Claim Karl Rove was leak in CIA outing

Parent Cafe
441

<p>I’m more curious how reporters will respond when they’re asked to testify, frankly.</p>

<p>Greybeard, Baseball Crank responded:

</p>

<p>He completes is discussion of the Espionage Act question today:
<a href=“http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2005/07/law_innocent_un.php[/url]”>http://baseballcrank.com/archives2/2005/07/law_innocent_un.php&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I haven’t read it all, but this seems pertinent:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That doesn’t mean that there aren’t other false statements we’re not aware of. If Ari Flescher said he didn’t see the State Deparment memo and someone will swear he say him reading it, he could be in trouble, especially given how clearly he had the opportunity and interest to see it and public statements he made that suggest he knew its contents shortly afterward. That’s completely different from two people’s recollections over whether they talked about welfare reform or not.</p>

442

<p>Strick,</p>

<p>Interesting. I agree that a perjury charge is hard to make stick. I’ve litigitated enough to know that it’s a rare case where recollections don’t differ.</p>

<p>I’m actually not a huge fan of “obstruction of justice” prosecutions. The notion that there’s been an obstruction of justice in a case where there is no underlying crime (e.g. Martha Stewart) troubles me.</p>

<p>I’m not convinced by the Crank’s analysis of 783, though. I think he’s ignoring the portion of the statute that follows the word “communicate” in the following: “to communicate in any manner or by any means, to any other person … .”</p>

<p>Communicating to a journalist, with the expectation that the journalist was publish, strikes me as a means of communicating with that journalist’s public.</p>

<p>I’ll dig further and see if I can confirm that this was in fact one of the statutes Ellsberg was charged with breaking.</p>

443

<p>I’m not convinced by the Crank’s analysis of 783, though.</p>

<p>It was a brief analysis in answer to an aside question. I still just think he believes that without some evidence of intent, revealing information to the public isn’t communicating it to a foreign power even if making it public would eventually get it there. I guessing, but that’s where things like this bump into the First Amendment objections people had related to the Intelligence Identity Act.</p>

444

<p>No one has yet, that I can see, answered my questions. Was it right? Forget the legal ramifications, was it moral? </p>

<p>I find it interesting how many of the people that have questioned the government actions have been denigrated in the press- the message is, if you disagree with us, we will call you all liars, traiters, and unpatriotic. The list is long.</p>

<p>Even in this thread, many posters have focused on Wilson, while not discussing the CIA, the outing of its operative, the large scale ramifications, the fall-out, and the security harm it has done our country.</p>

<p>Instead, its go after Wilson. And, even if he was a bit wrong, he was right in many many ways. </p>

<p>I guess the only way any one in this Administration is to be held accountable for their actions is to be put in jail.</p>

<p>The tactics used by Rove are despicable, whether legal or not. And no defending of him by saying, well, he brushed up against the law, but did not break it, does not prove him innocent. </p>

<p>Why does he not tell the President the truth? And if he has, why hasn’t the President said, well, I BELIEVE HIM…Rove is shown to have mislead, if not lied, to the President’s own staff. My guess is GB does not want the answer. Like any good defense attorney</p>

445

<p>citygirlsmom,
That’s what bothers me, too. This administration was supposedly elected due to its call for morality. (True, the morality was narrowly defined, but still…) And yet its followers seem to be willing to excuse any behavior as long as it manages to skirt the law without actually breaking it. Don’t morals matter anymore? Isn’t vindictiveness and doing whatever you can to hurt anyone who expresses another opinion wrong?</p>

<p>I really don’t understand.</p>

446

<p>I can’t agree it’s a moral issue. Wilson made a false accusation. The victim of that accusation responded. It’s regretable that his wife was involved and that was a factor in refuting his accusation, but it happened.</p>

<p>I have real trouble believing all the people who tell me how horrible it was to leak a CIA agent’s identity. I have a link that details what the left was saying about the Intelligence Identification Act and how it violated the First Amendment, the end of political freedom and worse. When I have time, I’ll pull some quotes and offer a link to it. </p>

<p>Until then, I can’t help but point out that the organizations that are most outraged that Plame’s identity was released are precisely the organizations that demanded they had the right to do exactly that way back when. I’m sure their principles haven’t changed, it’s only who they claim did the leak. Leaks are only protected by the First Amendment when they suit their agenda. They’re horrible, terrible immoral crimes any other time.</p>

447

<p>The truth is probably much simpler than the whole stew would make it seem. Karl Rove is the President’s political hitman. He was doing something which was a normal, everyday activity for him, doing a hatchet job on someone who hadn’t been loyal to the President. He overstepped his bounds, not having remembered the pledge he had signed, or the law. But whatever he knew or didn’t know about the law or the President’s executive order, his overall intentions were pretty clear. Is vindictiveness wrong? Not if it’s in your job description, I would think. It wasn’t anything personal.</p>

<p>After that, it gets interesting. The President stated publicly he wanted to know who had leaked the information - even before it was clear that there was or wasn’t a crime committed. Either Rove told him, in which case the President is part of a coverup (which, frankly, I think is more likely), or he didn’t, in which case Rove chose to withhold information requested by his boss. </p>

<p>Does one think “morality” is really involved here? Geesh - we are dealing with a political hitman. Democrats have had them, too. Yes, a crime may have been committed. Yes, Rove violated the Executive Order, and his pledge (and his comments to Cooper seem to indicate he knew it.) But the coverup - if there was one (both Rove and Libby) - is likely the bigger story.</p>

448

<p>Well, let’s dissect what we appear to know at this point about what he actually “did”. To Novak, in response to statement from Novak who already had been informed about Plame, he responded “Yeah, I heard that too.” He didn’t bring up the topic. He didn’t out Plame. Based on the reported conversation between them, neither may have known of Plame’s undercover status at the time. He only said he heard the rumor that she worked for the CIA (at Langley) as well. Given that in Washington, the vast majority of people who work at the CIA are not covert, it would be logical to assume that when you hear that someone works for the CIA that they are not covert. So, from this exchange, I see no proof of even “immoral” behavior.</p>

<p>But, if you want to get precise about moral behavior, since when is it moral to participate in a feeding frenzy which include allegations of “felony” and “traitor” before all the facts are known. All of the details are being looked into by a special prosecutor. To participate in the politically inspired lynch mob prior to the facts being known is certainly reprehensible if not immoral.</p>

449

<p>What was Wilson’s false accusation? And hasn’t Rove made many false claims or IMPLIED false information about many many people? </p>

<p>I have asked before, and NOONE has answered it…all you Rover supporters and Bush supporters, do you see ANYTHING that this administration has done wrong…anything at all?</p>

<p>It is hard to have a discourse with someone who sees no errors done.</p>

<p>THis is an important questions. I admit, democrats have made mistakes. Yes they have. So step up.</p>

450

<p><a href=“http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/stinky_fish/flash_novak_sells_access_23927.asp[/url]”>http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlDC/stinky_fish/flash_novak_sells_access_23927.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Kind of interesting, anyone got 600bucks!!</p>

451

<p>What was Wilson’s false accusation? And hasn’t Rove made many false claims or IMPLIED false information about many many people?</p>

<p>Wilson said that if the Administration ignored his opinion that someone must be manipulating the evidence. Turns out that didn’t happen, the Administration never saw his opinion. If he still thinks they were wrong, that’s fine, explain how, but don’t stick with what’s been shown did not happen.</p>

<p>I’m not aware of the mob demanding anyone go to jail for trying to show anything that Rove said was false. Are you? (Judith Miller aside, that’s a different issue – she was on Rove’s side.) That seems to be the difference.</p>

452

<p>I want you to answer my question, do you think this administration has ever done anything wrong? Made any misleading statements, done any bad planning, badmouthed anybody? Anything?</p>

453

<p>And Rove told the Admin he had nothing to do with the Plame case, and gee he did</p>

454

<p>Strick,</p>

<p>Having spent a lot of time reading the case law and legislative history since my last post, I’ve come around to the Crank’s way of thinking on 783, and think it would be too broad to apply that statute to a general disclosure to a reporter.</p>

<p>793(d) has been interpreted quite broadly, on the other hand. In the U.S. v. Morison, the court upheld its applied to someone who gave a couple of photographs to a reporter for one of the “Janes” publications; the efforts the defendant used to hide the fact that he had made the disclosure, coupled with his execution of one of those “pre-employment” agreements like the one Rove signed, were used as evidence of wilfulness. </p>

<p>793(d) provides for 10 years in prison to “Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it…”</p>

455

<p>I think that this thread is a pretty accurate mirror of the nature of political debate in America today. For example, Strick11 makes the following assertions:</p>

<p>“I can’t agree it’s a moral issue. Wilson made a false accusation. The victim of that accusation responded. It’s regretable that his wife was involved and that was a factor in refuting his accusation, but it happened.”</p>

<hr>

<p>“Wilson said that if the Administration ignored his opinion that someone must be manipulating the evidence. Turns out that didn’t happen, the Administration never saw his opinion.” – Strick11</p>

<p>I was curious about the “accusation”, so I googled around and found it: <a href=“http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t33571.html[/url]”>http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t33571.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I’m not seeing a “false accusation” there. I’m not seeing a “victim”. What I read is a fairly stated, even understated, report of Wilson’s trip to Niger and the reasons he agreed with the American Ambassador in Niger that the report of Uranium sales to Iraq was probably false, and his belief that that conclusion had been communicated through appropriate channels to the Administration.</p>

<p>And just what about Ambassador Wilson’s op-ed piece justified the personal attack and smear job, which is exemplified by the smarmy suggestion that his findings should be ignored because his wife (accurately) reported his qualifications to her superiors, who then decided to send him to Niger? (Which was, of course, exaggerated into the claim that Plame personally “sent him” on the mission, leading to the slimefest of “she should be fired for nepotism”.) Why should Plame’s accurately reporting that her husband was qualified to perform a job for the government be “a factor”, as Strick11 puts it, in “refuting” Wilson’s “accusation?” </p>

<p>Which brings us to:</p>

<p>“To Novak, in response to statement from Novak who already had been informed about Plame, he responded “Yeah, I heard that too.” He didn’t bring up the topic. He didn’t out Plame.” – FundingFather</p>

<p>Let’s all take out heads out of the sand for a minute, okay? The only source for the information that Valerie Plame had any connection to Wilson’s report was the Administration. Who started the “rumors” that Rove confirmed? If it wasn’t Rove, was it Libby? If neither Rove nor Libby, did they entrust the task of spreading the rumor to yet another Administration loyalist, so they could simply confirm the “rumor”? Because the rumor did start with the people who wanted to attack Wilson - by any means, and preferably by the Rovian standard tactic of personal attack, itself exemplified by declaring Plame “fair game.” And the people who wanted to attack Wilson were the central figures in the Bush Administration.</p>

<p>I’m less concerned by the individual sliminess of Rove than I am by the acceptance of his lack of minimal ethical standards by otherwise normal people - including the CC posters who strain to find excuses, justifications, and technicalities to support the “the end justifies the means” approach to politics he exemplifies.</p>

456

<p>citygirlsmom,</p>

<p>I doubt you will get any answer to your question. Those who continue to support Bush either refuse to see any wrongs his administration has done or refuse to admit it. It’s easier to just blame others.</p>

<p>(And before I get accused of hypocrisy, I willingly admit that Democrats, Clinton, etc. made–and make–mistakes, and that there are slimeballs in both parties.)</p>

457

<p>Rove’s past transgressions are not relevant to the question of what Rove did or did not do here, citygirlsmom. Even the worst villian can be innocent of the crime he’s charged with committing this time. Even Wilson’s untruth is relevant only to the extent that it’s reasonable to refute what someone says you think is wrong in a public political debate</p>

<p>kluge, I’ve read and posted the exact same link here (or if not on other forums), and I’ve explained what I believe was false several times. Most of what Wilson says is reasoned and reasonable. When he gets to his accusation, that if the Administration ignored his opinion, it has to be manipulating the evidence, he’s all wet. All the authoritative accounts show that the CIA found his report added little new information and filed it with out showing it to anyone in the Administration. Bush and company didn’t ignore it, they never saw it or knew it existed.</p>

<p>Since the first part of Wilson’s premise is false, everything else is irrelevant. You might be able to make the case the Administration was manipulating evidence from something else, but not because they “ignored” Wilson. That’s simply not true. Period.</p>

<p>Greybeard, you seem like a reasonable person. Do you see what I mean? (Which isn’t to imply you aren’t reasonable if you disagree, of course :D) Drag in any other proof you like that the Administration manipulated the evidence, but don’t count on what Wilson said in his op-ed. He was wrong, even if in the end what he said was true. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.</p>

458

<p>You still have not answered my question, in your opinion, has this administration ever done anything wrong?"</p>

<p>And we are to trust Rove, because his past “indiscretions” are irrelevant, but doesn’t your whole premise rest on the fact that if Wilson lied about one thing, the rest are lies, so if Rove has transgressed and has a reputation, we are not to take that into account and to trust everything he says? </p>

<p>And have you ever read the Downing Street Memos? I am guessing not. And have you heard the testimony of former and current CIA anaylsts who say they were presurred to get the “right” information, or the UN inspectors, or the fact that the Admin said the claim should never have been in the statement.</p>

<p>Please answer my question- HAS THE ADMINISTRATION EVER DONE SOMETHING WRONG- ever made a mistake, ever misled, ever mistated anything, ever?</p>

<p>Comeon, be reasonable and answer the question.</p>

<p>I will start- Clinton should not have lied, but he did and it was stupid.</p>

459

<p>“And just what about Ambassador Wilson’s op-ed piece justified the personal attack and smear job,”</p>

<p>Well, how about the title of the NYT piece:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is far from “understated” and, based upon Wilson’s trip and report there is no way that he could make such an assertion - an assertion which has subsequently been found to be false. Despite his egocentric belief that he was the star player in the yellowcake issue, he was just a bit player who contributed very little to existing knowledge about Niger (other than confirming that officials from Iraq had indeed approached Niger about the potential for trade which the Niger PM himself interpretted to mean uranium.)</p>

<p>To summarize:</p>

<p>What Wilson found in Niger:
- No consumated deal for uranium
- A probable attempt by Iraq to purchase uranium</p>

<p>What the Brits found (and after investigations still stick to):
- An attempt by Iraq to purchase uranium from Africa</p>

<p>What Bush said in the State of the Union Address:
- The Brits have found evidence of an attempt to buy yellowcake from Africa</p>

<p>What Wilson wrote and implied in the NYT:
- “Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq”</p>

<p>Based on what was reported by the Brits and confirmed by Wilson, would a prudent person who has the safety and security of an entire nation in his hands conclude:</p>

<pre><code> a) Iraq has abandoned their nuclear program, he was just trying to buy it so that he could corner the market on it.
b) Iraq must either have a nuclear program or getting prepared to reconstitute one. Why else would they be putting out feelers to buy uranium?
</code></pre>

460

<p>Oh yeah, one of the big reporters who made certain assertions regarding the Senate Intelligence Report- Jeff Gannon, the one and </p>

<p>And you have some CIA people she offered up the name and others say they asked her if he would do it first</p>