Claim Karl Rove was leak in CIA outing

Parent Cafe
361

<p>Well I just have to interject this wickedly funny piece about Rove
<a href=“http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2005/07/20/notes072005.DTL&feed=rss.mmorford[/url]”>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2005/07/20/notes072005.DTL&feed=rss.mmorford&lt;/a&gt;
Here’s a little excerpt:
“And maybe, if you’re like me, deep inside your cynical Bush-ravaged heart you already know it won’t actually happen, because no way is the world aligned correctly right now and no way is there any true justice happening anywhere near the White House right now, and what’s more, the man in question is perhaps the slipperiest and sweatiest and most powerful adviser of a major world leader since an invisible purple demon hissed sweet nothings into Mussolini’s ear, and therefore if anyone could finagle his way into remaining Grand Overlord Puppetmaster for as long as he damn well pleases, it’s Karl Rove.”</p>

<p>It captures my feelings about the whole thing and the direction of the country but with the kind of wit you only find on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show.</p>

362

<p>Does anyone think about the larger ramifications? According to several former an current CIA analysts, people that would have helped us in our intelligence gathering may not be so comfortable now, or trusting…because it looks like (especially if you read the foreign press) that the Administration is protecting one of its own at the expense of a CIA opertative, her history, who she met with, who those people met with, the others at the CIA she talked to in the field, there is a whole history of intelligence gathering that has been laid wide open…</p>

<p>For instance, if I had information about something, would I be able to trust my CIA contact’s identity would be kept under wraps, even years after our contact…memories are long</p>

363

<p>Well, based on the CIA and military’s intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, I wouldn’t be too worried about the CIA losing its effectiveness. :)</p>

364

<p>Well, also considering that the information was probably fixed, that Bolton bullied CIA analysts, what the Downing Street memos show, that Tenet, Clark, and others who disagreed with the agenda left, I don’t really know how bad the CIA information really was, that the CIA told Bush to not use certain information but he did anyway, it has been so twisted and turned, and whatever, I can’t tell who made the mistakes.</p>

365

<p>I think we can surmise from the big hole where the Khobar Towers were, the big hole where or embassies in East Africa were, the big hole in the USS Cole, and the big hole in the Pentagon and Manhattan that the CIA’s effectiveness at gethering intelligence leaves something to be desired.</p>

<p>BTW it was Plame’s little outfit in the CIA that targeted the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade for bombing. It seems they have a problem reading a map. Is Wilson sure he was actually in Niger? All those dusty African capitals start looking the same after a while.</p>

366

<p>I find it interesting that now, while I agree the CIA wasn’t perfect, they are getting ALL the blame…while we have seen that in the past couple of years, they have disagreed with the Administration, but were in some cases ignored</p>

367

<p>There are two crucial pieces of new info buried in an article in today’s NY Times:</p>

<p>Here’s the first:</p>

<p>“Though Ms. Wilson had worked at C.I.A. headquarters since 1997, with occasional trips abroad, she had previously worked overseas for many years, posing as a diplomat and as an energy consultant.”</p>

<p>Remember, “covert agent” is defined in the relevant statute an intelligence agent “who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States…” Note that the statute says “served,” not “stationed.” </p>

<p>There has been a lot of noise in the press about Plame being stationed at CIA headquarters; I don’t see that as relevant under this statute. It looks to me like she qualifies as a “covert agent.”</p>

<p>Second new piece of info:</p>

<p>“Back at the White House, Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby had been at work all week, along with Ms. Rice’s deputy, Stephen Hadley, helping to craft a statement that was issued on Friday by George Tenet, the C.I.A. director.”</p>

<p>Here’s what that statement said about Wilson: " In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA’s counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn."</p>

<p>Brief timeline from July of 2003: </p>

<p>Sunday, July 6: Wilson’s article is published.</p>

<p>Monday, July 7: Bush leaves for Africa, with Condi Rice, and Colin Powell, on Air Force One. Powell is later photographed holding a copy of a briefing memo that ID’s Wilson’s wife as a CIA agent, in a paragraph marked [S], for “secret” (indicating that it’s classified).</p>

<p>Week of July 7: Libby and Rove “at work all week, helping to craft Tenet’s statement. The statement, released Friday, says this about Wilson: “In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA’s counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn.”</p>

<p>Wednesday, July 9: Rove speaks to Novak, says “I heard that too” when Novak says he’s heard Joe Wilson’s wife is a CIA agent. Novak has identified Rove as the second of “two senior administration officials” who told him Joe Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame was a CIA operative who “sent” Wilson to Niger. Other reports identified Libby as the first “senior administration official.”</p>

<p>Friday, July 11: Friday: Rove takes call from Cooper, supposedly just before Rove leaves on vacation (meaning, presumably, the Tenet statement was complete). </p>

<p>Also on Friday, July 11: Statement from Tenet is released.</p>

<p>Here’s the simplest explanation for all of this: Rove and Libby, who worked on Tenet’s statement all week, knew that they couldn’t reveal publicly the connection between Wilson and Plame, because Plame was a covert agent. Still, they really wanted that fact out in the open so that it could be spun to the press to discredit Wilson. Accordingly, Rove and Libby revealed that connection on background to various reporters, on the condition that they not be identified. Early reports said they talked to six different reporters; in addition to Novak, Cooper, and Judith Miller, Chris Matthews’ and Tim Russert’s names have been discussed.</p>

<p>Remember, Rove seems initially to have neglected to mention his conversation with Cooper to the grand jury. He thought Cooper was going to go to jail rather than reveal a confidential source. But Cooper’s employer had decided to release his notes identifying Rove. In addition Rove’s lawyer publicly said “I don’t know who Cooper’s going to jail to protect, but it’s not Rove.” Cooper, who thought he was going to jail to protect Rove, took that as confirmation that Rove really had released him from his pledge of confidentiality “in rather dramatic fashion.”</p>

368

<p>Check out the hearings on Friday, very eye opneing</p>

369

<p>Cooper’s story about his sudden release to testify is full of false melodrama when you read what really happened, isn’t it?</p>

<p>Some points you didn’t mention. Cooper’s second call to Rove wasn’t on Rove’s phone log. He had called the White House switch board and been routed directly to Rove’s office. If Rove refreshed him memory from the phone log and it wasn’t there, that might explain why it wasn’t mentioned. How would intentionally leaving Cooper out have helped Rove? If he had talked to all those other reporters and said essentially what he had told Novak and Cooper, what would have made the conversation with Cooper special? Nothing that’s hit the press so far, anyway.</p>

<p>The other thing your conjecture leaves out is the claim that Rove at least heard this from a reporter. Oddly enough, what’s been said Rove told Cooper bears an uncanny resemblence to what someone else is said to have told the grand jury:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Almost word for word what Rove’s lawyer said he said, isn’t it? Russert didn’t deny talking about it or identifying Plame, just that he did not know her name or relationship with the CIA.</p>

<p>It’s just as easy to believe that someone else was talking and Russert or other reporters called Rove or Libby for verification which lead to the conversation Cooper tells about having.</p>

<p>There’s nothing in anything we’ve seen to suggest that there weren’t more other officals talking about this. Names that come up often include Ari Flescher, who is known to have seen the memo (but according to rumor denied seeing it before the grand jury) and John Bolton who was apparently Judy Miller’s source on several other occasions. Even Tenet and Powell are mentioned, particular as the third leaker who was talking about what the two who spoke to Novak were supposed to be doing.</p>

<p>If you want to tie this to Rove or Libby, you have show they had access to something classified that described Plame’s role in this. Unless you show that Rove and Libby saw or were informed of the State Department memo (which wasn’t in ciruclation until the flight to Africa, about the time Rove and Libby were working on Tenet’s statement in Washington), including it’s security level, or a simliar document, phone call, email, etc., you’re going to have a hard time involving them. </p>

<p>BTW, it was the amicus brief offered by the 36 major news organizations that argued Plame wasn’t a covert operative. Even if she was, you’ll have to show intent to harm US intelligence and actions other criteria to have a legal violation. There’s a reason this law has only been used once before. The Espionage law has similar obstacles to prosecution.</p>

<p>You might get someone for revealing classified information, perjury, even obstruction of justice, but nothing on revealing a covert operative, no matter what Plame’s status was.</p>

370

<p>You mean the faux hearings, citygirlsmom?</p>

371

<p>Strick,</p>

<p>Do you really think Libby and Rove were working on the Tenet statement without input from anyone who was on Air Force One who had seen the memo?</p>

<p>There are two federal statutes on revealing classified info. One of them requires that the info be revealed with the intent to harm US intelligence. Section 421 is silent on that point. It’s not an element of this particular crime. It simply requires that someone with access to classified information revealed her status to someone not authorized to receive it, knowing that she was a covert agent.</p>

372

<p>“Faux” hearings only because the Republicans in Congress refuse to hold actual hearings.</p>

373

<p>Greybeard, you might want to check an article in the 7/23 Los Angeles Times. Indications that Fitzgerald’s major drive is on perjury and obstruction of justice, not the leak per se. I had wondered about this about a month ago. Read the article, you decide.</p>

<p>The other thing to flag in all of this is figuring out the source of the leaks about the investigation are and to what end the leaks are designed to serve.</p>

374

<p>Thanks, TheDad. I’d read the LA Times article, but remain unconvinced that in light of the plain wording of Section 421, that Libby, Rove and others are off the hook.</p>

<p>Here’s a quote from the official legislative history of 421(b), stating the findings of the Senate committee:</p>

<p>“THE SECOND CLASS ALSO ENCOMPASSES INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE OR HAVE HAD ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, BUT NOT NECESSARILY THAT WHICH EXPLICITLY IDENTIFIES COVERT AGENTS. FOR A MEMBER OF THIS CLASS, HOWEVER, IT MUST BE SHOWN THAT AS A RESULT OF THAT ACCESS TO CLASSIFIED INFORMATION HE LEARNED AN INTELLIGENCE IDENTITY. THIS CLASS WOULD INCLUDE THOSE IN GOVERNMENT WHOSE JOBS PLACE THEM IN A POSITION TO LEARN THE IDENTITIES OF COVERT AGENTS INDIRECTLY. ALTHOUGH THE GOVERNMENT NEED NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE THAT INDIVIDUALS IN THIS CLASS HAVE HAD OFFICIALLY APPROVED ACCESS TO THE ACTUAL IDENTITIES OF COVERT AGENTS, IT MUST SHOW THAT AS A RESULT OF THE POSITION WHICH THEY HELD THEY LEARNED SUCH IDENTITIES. WITHIN CERTAIN CIRCLES OF GOVERNMENT SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT UNCOMMON. SINCE INDIVIDUALS IN THIS CLASS HAVE ALSO HAD POSITIONS OF TRUST, THEY ARE BELIEVED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO HAVE A DUTY OF CARE PARALLEL TO, BUT LESS THAN, THAT OF INDIVIDUALS INCLUDED IN THE FIRST CLASS. THUS, DISCLOSURES BY THE SECOND CLASS ARE PENALIZED LESS SEVERELY THAN THOSE OF THE FIRST CLASS BUT STILL MORE SEVERELY THAN THE THIRD CLASS.”</p>

375

<p>Do you really think Libby and Rove were working on the Tenet statement without input from anyone who was on Air Force One who had seen the memo?</p>

<p>I don’t know. I have trouble convicting people in absentia without evidence. I’m sure Fitzgerald knows his job. It might be novel to let him due it. Might mean asking some of the mob to put out their torches for a while, though. ;)</p>

<p>As someone one pointed out when others quoted the history of the legislation that explained the kind of people and actions who the law was not intended to cover (didn’t fit Rove at all), that’s nice, but that’s not what the law says. Even that says you have to show the individual actual access. Then you have to overcome the intent to harm US intelligence thing, and I don’t believe the courts will accept that means harming Plame alone (even if I believed Plame was the object of any leak rather than just debunking Wilson’s misrepresentations). </p>

<p>Like TheDad, everything I’ve seen suggests that the target is perjury or obstruction of justice, though most recently conspiracy seems to come up more and more often. That would explain the interest in the phone logs, memos and emails from the group working on Tenet’s response to Wilson. People working together. That’s got to be a conspiracy, right?</p>

<p>Perjury is the more obvious thing. I don’t think the inconsistencies between what Rove is supposed to have said and Cooper’s testimony as reported in Bloomberg would hold up, but who knows. Ari Flescher could be in real trouble. As I said above, he denied seeing the memo, but was on the flight to Africa and was seen reading it. Bad, bad stuff. </p>

<p>Don’t assume Rove is the target of the investigation, however much he’s the focus of all the rumors. That’s only because he’s the lightning rod for so much hate, not because there’s any real evidence against him so far, at least not that we’ve seen. </p>

<p>Be patient. The rumors will slow and stop and this will be forgotten for a while. Then in October we’ll really know. There will or won’t be indictments and Fitzgerald will issue a report.</p>

376

<p>Why hasn’t the President asked these people? He keeps saying he doesn’t have the facts? WHy not? is he afraid to get the truth? And if these people have done nothing wrong, why not say so…they did tw years ago</p>

<p>And there is evidence against Rove, maybemaybe, not a “Crime” but.and if he is so innocent, why doesn’t the President say so?</p>

377

<p>Why not let the process work as it should. You’ve got a special prosecutor with significant powers. It’s not moving as fast as you’d like, but then, it never does.</p>

<p>Remember Sandy Berger? What did he destroy, what was so important that he hid the documents in his socks and shredded them, when he had to know what crime he was committing? How long did it take for that to go thru the process and how much less complex was it by comparison?</p>

<p>Berger was guilty and paid the penalty. It would be nice to know who’s guilty here before we decide who should pay. Don’t forget that Rove’s not the only one involved. At least two others. Let’s get to the bottom of this and get them all, if there’s anything to get them over.</p>

378

<p>

Suppose he did confer with Rove, et al on the issue. Would that satisfy you? No, of course not. Then the Randi Rhodes and Al Frankens of the world would be screaming: “CONSPIRACY!” “WHITE HOUSE GUILTY OF HAMPERING A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION BY LAUNDERING THEIR STORY!”</p>

379

<p>“’ Do you really think Libby and Rove were working on the Tenet statement without input from anyone who was on Air Force One who had seen the memo?’ I don’t know. I have trouble convicting people in absentia without evidence. I’m sure Fitzgerald knows his job. It might be novel to let him due it. Might mean asking some of the mob to put out their torches for a while, though.”</p>

<p>I’m not convicting anyone, in absentia or otherwise. That doesn’t prevent me from pointing it out when Republican talking points violate Occam’s razor.</p>

<p>And the first mob I noticed around this issue was trying to torch Joe Wilson.</p>

380

<p>

You must have forgotten about the slavering media/moveon mob of sycophants that gave that bozo credence in the first place.</p>