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

deleted duplicate post. derned computers ! Laughing

0 Replies

You're hedging your bets severely there. You said that Kennedy lied to get us into the Vietnam War, but have not provided a shred of evidence to that effect. Escalation based upon a dubious claim that C. Turner Joy and Maddox were fired upon can certainly be laid at the door of the Defense Department, but it is less than certain that Lyndon Johnson knowingly lied to Congress. You state: "This link clearly states that the issue was fabricated by the WH." It does nothing of the kind. The pertinent text from Wikipedia reads:

Quote:

Many dispute the above sequence of events, including dissident intellectual Noam Chomsky. They contend that active military involvement on the part of the US actually began as early as 1961 (with operations beginning in 1962) and that the August 4 incident was in fact a fabrication crafted by the Johnson administration. It is their assertion that the reason for this was to enable the US to claim, for the benefit of the American public, that it was in fact the North Vietnamese that initiated the open hostilities. Although information obtained well after the fact indicates that there was actually no North Vietnamese attack that night, U.S. authorities say they were convinced at the time that an attack had taken place. As a result, planes from the carriers Ticonderoga and Constellation were sent to hit North Vietnamese torpedo boat bases and fuel facilities.

That is not an unequivocal statement which qualifies your assertion that the linked article clearly shows the White House (by which i take you to mean Johnson) knowingly lied to Congress. The article further states: " A taped conversation was released in 2001 of a meeting several weeks after passage of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, revealing that Robert McNamara expressed doubts to President Johnson that the attack had even occurred." (emphasis added)

You haven't made your case there, and at all events, it hinges upon a fairy tale assumption that there was no war going on there until late 1964.

Your Pearl Harbor link is ludicrous, and for the refutation of its nonsense (apart from noting that the purpose of the page is to sell someone's idiotic conspiracy theory book) i refer you to At Dawn We Slept, Gordon Prange et al, McGraw Hill, 1981. At the end of that book, you'll find an entire section devoted to the debunking of the conspiracy theorists. That page you have linked is full of sensationalist bullsh*t and not one solid, verifiable reference. The opening sentence reads: "President Roosevelt (FDR) provoked the attack, knew about it in advance and covered up his failure to warn the Hawaiian commanders." November 27, 1941 is the day that Roosevelt, Marshall and King decided to send the war warning message which damned Kimmel and Short before the several boards and committees convened about Pearl Harbor in the aftermath. This page give the lie to that BS in the quoted sentence that no warning was given. That links a page from the United States Navy historical center, which notes that three war warnings were sent to Hawaii and the Philippines. On November 26, 1941, the First Air Fleet sailed from Hitokappu Bay, and observed strict radio silence throughout the voyage to the point of attack twelve days later--which contradicts the BS in that page you linked. They have screwed up the meaning of the bomb plot messages so badly its pathetic, and they don't understand that the last bomb plot messages were sent, not by radio, but by submarine telegraph cable, before Nagumo's fleet sailed. If you want to believe wacko conspiracy theories, help yourself, but don't try to foist them off on me, i've made a very thorough study of Pearl Harbor.

From my thread on the subject, here is the complete list of committees and boards convened to investigate the Pearl Harbor attack:

THE OFFICIAL INVESTIGATIONS

(The Chair of each investigation follows its description.)

Roberts Commission, 12/22/41--1/23/42, Associate Justice Owen Roberts, USSC.

Hart Inquiry, 2/22/44--6/15/44, Admiral Thomas Hart, USN (Ret.)

Army Pearl Harbor Board, 7/20/44--10/20/44, Lt. General George Grunert (President of the Board)

Navy Court of Inquiry, 7/24/44--10/19/44, Admiral Orin Murfin USN (Ret.) (President of the Court)

Hewitt Investigation, 5/15/45-7/11/45, Vice Admiral H. Kent Hewitt

Clausen Investigation, 11/23/44--912/45, Major Henry C. Clausen, USA, Investigator

Clarke Investigation, 9/14-12/44 and 7/13/45--8/4/45, Colonel Carter Clarke, USA

Joint Committee of Congress, 11/14/45--7/15/46, Alben W. Barkley, United States Senate (Kentucky)

Not a single allegation in that bullsh*t page you linked is supported by the records of any of these boards and committees.

Lusitania was torpedoed in 1915. The United States did not declare war until 1917. Your statement that: "The accepted reason that we got into WW1 was because the Germans sank the Lusitania,killing American civilians by attacking a passengere ship." is pure BS, it is without merit and without foundation. In fact, Barbara Tuchmann's book The Zimmerman Telegram explains in detail the proximate cause of the entry of the United States into the Great War. Wikipedia's article will explain it for those too lazy to read an entire book.

You're way out of your league.

0 Replies

Quote:

August 4 incident was in fact a fabrication crafted by the Johnson administration.

This is from your post,and it says what I said

0 Replies

I started to read, "SECRETS" by Daniel Ellsberg, who had intimate knowledge of what really happened. Unfortunately, I had only gotten through Chapter 1, but the cover leaf summarizes what is being discussed here:

"SECRETS is a meticulusly detailed insider's view of the secrets and lies that shaped three decades of American foreign policy cduring the Vietnam era. Ellsberg's exposure to the lying bega on his very first day in the Pentagon, August 4, 1964, which was also the day of the infamous Gulf of Tonkin incident. The more Ellsberg learned about the war from top decision makers, confidential documents, and reports of secret maneuvers, the more skeptical he bacame about prospects for military victory in Vietnam."

Actually, there was no "unprovoked attack" on our ship(s).

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
August 4 incident was in fact a fabrication crafted by the Johnson administration.

This is from your post,and it says what I said

"August 4 incident" is a sentence fragment--the complete sentence reads: "They contend that active military involvement on the part of the US actually began as early as 1961 (with operations beginning in 1962) and that the August 4 incident was in fact a fabrication crafted by the Johnson administration." Note: They contend that . . . the August 4 incident was in fact a fabrication, etc. You're really not very good at this, are you? I was using material from the link which you provided. If active military involvement on the part of the US actually began as early as 1961, the Gulf of Tonkin incident cannot be claimed to have started it all, hmmm?

As i pointed out, you're way out of your league.

0 Replies

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081001918.html

Side Issue in the Plame Case: Who Sent Her Spouse to Africa?

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 11, 2005; A08

The origin of Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's trip to Niger in 2002 to check out intelligence reports that Saddam Hussein was attempting to purchase uranium has become a contentious side issue to the inquiry by special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald, who is looking into whether a crime was committed with the exposure of Valerie Plame, Wilson's wife, as a covert CIA employee.

After he went public in 2003 about the trip, senior Bush administration officials, trying to discredit Wilson's findings, told reporters that Wilson's wife, who worked at the CIA, was the one who suggested the Niger mission for her husband. Days later, Plame was named as an "agency operative" by syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who has said he did not realize he was, in effect, exposing a covert officer. A Senate committee report would later say evidence indicated Plame suggested Wilson for the trip.

Over the past months, however, the CIA has maintained that Wilson was chosen for the trip by senior officials in the Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division (CPD) -- not by his wife -- largely because he had handled a similar agency inquiry in Niger in 1999. On that trip, Plame, who worked in that division, had suggested him because he was planning to go there, according to Wilson and the Senate committee report.

The 2002 mission grew out of a request by Vice President Cheney on Feb. 12 for more information about a Defense Intelligence Agency report he had received that day, according to a 2004 report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. An aide to Cheney would later say he did not realize at the time that this request would generate such a trip.

Wilson maintains that his wife was asked that day by one of her bosses to write a memo about his credentials for the mission--after they had selected him. That memo apparently was included in a cable to officials in Africa seeking concurrence with the choice of Wilson, the Senate report said.

Valerie Wilson's other role, according to intelligence officials, was to tell Wilson he had been selected, and then to introduce him at a meeting at the CIA on Feb. 19, 2002, in which analysts from different agencies discussed the Niger trip. She told the Senate committee she left the session after her introduction.

Senior Bush administration officials told a different story about the trip's origin in the days between July 8 and July 12, 2003. They said that Wilson's wife was working at the CIA dealing with weapons of mass destruction and that she suggested him for the Niger trip, according to three reporters.

The Bush officials passing on this version were apparently attempting to undercut the credibility of Wilson, who on Sunday, July 6, 2003, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" and in The Washington Post and the New York Times that he had checked out the allegation in Niger and found it to be wrong. He criticized President Bush for misrepresenting the facts in his January 2003 State of the Union address when he said Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Africa.

Time magazine's Matthew Cooper has written that he was told by Karl Rove on July 11 "don't get too far out on Wilson" because information was going to be declassified soon that would cast doubt on Wilson's mission and findings. Cooper also wrote that Rove told him that Wilson's wife worked for the agency on weapons of mass destruction and that "she was responsible for sending Wilson."

This Washington Post reporter spoke the next day to an administration official, who talked on the condition of anonymity, and was told in substance "that the White House had not paid attention to the former ambassador's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction," as reported in an Oct. 14 article.

Novak had been told earlier in the week about Wilson's wife. He has written that he asked a senior administration official why Wilson, who had held a National Security Council staff position in the Clinton administration, had been given that assignment. The response, Novak wrote, was that "Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife." Novak then called another Bush official for confirmation and got the response "Oh, you know about it." Novak said he called the CIA on July 10, 2003, to get the agency's version. The then-CIA spokesman, Bill Harlow, told the columnist that the story he had gotten about Wilson's wife's role was not correct. Novak has written that Harlow said the CPD officials selected Wilson but that she "was delegated to request his help."

Harlow has said that he told Novak that if he wrote about the trip, he should not mention Wilson's wife's name. Novak, who published her maiden name -- Valerie Plame -- has written that Harlow's request was "meaningless" because "once it was determined that Wilson's wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as 'Valerie Plame' by reading her husband's entry in 'Who's Who in America.' "

In the July 14, 2003, column, Novak wrote that Plame was an "agency operative" and that "two senior administration officials" told him that she "suggested sending him to Niger." He also wrote that "CIA officials did not regard Wilson's intelligence as definitive" because they would expect the Niger officials to deny the allegation. Although Novak cited the two officials' version of events, he also included the CIA's opposing view: that "its counterproliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him."

Two other sources appear to support the view that Wilson's wife suggested her husband's trip. One is a June 2003 memo by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR). The other, which depends in good part on the INR document, is a statement of the views of Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and two other Republican members. That statement was attached to the full committee report on its 2004 inquiry into the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The INR document's reference to the Wilson trip is contained in two sentences in a three-page memo on why the State Department disagreed with the idea that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa -- a view that would ultimately be endorsed after the Iraq invasion by the U.S. weapons hunter David Kay. The notes supporting those two sentences in the INR document say that the Feb. 19, 2002, meeting at the CIA was "apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue," according to the Senate intelligence committee report. But one Senate Democratic staff member said, "That was speculation, that was not true."

The full Senate committee report says that CPD officials "could not recall how the office decided to contact" Wilson but that "interviews and documents indicate his wife suggested his name for the trip." The three Republican senators wrote that they were more certain: "The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA employee."

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

0 Replies

"President Bush said that even though Rafael Palmeiro apparently lied to Congress about taking steroids he's a friend and he is standing by him. After hearing this Karl Rove started wolfing down steroids." --Jay Leno

0 Replies

From

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/pearl.html

4 Dec. - The Dutch invoked the ADB joint defense agreement when the Japanese crossed the magic line of 100 East and 10 North. The U.S. was at war with Japan 3 days before they were at war with us.
4 Dec. - General Ter Poorten sent all the details of the Winds Execute command to Colonel Weijerman, the Dutch military attache' in Washington to pass on to the highest military circles. Weijerman personally gave it to Marshall, Chief of Staff of the War Department.
4 Dec - US General Thorpe at Java sent four messages warning of the PH attack. DC ordered him to stop sending warnings.

I have seen this claim on a number of internet sites dedicated to proving a Pearl Harbor conspiracy. But I have never seen it documented. Where is this from?

0 Replies

Try this link. There's a whole slew of articles on this topic.

The link I provided doesn't work, but you can type "4 Dec. - The Dutch invoked the ADB joint defense agreement" into any search engine, and you should get many articles on this topic.

0 Replies

revel,

The interesting thing about that Pincus article is how it pretty clearly shows the ONLY way Rove and Libby could have got the information about Wilson being sent by his wife could have come from a classified document from the state dept.

It makes it pretty clear that the WH leakers used classified information to attack Wilson. This isn't about who sent Wilson but about who violated their security clearance and probably US laws.

0 Replies

Quote:

Probe Accents Issue of What Rove Told Bush

By PETE YOST
Associated Press Writer

August 11, 2005, 10:22 PM EDT

WASHINGTON -- Among the many questions surrounding the investigation into who in the Bush administration leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer is whether President Bush's top political adviser told his boss the truth about his connection to the case.

Two years ago, the White House denied that Karl Rove played any role, but revelations in the past month have shown that Rove spoke with two journalists about the operative, Valerie Plame. Whether Bush knew the truth while the White House was issuing its denials is not publicly known.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan was so adamant in his denials in September 2003 that he told reporters the president knew that Rove wasn't involved in the leak.

"How does he know that?" a reporter asked, referring to the president.

"I'm not going to get into conversations that the president has with advisers or staff," McClellan replied.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald questioned Bush a year ago and the prosecutor's office has questioned Rove repeatedly, so presumably investigators know the answer to what, if anything, Rove told Bush.

Whether Rove shaded the truth with Bush two years ago is a potential political problem. The president so far has stood by Rove's side, even raising the bar for dismissing subordinates. Two years ago, Bush pledged to fire any leakers, but now he says he would fire anyone who committed a crime.

If Rove didn't tell Bush the truth, that theoretically could be a legal problem for the presidential aide under the federal false statement statute.

Wayne State University law professor Peter Henning said the false statement law covers statements made to all members of the executive branch, including the president acting in his official capacity. In contrast, a typical false statement case involves lying to investigators or writing false information on a form to the government.

The difficulties in bringing even a typical false statement case are considerable. Simply misleading someone isn't enough to bring a prosecution.

"If the president asks Rove, `Do we have anything to worry about here?' and Rove says `No,' that would not be a false statement," said Henning. "These two men have known each other a long time, the president is not going to question Rove closely as a law enforcement agent would, and that makes all the difference."

Henning is a former federal prosecutor in the Justice Department's fraud section in Washington and has written a law school textbook on white-collar crime.

What is clear about Rove is that after the White House's public denials in 2003 saying Rove wasn't involved in the leak, the presidential aide told investigators behind closed doors about his conversations regarding Plame.

Asked whether it wants to retract its earlier denials, the White House refuses to comment on the grounds that the criminal investigation is ongoing.

Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and apparently at least one other government official were involved in leaking information to reporters about Plame, the wife of Bush administration critic and former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Presidential scholars say a White House's refusal to comment can suggest an administration in political trouble.

"When under fire they suddenly hide behind the shield of secrecy as though they have no control over the matter," said Mark J. Rozell, a public policy professor at George Mason University who has written five books on the presidency.

"What we really don't know factually is whether Rove lied to the president or whether the president knew something about Rove's role and dissembled," said Rozell.

The White House decision not to answer the question makes sense from the standpoint of political damage control, says Steve Hess, senior fellow emeritus at the Brookings Institution.

The CIA leak story "has very little traction on Main Street," but all that would change, Hess said, if someone is indicted in Fitzgerald's criminal investigation.

The federal grand jury investigating the leak expires in October.

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-cia-leak-investigation,0,7972923.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclo, Looks like the rope around their necks are getting tighter with every added statements by this administration. They can't get out of this either way; Rove lied to Bush or Bush lied to the world. Keep tuned; the hangman's platform is about to drop.

0 Replies

I agree; and I can't wait to see them swing.

This ought to be an interesting Fall, for sure!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Exposing the Plame case mistake
The pundits say the law that protects covert agents' identities won't put anybody away in this investigation. Here's why they're wrong.

By Elizabeth de la Vega
PUNDITS RIGHT, left and center have reached a rare unanimous verdict about one aspect of the grand jury investigation into the Valerie Plame leak: They've decided that no charges can be brought under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 because it imposes an impossibly high standard. Christopher Hitchens, for instance, described the 1982 act as a "silly law" that requires that "you knowingly wish to expose the cover of a CIA officer who you understand may be harmed as a result." Numerous other columnists have nodded their heads smugly in agreement.

Shocking as it may seem, however, the pundits are wrong, and their casual summaries of the requirements of the 1982 statute betray a fundamental misunderstanding regarding proof of criminal intent.

Do you have to intend to harm a CIA agent or jeopardize national security in order to violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act? The answer is no.

Before presenting any case, a prosecutor like special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald in the Plame case has to figure out "the elements of the crime." Parties can argue about whether the elements have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but neither side can add, delete or modify the elements even slightly to suit their arguments. Why? Because they come from the exact wording of the statute.

This is what the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 says:

"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 U.S. is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the U.S." shall be guilty of a crime.

So what, exactly, does the prosecutor have to prove about the defendant's state of mind under this law? Simply break down the run-on sentence. The defendant must "intentionally disclose" the information. To determine what "intentionally disclose" means, you must follow some basic rules of statutory construction. First, you look to see if the word is specifically defined within the statute itself. For example, the term "disclosed" is defined in the act to mean "communicate, provide, impart, transmit, transfer, convey, publish or otherwise make available."

The word "intentionally" is not defined in the statute, so you have to turn to the second rule of statutory construction, which is to see if it is defined or interpreted in applicable case law.

There is little case law on the statute itself. But there's a wealth of case law interpreting the term "intentionally" because it is a term of art found in nearly every criminal statute. Its meaning is well-established and straightforward. It simply means "on purpose, not by mistake or accident." So if someone runs off the bus and accidentally leaves behind papers that expose an undercover CIA agent's identity, no crime has been committed because Element 2 can't be proved.

Nowhere does this statute require proof that the defendant "wished to harm" an undercover agent or jeopardize national security. The reason why someone disclosed the information ?- whether for revenge, to prevent the publication of a story or to harm the U.S. ?- is an issue of motive, not intent.

Merely semantics, you say? In criminal law, it's nonetheless a key distinction. Motive is why someone acts; intent is the person's purposefulness while doing so. If you accidentally take home your neighbor's Gucci bag from the block party, there's no crime because you didn't act intentionally. (You do have to give it back, though.) If you grab your neighbor's bag on purpose, you've acted intentionally and you could be guilty of theft. It matters not a whit whether your motive was to get revenge on your neighbor for making too much noise or to get extra cash to hand out to the poor.

There are two other elements in the statute that relate to state of mind: The prosecutor has to prove that the defendant knew the information he or she was disclosing "identifies" the covert agent and that the U.S. was taking affirmative measures to conceal that agent's intelligence relationship to the U.S.

What does "identify" mean in this statute? Well, there is no specific definition and no case law to look to. So you turn to the third rule of statutory construction, which simply says that you apply the everyday meaning of the word. Perhaps, in a through-the-looking-glass world, someone could decree that to identify means to "name" and nothing else, but the statute doesn't say that; nor is that how ordinary people would use the word. There are obviously myriad ways to identify a person besides naming them, but unless a man were a polygamist, a reference to his wife would certainly suffice.

NONE OF US can presume to know the universe of facts that have been uncovered in the Fitzgerald investigation. On the contrary, at the risk of sounding like Donald Rumsfeld, we can be quite sure that there is much that we do not know, and that some of what we think we know is wrong. It would be presumptuous to declare that the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is definitely still under consideration in the grand jury proceeding. But it is equally presumptuous ?- and illogical ?- to declare that it is not under consideration, especially when the opinion is based solely on mistaken assumptions about the requirements of the law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH DE LA VEGA recently retired after more than 20 years as a federal prosecutor in Northern California. A longer version of this article is appears on www.TomDispatch.com

0 Replies

parados wrote:

revel,

The interesting thing about that Pincus article is how it pretty clearly shows the ONLY way Rove and Libby could have got the information about Wilson being sent by his wife could have come from a classified document from the state dept.

It makes it pretty clear that the WH leakers used classified information to attack Wilson. This isn't about who sent Wilson but about who violated their security clearance and probably US laws.

Perhaps not the only way:

State department employee tells reporter ... reporter tells Rove.

That wasn't hard.

0 Replies

Regarding the de la Vega article, the IIPA might yet be found to be unconstitutionally vague for the reason she raises. If a person of ordinary intelligence has to guess as to whether their conduct is prohibited or not by a particular statute, the statute is void for vagueness.

See my earlier discussion on that point .... HERE.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

parados wrote:
revel,

The interesting thing about that Pincus article is how it pretty clearly shows the ONLY way Rove and Libby could have got the information about Wilson being sent by his wife could have come from a classified document from the state dept.

It makes it pretty clear that the WH leakers used classified information to attack Wilson. This isn't about who sent Wilson but about who violated their security clearance and probably US laws.

Perhaps not the only way:

State department employee tells reporter ... reporter tells Rove.

That wasn't hard.

Several problems with your scenario Tico....

1. the source was the WH in the reporting.

2. No reporter has ever come forward to say they heard it from State Dept instead of the WH

3. It doesn't matter if Rove heard it from a reporter if he saw the state dept memo. Classified information is classified even if you heard it from someone else as well.

4. Even if the original source was from State Dept it still is about WHO violated their security clearance.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Regarding the de la Vega article, the IIPA might yet be found to be unconstitutionally vague for the reason she raises. If a person of ordinary intelligence has to guess as to whether their conduct is prohibited or not by a particular statute, the statute is void for vagueness.

See my earlier discussion on that point .... HERE.

The standards of conduct given to those with security clearances isn't that vague Tico. Any reasonable person can understand that if its classified you aren't supposed to reveal it. No reasonable person could possibly question if it was OK to reveal the name of an undercover CIA agent.

0 Replies

You do not have a logical mind, which I determined in our last go-round. Here again you make an assumption, and instead of clearly stating you are making an assumption, you say the "ONLY" way Rove got info was from the State Dept. memo. I don't have a problem with you stating it is your guess that's where Rove got the info -- and I admit it's a possibility that's where he did get it -- but don't claim that's the ONLY way he could have gotten it, because that's not the case.

parados wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
parados wrote:
revel,

The interesting thing about that Pincus article is how it pretty clearly shows the ONLY way Rove and Libby could have got the information about Wilson being sent by his wife could have come from a classified document from the state dept.

It makes it pretty clear that the WH leakers used classified information to attack Wilson. This isn't about who sent Wilson but about who violated their security clearance and probably US laws.

Perhaps not the only way:

State department employee tells reporter ... reporter tells Rove.

That wasn't hard.

Several problems with your scenario Tico....

1. the source was the WH in the reporting.

Which doesn't prove your assertion.

Quote:

2. No reporter has ever come forward to say they heard it from State Dept instead of the WH

This, again, doesn't prove your assertion. The fact that no reporter has come forward to say they heard it from the State Dept. does not mean the State Dept. didn't leak it to someone in the media.

Quote:

3. It doesn't matter if Rove heard it from a reporter if he saw the state dept memo. Classified information is classified even if you heard it from someone else as well.

This is not related to your assertion at all. It certainly doesn't negate the possibility of my scenario, does it?

Quote:

4. Even if the original source was from State Dept it still is about WHO violated their security clearance.

See above.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Regarding the de la Vega article, the IIPA might yet be found to be unconstitutionally vague for the reason she raises. If a person of ordinary intelligence has to guess as to whether their conduct is prohibited or not by a particular statute, the statute is void for vagueness.

See my earlier discussion on that point .... HERE.

The standards of conduct given to those with security clearances isn't that vague Tico. Any reasonable person can understand that if its classified you aren't supposed to reveal it. No reasonable person could possibly question if it was OK to reveal the name of an undercover CIA agent.

Please try and pay attention to what I'm saying and the point I'm making. I'm not talking about "the standards of conduct given to those with security clearances." I am specifically referring to the IIPA, and it is the IIPA I said might be found to be unconstitutionally vague. What I'm talking about has NOTHING to do with the standards of conduct of those with security clearances.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know