Rove was the source of the Plame leak... so it appears

Atwater? Sure, I wish I was as skilled as he was. As I said, he did far less 'evil' than many others.

But, I must demure on his behalf and mine.

Neither of us have defended the pure Machiavellian machinations than...even YOU have. I don't like Frist or DeLay, but they have done no worse than your corrupt heroes. My great crime, in your biased estimation, is pointing that out.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Atwater? Sure, I wish I was as skilled as he was. As I said, he did far less 'evil' than many others.

But, I must demure on his behalf and mine.

Neither of us have defended the pure Machiavellian machinations than...even YOU have. I don't like Frist or DeLay, but they have done no worse than your corrupt heroes. My great crime, in your biased estimation, is pointing that out.

Wow, that is a defense in your mind?

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Yeah. I'm an evil political operative. You're so astute.

Can't you do anything but the personal attack? C'mon. Find an issue, adopt an opinion and defend it without attacking your opponents.

I dare you!

I DARE YOU!!!!!

Oh and, of course, this is not an attack? Amazing!

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

Lash wrote:
Yeah. I'm an evil political operative. You're so astute.

Can't you do anything but the personal attack? C'mon. Find an issue, adopt an opinion and defend it without attacking your opponents.

I dare you!

I DARE YOU!!!!!

Oh and, of course, this is not an attack? Amazing!

No, it wasn't an attack, Chrissee, it was a full out admission that I was right on when I said, "It's creepy how well you fit in with these legions, Lash". And you've gotta admit, she's no slouch.

Lash: "Atwater? Sure, I wish I was as skilled [at deception, lying, slander, ...] as he was."

0 Replies

In Plain Sight: Why the Betrayal of Our National Security
In Plain Sight: Why the Betrayal of Our National Security by the Bush White House Matters
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
July 5, 2005

"In essence, whatever the legal outcome (which has been driven by political considerations -- that is why it has taken two years to move the "investigation" forward, if it is moving forward), this fact remains clear: In order to send a message to anyone who would expose that the White House lied America into war, the White House -- in an action that could have only been authorized by Karl Rove, perhaps with a nod and a wink from Bush -- deliberately endangered the national security of the United States."

It is two years since PlameGate broke open as a national story, but its implications have long been underplayed by the White House and the Press.

In essence, whatever the legal outcome (which has been driven by political considerations -- that is why it has taken two years to move the "investigation" forward, if it is moving forward), this fact remains clear: In order to send a message to anyone who would expose that the White House lied America into war, the White House -- in an action that could have only been authorized by Karl Rove, perhaps with a nod and a wink from Bush -- deliberately endangered the national security of the United States.

As a warning to those who would expose Bush lies about WMDs -- or any of the daily Bush deceptions -- in July of 2003 the White House revealed to their newspaper water boy, Bob Novak, that Valerie Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joe Wilson, was a CIA operative, and she specialized in the illicit trafficking of Weapons of Mass Destruction. It is befitting the morally corrupt Bush Administration that they would neutralize an American asset in the war against the proliferation of WMDs, while fighting a war allegedly launched against WMDs, in order to make an example of a man, Joe Wilson, who had written a commentary in the New York Times arguing that the Bush Administration evidence claiming WMD evidence regarding a transaction between Niger and Saddam Hussein was false.

In short, the Bush Administration doesn't care if it endangers our national security by undercutting our efforts to curtail the very weapons that they claim they were saving us from. That is how dangerous the Bush Administration is to our national security -- and it is has been before us in plain sight for two years. But the mainstream media has focused on periodic reports that emerge about the "investigation" of the Chicago U.S. Attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, who was appointed by John Ashcroft, then Attorney General, to see if any laws were broken.

Fitzgerald, who works now for AG and highly possible Supreme Court nominee Gonzales, must be under enormous pressure to find a way to avoid legally charging any senior Bush Administration officials, particularly Karl Rove. Most speculation is that he doesn't have enough "evidence" to charge Rove or others with violating the law in regards to exposing a CIA operative. The conventional wisdom is that Fitzgerald is now focussing on the possibility of perjury. But that is only speculation. And it's not over until the bald Benedict Arnold (Rove) sings.

Rove is our acting president on domestic policy, and if he can get Gonzales to sit on Fitzgerald (who -- for other reasons unrelated to PlameGate -- both political parties in Illinois want "promoted" to Washington), the endgame of PlameGate will be politically motivated, not legally accountable. If there are no indictments against Rove or other senior White House officials, Bush will declare that his staff got a clean bill of health and the mainstream media will consider the case closed.

Or Rove may have Gonzales, through Fitzgerald, indict a "little fish" to take the heat off, and Godfather style, the victim will be promised to have his family taken care of and a job waiting for him when he gets out of a federal "country club" prison.

Of course, there is another possibility, that Fitzgerald is the rare bird in the Bush Administration, a man who actually upholds the rule of law. In that case he would indeed be unique as he forges ahead despite withering pressure to find legal reasons NOT to indict Rove or any senior Bush/Cheney officials. But, although Fitzgerald has a reputation for relative integrity, we aren't holding our breath.

But here is what we know even without legal indictments and what is getting lost in the latest round of speculation about a two-year old act of betrayal against the citizens of the United States by the Bush Administration: the Bush White House committed brazen treason by deliberately undercutting our national efforts to keep WMDs out of the hands of "bad guys." Why did they do this? Because Karl Rove wanted to prevent future whistleblowers from coming forward to expose Bush lies, in this case the courageous proof by Joe Wilson that another lie had been used to bolster the false claim that Iraq had WMDs.

The PlameGate affair is symbolic of how the Bush Administration puts its own interests of preserving power before the interests of the American people -- and in unbelievable irony, on the one issue that they have trumpeted their "expertise" at: national security.

How the Democrats have apologetically bolstered Bush's "national security credentials" when he has put -- and PlameGate is just the tip of the iceberg -- our nation at greater risk than before 9/11, and used his bumbling efforts to further consolidate power into a shadow, secret government run by Cheney and Rove, is what is in plain sight.

But the mainstream media -- and most of the Democrats in Congress -- can't even see it staring them in the face.
------------------------------------------

BuzzFlash Afternote: BuzzFlash was proud to play a role in exposing PlameGate two years ago. We had read the original Novak column and thought the Valerie Plame comment was peculiar to say the least, but it took David Corn of "The Nation" to note its significance as an act of betrayal. We then championed Corn's column and wrote several pieces in quick succession.

0 Replies

Splitting Hairs
July 3, 2005
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Did Bob Novak Tell the Grand Jury or Prosecutors that Rove Told Him About Valerie Plame But Did Not Reveal Her Name? Sounds Like a Rovian "Splitting Hairs" Contrived Alibi to Us. Could be.

BuzzFlash Note: The following comments were sent to us by someone who has direct access to a major television news network:

"I have found out through my national television news sources that the PlameGate prosecutors have "informed" Karl Rove and his attorney that [they] are now seeking a "new inquiry" into just how Valerie Plame's name came to be leaked and "also" that whatever initial deal and/or deals were broached between their offices are now going to have to be put on hold!

Also, Bob Novak is claiming that he was NOT told by Karl Rove, Valerie Plame's name!!!???!!! Of course this represents an interesting turn of events in this matter. This Sunday, news executives were scurrying about like chickens with their heads lopped off trying to figure out just "how to spin" this breaking major news story! Apparently, most of the network television news organizations were aware of Rove's involvement as late as Friday night but were told to put a "hold" on it?"

Can BuzzFlash vouch for this rumor? No. But put it in the PlameGate hopper. Could give Rove plausible deniability.

Just remember, Karl, it appears, betrayed the national security interests of the United States of America by outing a CIA operative who specialized in the tracking of illicit WMDs, the very reason Rove and Cheney cooked up for justifying the invasion of Iraq. Call the man a traitor, and you'd be right, it appears.

The question all the time has been has been how will the pressure come on Fitzgerald to whitewash the investigation, and can he resist it? Remember Rove is our de facto domestic President, with Cheney being our de facto President over foreign affairs.

Will Rove allow himself to be indicted? Do pythons get eaten by rabbits?

0 Replies

Quote:

Apparently, most of the network television news organizations were aware of Rove's involvement as late as Friday night but were told to put a "hold" on it?"

Well, absolutely noone is watching the news this weekend, so this doesn't surprise me. Producers and Editors hate running articles or pieces twice, so they may be waiting for the big pop of Tues. as the country gets back into the usual groove.

---

Kusavz, as usual, thank you for your excellent analysis.

Here's a piece I found that discusses some of the 'disassembling' that is going on:

Quote:

Read Between the Lines: Rove is in Trouble
by redfed [Subscribe]
Mon Jul 4th, 2005 at 00:57:31 PDT
For those of you unfamiliar with the federal criminal system, here is some insight into what has transpired over the past few days. There are at least two significant things to take from what Rove's attorney said and did NOT say that suggest Rove has some serious criminal exposure:

Diaries :: redfed's diary :: ::
First, Luskin claims that Fitzgerald told him that Rove was not a "target" of the investigation. In the context of a federal criminal investigation, a target is a term of art used very carefully by federal prosecutors and reserved only for those involved in an investigation that the prosecutor presently deems a "putative" defendant. It does not mean, as Luskin would have us believe, that his client is out of the woods (and he surely knows better).

Here is the official DOJ definition: "A 'target' is a person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant." There are two other categories of persons in a grand jury investigation: "subjects" and "witnesses." A subject is someone who falls within the scope of the grand jury's investigation and may very well have criminal exposure, but the prosecutor cannot yet conclude that the person is a target. A witness is someone who the prosecutor is ready to rule out as a subject or target. It is CRITICAL that Fitzgerald apparently did not say that Rove was not a target OR a subject. If Rove was truly in the clear, Fitzgerald would have said so and designated him as a witness (and Luskin would surely have told us). This means that Rove is a subject of the investigation and could soon become a target depending on the information contained in Time's documents.

Second, Luskin claims that Rove never "knowingly" leaked classified information. Obviously, this is carefully parsed language and represents Karl's defense. Evidently, Rove was trying to discredit Wilson to the press by bringing up Wilson's CIA-employed wife, but Rove is apparently claiming that he did not KNOW that the information was classified and that Plame was undercover. Putting aside for a moment the gross negligence in a high-level White House aide even unknowingly disseminating classified information about a CIA operative (should be grounds for termination in and of itself), this would be a plausible defense to the underlying criminal charge.

So where is this going? We've heard that Rove has claimed that he didn't start talking about Plame until after the Novak story appeared. But if Cooper's notes suggest that Rove was spreading the Plame story BEFORE Novak's column, this would mean that Rove lied to the grand jury (and perhaps to the FBI) about when he started pushing the Plame story. Not only is lying about a crime a crime, but it is excellent evidence of the underlying crime itself. Thus, not only may Rove be on the hook for obstruction of justice, false statements and perjury, his lies could give Fitzgerald enough evidence to charge him with the underlying leak (or at least put enough heat on him to get to the original source of the classified information).

One more thought: the White House is renowned for its message discipline. Fitzgerald knows this. The White House doesn't put out a message without Rove approving it, or doing it himself. Remember "A Few Good Men"? The Marines don't just take it upon themselves to do a Code Red. Here, the White House wanted to give Joe Wilson a Code Red. Ari Fleischer or Scott McClellan wouldn't do that on their own without Colonel Karl giving the go ahead. He's the key and it looks like Fitzgerald may have it. And if it turns out that Rove didn't have access to the classified information about Plame, he got it from someone who did. And there's your conspiracy.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/4/35731/14823

Cheers to all

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

Just remember, Karl, it appears, betrayed the national security interests of the United States of America by outing a CIA operative who specialized in the tracking of illicit WMDs, the very reason Rove and Cheney cooked up for justifying the invasion of Iraq. Call the man a traitor, and you'd be right, it appears.

When in the hell did BUZZFLASH or DAILY KOZ ever worry about the National Security Interests of the US???????

Laughing

When you guys come up with a ...... "CREDIBLE"........source, please let us know.

They don't even have the balls to say he did it........they say.......it appears he did it...... and.......it appears he's a traitor. Typical liberal character assassination.

0 Replies

They don't have anything but a biased reporter saying it is so.

Shades of Isikoff's premature Koran story.

JTT--

Your desperate flailing about for something of substance would be amusing if it weren't so tiring.

Point out the personal attack in this statement:

Yeah. I'm an evil political operative. You're so astute.

Can't you do anything but the personal attack? C'mon. Find an issue, adopt an opinion and defend it without attacking your opponents.

I dare you!

I DARE YOU!!!!!

----------
You are obviously unable to post here without personal attack. I challenge you to find an issue and defend it without denigrating the poster you engage. You can't do it. You haven't done it once yet.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Can't you do anything but the personal attack? C'mon. Find an issue, adopt an opinion and defend it without attacking your opponents.

I dare you!

I DARE YOU!!!!!

----------

Lash wrote:

You are obviously unable to post here without personal attack. I challenge you to find an issue and defend it without denigrating the poster you engage. You can't do it. You haven't done it once yet.

A whole hell of a lot of the use of the word "you" in that statement Lash....

0 Replies

And?

0 Replies

OK, kuvasz, suppose, for sake of argument, Wilson is telling the truth, and that I'm off base. Could be.

Still, there are some real problems for anybody looking to hang Rove - or anybody else, for that matter. Here's the relevant law.

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

United States Code
TITLE 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
CHAPTER 15 - NATIONAL SECURITY
SUBCHAPTER IV - PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Code as of: 01/22/02
Section 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had
access to classified information that identifies covert agent
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.
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of
covert agents as result of having access to classified
information
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified
information, learns the identify 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.
(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of
activities intended to identify and expose covert agents
Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to
identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that
such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence
activities of the United States, discloses any information that
identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such
individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United
States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than
three years, or both.
(d) Imposition of consecutive sentences
A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be
consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.

Now, that's pretty tough to prosecute, and anyone in The White House very likely would be unprosecutable under that law - thus no crime committed. Now, lets look at the assumption the source was a White House source - and its an assumotipn, as Novak referenced specifically an "Administration Official", not a "Whitehouse Source" or "White House Official" or "White House Figure" in fact, Novak said nothing about The White House. - lots of "Administration Officials" around, and plenty are not officed in The White House. Of course, not a lot of them, should one or more have been the source, would meet the qualifications for prosecution under that law.

Sure seems to me there's a whole lot less to the Plame Game than some folks hope.

But, keep your hopes up. I could be wrong.

0 Replies

My God, the same argument origiannly appeared at FREEPER.COm and is being regurgitated by every Bsuh apologist on the net.

0 Replies

Quote:

Now, that's pretty tough to prosecute, and anyone in The White House very likely would be unprosecutable under that law - thus no crime committed.

Why is that timber?

0 Replies

Chrissee, "that argument" has been around a long, long time.

goodfielder, read the law - its very specific.

0 Replies

Timberlandko

Thanks for the reference to the US Code. Please note that I posted it in greater detail two days ago (Sat Jul 02, 2005 8:42 pm).

The question remains, "did the leaker have clearance status such that knowledge of Plame's covert status would have been normal." If not, then how did the leaker get the information?

This would reflect a conspiracy.......more than one person was involved in outing Plame.

If the leaker did not know of Plame's covert status at CIA, how did Novak get this information; information such that when Novak called CIA he was asked not to publish Plame's status as a "covert operative?" Novak used this phrase "covert operative" in his first column. He has used this term before in his columns when describing an undercover agent or secret spy.

Someone had to tell Novak that Plame was a" covert operative."

Whoever gave the information to the Novak knew Plame was a CIA NOC, and who was this person then?

Rove's defense hangs on one word--he "never knowingly disclosed classified information" as his lawyer states. Does that mean Rove simply didn't know Valerie Plame was a covert agent?

Who is going to believe he didn't know someone who was described as a "covert operator" in Bob Novak's column was having their identity disclosed?

Remember, Chris Mathews said that Karl Rove called him before the Novak article was published and told Mathews that Wilson's wife was "fair game."

She could be described as "fair game" only if her status at CIA was known by Rove.

Otherwise, there is no reason to mention her in the White House's attempt to undemine Wilson's credentials to speak competently about the Niger press cakes.

0 Replies

Quote:

[...]
Meanwhile, Lawrence O'Donnell, the MSNBC analyst who first broke the Rove/Cooper link on Friday, wrote on the Huffington Post blog today, that Rove's lawyer had "launched what sounds like an I-did-not-inhale defense. He told Newsweek that his client 'never knowingly disclosed classified information.' Knowingly.

"Not coincidentally, the word 'knowing' is the most important word in the controlling statute ( U.S. Code: Title 50: Section 421). To violate the law, Rove had to tell Cooper about a covert agent '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.'"

Source

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Chrissee, "that argument" has been around a long, long time.

goodfielder, read the law - its very specific.

I did timber. I'm still wondering how you can claim what you did based on a reading of the law itself. Since we don't know the facts yet it seems a bit hasty for anyone to come to a conclusion either way.

It would be good to read the wording of the indictment if there's a standard form. The "knowingly" bit is interesting. There's a double mens rea required in there and that's a big job for the prosecution.

0 Replies

Timberlandko is regurgitating the freeper artgument which requires one to suspend all logic and believe that a Grand Jury was impaneled to investigate something that is not even a crime. It is an absurd contention.

BTW why aren't reporters camped out at Rove's house trying to get a statement from "silent Karl?"

0 Replies

Interesting about knowingly.

What did has he said specifically and on the record so far in the investigation? He said "no" to whether he leaked Plame's name under oath, didn't he? (As in, if he did it but gets out of the treason charge, is he at least on the hook for perjury?)

0 Replies

Rove was the source of the Plame leak... so it appears

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know