0
   

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

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 03:12 pm
Well, I wonder, how much of this has been ordered already (would be a nice alternative to the A2K cups, t-shirts etc) :wink:
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 04:01 pm
Like Watergate, it is the venality of this leak that is so disappointing. I could understand sex, drugs or money bringing down the Busheviks, but this plain venality of petty vengence is most disheartening.

Its just so adolescent and vulgar. The ruling class must be slipping these days.

WWJD?

btw: Lash, it doesn't matter whether or not Rove, et. al., knew of Plame's covert status before revealing it. A deep undercover CIA asset was outed, and apparently the law applicable to this illegal act was signed by George H.W. Bush. In fact, the only reason to out her was to ruin her career at CIA, so a priori the leaker knew of her status.

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?

I am hard put to think that White House support staff (especially those like Rove who are considered to be domestic policy experts) have such high level CIA clearance where as a part of their normal capacity they would know the names of undercover CIA agents, and yes, she was a "covert" agent, not an "analyst," as the Bushevik spinmeisters try to paint her. Obscuring reference of an "analyst" conjers up a vision of a person who sits at a desk and is recognized publically as a CIA employee. A covert agent is in fact, a secret agent, whose ties with the CIA are not public knowledge.

Your excuse for the Busheviks getting caught seeking revenge on Joe Wilson by revealing his wife's undercover status is as lame as "the dog ate my homework" defense.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 04:06 pm
kuv--

btw: Lash, it doesn't matter whether or not Rove, et. al., knew of Plame's covert status before revealing it. A deep undercover CIA asset was outed, and apparently the law applicable to this illegal act was signed by George H.W. Bush. In fact, the only reason to out her was to ruin her career at CIA, so a priori the leaker knew of her status.
-

I'll have to go hunting, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong. Accidental id of an undercover agent isn't a crime. Novak says he was told she was an analyst--not a spy.

Her husband is reported to have gone all over town, telling of her spy status.

The leak was certainly not to ruin her career. It was to prove her husband to be the liar he is--which it did. He said his wife's influence wiht the department didn't have anything o do with his assignment on yellow cake.

Novak's article proved she did write a memo that got her husband the assignment.

THAT is when Wilson et al started whining about Novak using her name.

He was caught in ANOTHER lie.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 04:17 pm
Lash,

There is a really good chance that this case is more about Perjury now than just the simple Felony of outing a CIA agent, in retaliation for Wilson's talking about Administration lies; Rove has even admitted this before.

No, I believe that someone told a fib to Fitzgerald, and has gotten caught out in it. It appears that someone is Rove....

We'll alllll see.... mueheheheheheeeeee

I guarantee it won't end up good for yer side, sorry to say

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 05:00 pm
The idea that they were covering for Rove is kinda interesting.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 05:20 pm
Perjury.

Depends on what was asked, doesn't it?

Did you knowingly give the name of an undercover operative to a journalist?

Honest answer: No.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 05:48 pm
Lash wrote:
Perjury.

Depends on what was asked, doesn't it?

Did you knowingly give the name of an undercover operative to a journalist?

Honest answer: No.


sounds a bit like, did you have sex with that woman? no.

The bloggers <who are loving this story>, suggest that knowingly has nothing to do with it. Kind of like not getting to decide on your own interpretation of "sex".

Interesting reading in the beltway blogs on this.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 05:56 pm
I do want to state for the record, anyone who knowingly outs an undercover spy for any reason should be hung.

But, everybody knows what sex is--and knowingly is easily distinguishable from not knowing.

There is a huge difference. Like manslaughter and premeditated murder.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 06:13 pm
I'm trying to figure out why you are so quick to defend, Lash. Are you just playing devils advocate? Or do you seriously doubt that it was Rove that outed Plame?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 06:16 pm
She's goal keeping.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 06:18 pm
Newsweek's take on it:

just out

Rove's the one
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 06:24 pm
The huge difference between charges of manslaughter and premeditated murder is the wealth/status of the defendent and who his/her attorney is.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 06:28 pm
Lash wrote:
There is a huge difference. Like manslaughter and premeditated murder.


Interesting choice of analogy. If it was so easy to distinguish between manslaughter and premeditated murder, a lot of lawyers would have more time for golf.

Knowingly/not knowingly. Doesn't matter if he lied about it to the FBI. Unless he lied - and didn't lie when asked by the White House.

I wonder if this will really disappear into the long weekend blur.

If that's the case, I'd suspect the Times of being just a tiny bit in the White House pocket.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 06:28 pm
squinney wrote:
I'm trying to figure out why you are so quick to defend, Lash. Are you just playing devils advocate? Or do you seriously doubt that it was Rove that outed Plame?

One side was presented. "Rove did it." With no supporting evidence so far.

I frequently test or question when one side is presented, even if I may think the story could be true.

Of course, it could be true. It could be intentional and knowing....intentional and unknowing...unintentional....it could be false.

It is an interesting story. I do hope it wasn't him. I hope it was no one intentionally.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 06:28 pm
Give em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle dazzle em
Give ?em an act with lots of flash in it
And the reaction will be passionate
Give em the old hocus pocus
Bead and feather em
How can they see with sequins in their eyes?

What if your hinges all are rusting?
What if, in fact, you're just disgusting?

Razzle dazzle em
And they'll never catch wise!
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 06:29 pm
Isn't manslaughter accidental?

Quite a difference from pre-meditated.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 06:39 pm
"knowingly", ehBeth. That makes the difference.

excerpt--


At issue is the story of a CIA-sponsored trip taken by former ambassador (and White House critic) Joseph Wilson to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from the African country of Niger. "Some government officials have noted to Time in interviews... that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA ***official*** who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," said Cooper's July 2003 Time online article.

Now the story may be about to take another turn. The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper's sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House. Cooper and a Time spokeswoman declined to comment. But in an interview with NEWSWEEK, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for the article. ***It is unclear, however, what passed between Cooper and Rove.***

The controversy began three days before the Time piece appeared, when columnist Robert Novak, writing about Wilson's trip, reported that Wilson had been sent at the suggestion of his wife, who was identified by name as a CIA operative. The leak to Novak, apparently intended to discredit Wilson's mission, caused a furor ***when it turned out that Plame was an undercover agent***. It is a crime to ***knowingly*** reveal the identity of an undercover CIA official. A special prosecutor was appointed and began subpoenaing reporters to find the source of the leak.
-----------
It appears that Wilson is the one who ran about giving the details that his wife was actually undercover, which was NOT stated in the article, and may not have been known to Rove.

It looks like Wilson was trying to get the last laugh by framing the Bush administration with a crime they either didn't commit, or unknowingly committed.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 06:49 pm
I think that's way beyond Wilsons capabilities. Not that he's not a bright guy, just that the whole stratergy, framing, twisting thing is Rove's niche. Pretty complicated for someone like Wilson with no political pull or cover.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 06:52 pm
ehBeth wrote:
Lash wrote:
There is a huge difference. Like manslaughter and premeditated murder.


Interesting choice of analogy. If it was so easy to distinguish between manslaughter and premeditated murder, a lot of lawyers would have more time for golf.

Knowingly/not knowingly. Doesn't matter if he lied about it to the FBI. Unless he lied - and didn't lie when asked by the White House.

I wonder if this will really disappear into the long weekend blur.

If that's the case, I'd suspect the Times of being just a tiny bit in the White House pocket.


It CAN'T be buried, can it?

Was this information not subpoenaed as part of a serious inquiry?

I would have thought that, if there is enough evidence of wrongdoing to justify whatever the beginnings of criminal investigation are in the US, (here, the government would hand it over to the police) that a normal criminal investigation would then have to be undertaken?

Goddess help the poor damned investigators, if so! These high political profile cases are career destroyers, whatever the decision is re prosecution.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Jul, 2005 07:04 pm
Well, look at it like this.

PLame and Wilson--big Democrats. Plame is on record for a $1000. donation to the Dem party. Wilson is, what. a congressman? former?--wanted Bush brought down over the Iraq/ WMD thing. (So far, nothing out of the ordinary.)

Plame sends a memo to her boss, suggesting her husband for the Niger trip. (Wouldn't have been a big deal if Wilson hadn't denied it.)

Wilson goes and fabricates a story against Bush in Niger. (Later proven fabricated. A damn big deal now)

Rove and Bush are pissed. They know/suspect Wilson fabricated it, and they want to hang his hide. They either know or find out that his wife pulled strings for him at the CIA to get the assignment. They know she works there as an analyst re WMDs and therefore has pull. They smell plot, and they want it exposed.

They arrange an interview for the purpose of making sure Wilson is smeared with nepotism to take the teeth out of his findings (lies) re Niger. They tip off the story. Wilson denies it BIG TIME. (His ass, now in sling.)

Wilson lies and says his wife didn't affect his assignment. He is furious at Rove and Bush for revealing what he and his wife did. He is humiliated. He knows the seriousness of outing an undercover operative.

EVEN THOUGH Plame is not ID'd as such in the article, he indignantly goes about saying the Bush administration has outed his spy-wife. This may take the pressure off of him for lying about Niger and his wife's influence.

It was easy.

Now, that I'm thinking about it. Rove will make Wilson sorry. He'll likely divulge all manner of stuff and Wilson will probably wind up in prison.

That's how I see it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Karl Rove E-mails - Discussion by Diest TKO
Rove: McCain went 'too far' in ads - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Sheryl Crow Battles Karl Rove at D.C. Press Dinner - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Texas attorney fired for Rove article comments - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/21/2024 at 08:23:42