<p>
I think it’s a sign of a new political amity that the New York Times is willing to let its reporter go to jail rather than rat on Karl Rove. Good for them! What an incredible story, I hope all the Night Train Express drinkers “down by the banks of the river Charles” are toasting this alleged event.</p>
<p>Indeed, especially when one recalls that Judith Miller was one of the main conduits of the pernicious drumbeat of Chalabi-inspired WMD stories.</p>
<p>I’m currently an agnostic on much of this, figuring that sooner or later All Will Be Revealed, or at least Much Will Be Revealed. </p>
<p>However, the SIGINT I’m picking up from listening posts in Nicosia and Lisbon is very muddled, with one plausibly articulated scenario being that Rove learned of Plame’s identity from Miller, not vice-versa, but subsequently has exposed himself to possible perjury and obstruction of justice charges.</p>
<p>Perhaps Greybeard can elucidate on the difference between an individual being the “subject” of a grand jury investigation and the a “person of interest” to a grand jury investigation and the implications of the later. </p>
<p>Finally, I’m getting some chatter from the GOP side of the fence that there is now considerable bracing for Rove to be indicted for something or another within the next 10 days. I consider this to be RUMINT grade but given the direction it’s coming from, my eyebrow is raised.</p>
<p>Ah yes. Wishful thinking.</p>
<p>Excuse me, I meant “first revealed the identity.” I’m just noticing the error now. I would have edited had I realized earlier.</p>
<p>TheDad,</p>
<p>Happy to oblige.</p>
<p>The phrase “person of interest” doesn’t actually appear anywhere in the federal statutes. When it arises in reported cases, it’s usually used to refer either to someone believed to have knowledge of a crime, or someone who has become secondarily implicated through the investigation of someone else (the “subject,” or more typically, the “target” of the investigation). Here’s a quote from a recent appellate decision that illustrates the distinction between a “target” and a “person of interest”:</p>
<p>“As a result of Dr. Ang’s contact with a target of a governmental task force investigating social security fraud, Dr. Ang himself became a person of interest.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Has it actually “come out” ? I read both left and right sites and haven’t found anything except heavy breathing speculation on both sides.The partisan ricochets have been dizzying. This story is a real page turner, with as many questions as answers. One wonders if the NYTimes would have remained so principled if it were Bill Keller or Arthur Sulzberger getting fitted for that orange jumpsuit, instead of an employee. Why would they make any sacrifice to save young Karl’s backside? It doesn’t add up.</p>
<p>I’m with Patuxent here “there is more to the story than has come out.” Bob Novak’s column cited as sources TWO unidentified senior Bush administration officials. </p>
<p>And further, how did Bob Novak shimmy out of this? Did he testify? Did he make a deal? </p>
<p>For you legal beagles (or those who paid attention during civics) what’s the relationship between a grand jury and a special prosecutor? Does one always come with another? Are they always this secretive? Will we ever be able to get the whole story?</p>
<p>And what, exactly is the point? Punishing someone for disclosing Plame’s name or punishing someone for lying to a grand jury – or both? </p>
<p>OK, here’s a what if. What if Dick Cheney had called me and outed Valeria Plame? Like Judith Miller I didn’t write a story, I just had the name. Could the court put me in jail for refusing to reveal information that was given to me or does this law just apply to journalists?</p>
<p>I live in a country with a byzantine legal system and expect the inexplicable, but in this case it’s the laws of my native land that aren’t making a lot of sense to me.</p>
<p>what is going on is that whoever leaked the information could have don something illegal, and that COULD include lying to the grand jury. By forcing the jounalists to tesify (which I don’t agree with btw) they are hoping to see if any laws have been broken by perjury or by the leak itself.</p>
<p>What is interesting is we here nothing about Novak, the journalist who actually published the information. What is going on with him, well that is a bit of a mystery</p>
<p>Seriously, Jimmy Carter looks better all the time. Only major scandal - Burt Lance and the Calhoun Bank loan. (If one doesn’t count H. Jordan’s boorish bar behavior).</p>
<p>Our thoughts and prayers are with those affected by the tragedy in London. God be with them.</p>
<p>Sincerely,</p>
<p>Bill</p>
<p>Momrath, no, you’re quite correct, nothing has definitively “come out.” Which is why I’m mostly agnostic and waiting until something does. Though I’m wondering what flavor of sauce Driver would like with her crow if it does indeed come down that way.</p>
<p>Greybeard, thank you for the explanation.</p>
<p>CGM, count me as among those who wonder what’s up with Novak’s status. I’ve seen as many possibiliites argued as for how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Another case of waiting-and-hopefully-seeing.</p>
<p>Based on Novak’s description of who he got the information from, it certainly doesn’t sound like Rove:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The person who gave me the original story, I said it was given in an off-handed way during in this conversation and he was not a partisan gun slinger. I said that. I’m not going to go into more description, but I did feel that the idea that this was some kind of a carefully arranged plot to destroy this woman and her husband, as far as I’m concerned, was nonsense. It didn’t happen that way, and this kind of scandal that has perpetrated in Washington is Washington at its worst. <a href=“bold%20is%20mine”>/quote</a></p>
<p>He also said that he (Novak) was the instigator for soliciting the information - no one came to him to intentionally leak the information. Novak’s primary motive for pursuing this angle of the story was not to “out” Plame, but rather to show how she as a CIA employee was involved with getting Wilson the assignment. Despite Wilson’s denial, this turned out to be true.</p>
<p>The complete interview: <a href=“http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/blitzer.novak/[/url]”>http://edition.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/01/blitzer.novak/</a></p>
<p>its all just a matter of conservatives protecting conservatives</p>
<p>I would like to see rove and bush hauled out of the white house in handcuffs and brutally slammed into the back of a police car like the common criminals and scum that they are</p>
<p>So it’s finally being admitted that Rove spilled the beans? - A surprise? No, not really as he’s such a cunning sort anyway. But really, wasn’t that sort of a “liberal” thing to do? I mean, doesn’t the right tend to brand all liberals as lacking in character? With soft underbellys? A bit too chatty? And incapable of hanging onto secrets? I am a bit sick of it all the bad juju this government operates under.</p>
<p>And I can’t wait to join the CIA so that I can take part in mucho covert operations for the good of our country only to find that at some point in time, at the whim of a political pundit, my life - and that of my spouse and children - will be purposefully placed in serious jeopardy by his BIG MOUTH. No excuses, please.</p>
<p>“And I can’t wait to join the CIA so that I can take part in mucho covert operations for the good of our country only to find that at some point in time, at the whim of a political pundit, my life - and that of my spouse and children - will be purposefully placed in serious jeopardy by his BIG MOUTH.”</p>
<p>Forget the spouse and kiddies. How about the political operatives from other countries who help keep U.S. citizens safe? How about the U.S. soldiers who will die because operatives are less likely to turn over needed information? He (whoever he is) could just as well have stuck a gun to an American serviceperson’s head, and pulled the trigger.</p>
<p>That’s why there are laws about such things.</p>
<p>“High crimes and misdemeanors”…has a nice ring about it.</p>
<p>If Rove went to prison, could we take away his phone and computer…would that be the same as pouring water on the Wicked Witch of the West? Would he melt?</p>
<p>I need an umbrella! There’s so much salivating going on here that I’m getting wet.</p>
<p>Calm down guys. First, it looks more like Rove is not the “leaker”; secondly, based on the CIA’s tepid reaction to Novak’s request for clearance, it is highly unlikely that Plame was ever a female James Bond. Note that they never told Novak that any foreign source would be compromised.</p>
<p>While all the shoes have not yet dropped, it’s beginning to look like the only questionable activities that might have taken place are some inadvertant loose lips about a semi-retired (i.e., a desk jockey) second tier CIA employee and some questionable reporting ethics on the part of Novak. However, a far cry from “high crimes and misdemeanors”.</p>
<p>Shoot. And I was just starting to salivate…</p>
<p>Salivating and latte foam all over the place. This has been nothing more than wishful thinking on the fringe ever since Novak’s article first appeared. This is their Easter Bunny.</p>
<p>But, again… how come Novak gets to walk and Miller (who never published ANYTHING) gets thrown in jail???</p>
<p>That’s one of the shoes that still needs to fall. Novak was asked about that recently and he said that he is not allowed to discuss the case until it is complete but will write a column about it when he can do so.</p>
<p>Rove has a very smart lawyer, the kind that unambiguously convinces you to <em>listen to his advice</em> and not say a blessed word about anything until it’s over. A very hard thing to do in our media culture, but apparently Novak has discipline. Anyway, here’s a great pic for you guys add to your political fantasy foldout collection.
<a href=“http://www.politicalpuzzle.org/archives/2005/07/some_surprise_i.php[/url]”>http://www.politicalpuzzle.org/archives/2005/07/some_surprise_i.php</a></p>