstate. That is because South Carolina has been chosen as the place for hundreds, even thousands of Christians to move to, in hopes of impacting the government. But people who live here have mixed opinions about the Christian Exodus.”</p>
<p>I’m not surprised. The reason I got involved in public education in the first place was to forestall a Christian Coalition takeover of the local county school board. One of their favorite strategies is to run for low-level offices (like school board) that no one else wants, then use that position to move up the food chain–after first getting creationism accepted as part of the science curriculum, abstinence as the ONLY tenet of the sex education program, and vouchers approved so that they can send THEIR kids to the local Christian Academy on the taxpayer’s dime.</p>
<p>I’m also not surprised that Fox doesn’t know the difference between “principals” and “principles”.</p>
<p>Rove is indeed a skunk - but my gut feeling is that this goes beyond Rove. Maybe way beyond Rove, up the food chain to Cheney’s door.
It would be ironic if Rove were the pawn this time - the one doing the dirty work at the request of others. There definitely are “others” as Fitzgerald has said. I wonder who Miller is protecting. I don’t think it’s Rove.</p>
<p>From what I’ve seen about Miller, she is protecting the PRINCIPLE and not the person–the notion that if a a reporter’s promise of confidentiality can be overturned by a court, that it’ll make it impossible for GOOD whistleblowers to come forward, too. Where do you draw the line? A lot of whistleblowing involves breaking laws–violating signed corporate confidentiality agreements, for example. </p>
<p>What I can’t understand is why Novak isn’t being prosecuted. He’s the one who “knowingly” outed a CIA agent. Deal or no deal, that skunk ought to be at least EXILED and more justly JAILED for his part in this tawdry affair. </p>
<p>And for what it’s worth, I agree. I’m sure that there are a LOT of VERY high-up people who knew damn well what they were doing. Will Rove fall on his sword for them?</p>
<p>What I want to know is whether the President asked Rove whether he revealed Mrs. Wilson’s identity, and when he knew it, and whether he has spent the last two years covering up?</p>
<p>Or is it, as usual, ignorance is bliss?</p>
<p>From what I heard today, Rove told the FBI that he didn’t know Plame was CIA until it was in the Novak Article, and yet, he talked to Novak (whoever said what to whom) before that and mentioned Wilson’s wife…</p>
<p>I suspect Miller is protecting more than the principle involved. If she talks, her cozy relationship with the WH is over.
Whoever her source is, he/she could easily release her from confidentiality with a personal release. This person, whoever it is, goes to bed every night in his own bed knowing that Miller sits in jail to protect him (them) from exposure.</p>
<p>Why isn’t Novak being prosecuted, Susu asks? Because he didn’t have “authorized access to classified information.”</p>
<p>I am posting the debunking of the RC talking points here. Part 1
NOTE: This page will get continually updated as more information comes in. Make sure you bookmark it and visit The Left Coaster for daily updates. Please feel free to add items in the comments if I missed anything - and distribute far and wide].</p>
<p>TALKING POINT: Valerie Plame (Joseph Wilson’s wife) was not covert.
FACT: She was. (More here).</p>
<p>TALKING POINT: Joseph Wilson himself admitted that Valerie Plame was not covert.
FACT: False and false. [added 7/16]</p>
<p>TALKING POINT: Karl Rove did not leak Valerie Plame’s name.
FACT: Please. Her name was not a secret, her identity was (which is the issue here) and he leaked that. (Also see here and here and this one, where the singularly appaling stupidity of John Gibson, Andrew Napolitano and John Podhoretz is revealed on this particular talking point. How these people continue to get paid for their work is beyond me).</p>
<p>TALKING POINT: Karl Rove was “not the leaker”.
FACT: Rove’s attorney’s statement and Cooper’s email shows this claim is false. Rove did leak Plame’s identity. (Whether or not this is found to be prosecutable is another matter).
P.S. Considering Rove was Nixon’s henchman for dirty tricks, and has a long history of vile misbehavior and leaking secrets, this shouldn’t exactly be a surprise to anyone. [updated 7/14]</p>
<p>TALKING POINT: Karl Rove was only the recipient of information, not a leaker.
FACT: False. [added 7/16]</p>
<p>TALKING POINT: Karl Rove did not reveal classified information.
FACT: A CIA agent’s identity is considered classified.</p>
<p>TALKING POINT: Karl Rove did not reveal Valerie Plame’s identity.
FACT: Utterly, completely false.</p>
<p>TALKING POINT: Karl Rove has never lied about his role in this matter.
FACT: Yes he has. [updated 7/16]</p>
<p>TALKING POINT: The White House has never lied or misled people about its role in this matter.
FACT: False.</p>
<p>TALKING POINT: Karl Rove never knew that Valerie Plame was covert.
FACT: Really? Then why not state this on the record, something Rove’s attorney refuses to do.</p>
<p>TALKING POINT: Karl Rove first learnt of Valerie Plame’s identity from Bob Novak
FACT: False. (The same article points out Rove <em>confirmed</em> to Novak that he had also heard what Novak had heard about Plame’s identity; also see here and here). [added 7/14]</p>
<p>TALKING POINT: Karl Rove did not know the name of Valerie Plame when he spoke to Matt Cooper of Time.
FACT: If this NYT report on Rove’s alleged testimony to the grand jury is accurate, then Rove’s claim is/was false. [added 7/16]</p>
<p>TALKING POINT: The White House was not trying to “affirmatively” reach out to reporters to expose Plame’s identity; Matt Cooper of Time magazine “burned” Rove
FACT: False. The White House did reach out to reporters “affirmatively” to push this story and sometimes “veered off” the matters being discussed with the reporter to push this story. Rove’s lawyer, who made the above fake claim, also expounded again and again about how Rove gave complete waivers to all his journalist contacts to testify. [updated 7/14]</p>
<p>TALKING POINT: The fact that Karl Rove was on “double super secret background” indicates Rove did not want to expose Valerie Plame’s identity to the public
FACT: False. In fact, the exact opposite is true. If he wanted to NOT expose Valerie Plame’s identity he could have spoken to Matt Cooper off the record. Instead he specifically chose to speak on background. [added 7/14]</p>
<p>TALKING POINT: Rove’s lawyer only reaffirmed the original blanket waiver from Rove and did not issue an “express personal release” to Matt Cooper of Time magazine to testify at the grand jury
FACT: False. Moreover why should this matter considering Rove’s position that he has done nothing wrong and has nothing to hide? [added 7/14]</p>
<p>TALKING POINT: Bob Novak used the word “operative” by accident and his sources did not say she was one.
FACT: This is false, after-the-fact spin from Novak.</p>
<p>TALKING POINT: Journalist David Corn was the one who first reported/leaked Valerie Plame’s covert identity, not Bob Novak.
FACT: Slanderously false. [added 7/16]</p>
<p>TALKING POINT: Rove “was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story” based on Joe Wilson’s “false premise” (that DCI Tenet or VP Cheney authorized his trip)
FACT: False. Moreover, Joe Wilson did not make such a claim before Rove exposed Valerie Plame’s identity. False. Moreover there’s no “…‘trying to prevent a bad or innaccurate story from being run’ exception to the relevant statute…” [updated 7/14]</p>
<p>TALKING POINT: All Rove was doing was trying to reveal the truth to Matt Cooper of Time magazine. [added 7/14]
FACT: False.</p>