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

When Did The White House Plame Outing Really Start?
Interesting post to The Daily Kos blogg

When Did The White House Plame Outing Really Start?
by Hunter
Sun Jul 10th, 2005 at 18:40:09 PDT

Hmm. Via a Paul Lukasiak posting at TPMCafe comes this July 6th 2005 Walter Pincus piece that I'd seen previously, but I admit I didn't really "get" the potential importance of the nut grafs the first time I read it:

On July 12, 2003, an administration official, who was talking to me confidentially about a matter involving alleged Iraqi nuclear activities, veered off the precise matter we were discussing and told me that the White House had not paid attention to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's CIA-sponsored February 2002 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.

I didn't write about that information at that time because I did not believe it true that she had arranged his Niger trip. But I did disclose it in an October 12, 2003 story [here] in The Washington Post. By that time there was a Justice Department criminal investigation into a leak to columnist Robert Novak who published it on July 14, 2003 and identified Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative. Under certain circumstances a government official's disclosure of her name could be a violation of federal law. The call with me had taken place two days before Novak's column appeared.

Now, here's the thing about that bolded sentence. Even presuming Novak's column was seen at the White House before publication: Novak's column didn't say that.

Novak simply said that Plame allegedly "suggested" Wilson for the Niger investigation. That's it. But it doesn't say the White House knew that at the time; doesn't say they found out later; doesn't say they found out in the week prior to Novak's column. Nothing. But Pincus' source has a timeline. What Pincus' source is saying is not merely relaying Plame's status according to Novak's column, but giving the additional information that "the White House had not paid attention to the 2002 trip" because of Plame's known status at the time.

Why might that be important? Simply because, two days before Novak's column was published, we have an administration official leaking subtle details of the Plame/Wilson/Niger/CIA connection that even Novak hadn't written. That's not consistent with the assertion by administration officials that they only "found out" Plame's status from Novak's column. This is someone citing knowledge of Plame's CIA status inside the White House contemporaneous to the trip itself, and leaking that knowledge to Pincus on the 12th.

He's not feeding Pincus Novak's own column points. He's feeding a central point that someone reading Novak's article wouldn't know. That may seem like a minor case of "gotcha", but these minor gotchas can, when a federal prosecutor is investigating them, make the difference between a prison sentence and getting off scott free.

Pincus' source did agree to let Pincus be deposed as to the contents of that conversation, by the way -- so once again, there's nothing here the special counsel's office doesn't already know. But you can begin to see, yet again, the extraordinarily fine line, for some involved White House officials, between being indicted for a serious federal crime -- and escaping prosecution by arguing themselves to merely be opportunists piggybacking off the crime.

And given that presumably at some point someone has bothered to inform Bush of Rove's already known role here, for example, you certainly have to wonder what Bush's thoughts on the matter are. He clearly doesn't seem to be bothered by anything he's heard so far...

0 Replies

Rep. Waxman Calls for Hearing Into Rove
Rep. Waxman Calls for Hearing Into Rove's Role in Outing of CIA Agent

July 11, 2005

The Honorable Tom Davis
Chairman
Committee on Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am writing regarding recent reports that provide new details about the involvement of Karl Rove, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, in the disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity as an agent of the Central Intelligence Agency.

An article in the Washington Post[1] this morning and recent disclosures in Newsweek and other reports[2] are extraordinary. If true, they indicate that the President's top political advisor played a central role in the outing of a covert CIA agent. According to the Washington Post account, Mr. Rove's attorney insists that Mr. Rove did not identify Ms. Plame "by name." But Mr. Rove did identify her as the spouse of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, which would seem to be a distinction without a difference.

The new disclosures also raise issues about whether Mr. Rove acted alone or whether there was a conspiracy with other White House staff to use classified information for the political purpose of discrediting Ambassador Wilson.

I first wrote to you to request a hearing about this matter on September 29, 2003, and I renewed my request in a second letter on December 11, 2003. During this period, we met with Ambassador Wilson, but you turned down my request for a hearing because you wanted to see what the investigation of Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald would uncover.

The recent disclosures about Mr. Rove's actions have such serious implications that we can no longer responsibly ignore them. The intentional disclosure of a covert CIA agent's identity would be an act of treason. If there were evidence of such a serious breach during the Clinton Administration, there is no doubt that our Committee would have immediately demanded that the Deputy Chief of Staff testify at a hearing. This would have been the right course of action then, and it is the right course now. For this reason, I am renewing my request that the Committee schedule an immediate hearing at which Mr. Rove is called to testify.

A congressional hearing at which Mr. Rove testifies under oath remains the simplest and most effective means for Congress and the public to learn the truth about this disgraceful incident.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman

Ranking Minority Member

[1] Rove Told Reporter of Plame's Role But Didn't Name Her, Attorney Says, Washington Post (July 11, 2005).

[2] The Rove Factor?, Newsweek (July 11, 2005); Top Bush Adviser Revealed As Source, Financial Times (July 11, 2005); Cooper Email Identifies Rove As a Source, Wall Street Journal (July 11, 2005).

0 Replies

Quote:

Rove Resigns Over Ignorance of Plame's Name
by Scott Ott

(2005-07-10) -- A tearful Karl Rove waved goodbye to reporters from the White House lawn today before boarding Marine One for his final ride in the presidential helicopter.

Mr. Rove's long political career came to a shameful end when his attorney was forced to admit that in 2003 the White House political advisor didn't even know the name of the wife of former ambassador Joe Wilson, nor what she did in her job at the CIA.

Official Washington has buzzed for weeks over rumors that Mr. Rove was the White House insider who blew CIA Agent Valerie Plame's cover.

But according to a memo written by Newsweek reporter Matthew Cooper, Mr. Rove didn't seem to know Ms. Plame's name, and had only a vague notion of what she did for a living.

The revelation sent shock waves through an administration that had relied heavily on Mr. Rove to make the president look competent.

"I have asked my dear friend Karl Rove to step down, for the good of the nation," said President Bush in a brief statement to reporters. "Karl will be tough to replace. As most of you know, he's the one who makes me look smart, even though I'm of average intelligence, with college grades no better than Sen. John Kerry's."

0 Replies

Submit your questions to WP's Dana Milbank online discussion at 9:00 am EDT

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/07/11/DI2005071101050.html?sub=AR

0 Replies

Tico's post is magnificent. Smile

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Tico's post is magnificent.

Scrappleface... only in the world of today's Know Nothings, the mindless right-wing, could sophomoric attempts at satire like this find an audience...much less receive acclaim.

0 Replies

from the live discussion:
Olympia, Wash.: Out here in the hinterlands, I wonder if the whole Plame brouhaha is another internacine quarrel among the D.C. political powers. Just how "secret" are identities of people like Plame among Washington insiders? Was the "outing" a technical misstep in which various officials forgot the rules in a musty federal code? Or is this a real issue?

Dana Milbank: This remains to be seen. But the recent developments take the story from a rather technical one -- about uranium in Niger and the technicalities of a statute about classified information -- to an easily understood nugget: that the president's top political adviser unmasked a CIA operative.

0 Replies

Quote:

Karl Rove's day in the Blogosphere

Read a sample of the writings, refutations, rantings and ravings about the presidential adviser's possible link to the Plame leak

Readers should be advised that blog contents may be profane, brutish and wildly speculative.

ON THE RIGHT

The Drudge Report

Hugh Hewitt

ON THE LEFT

BuzzFlash

Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish

Originally published July 12, 2005

source: The Daily Advertiser

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Tico's post is magnificent.

Scrappleface... only in the world of today's Know Nothings, the mindless right-wing, could sophomoric attempts at satire like this find an audience...much less receive acclaim.

You obviously despise Scrappleface. Not a surprise.

0 Replies

"Tico's post is magnificent"

Oh, indeed. I've never seen the term 'magnificent' used more appropriately than in the instance above. Up there with the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.

Quote:

WASHINGTON - The White House is suddenly facing damaging evidence that it misled the public by insisting for two years that presidential adviser Karl Rove wasn't involved in leaking the identity of a female CIA officer.

Now that quote doesn't seem particularly remarkable. And it's not. What is remarkable is that it is from the Cheboygan Daily Tribune. So? The same story is running everywhere, in small US papers as well as the biggies (not to mention, around the world).

No incident or subject to date has put the administration in such a bad light and such an incompetently defensive posture as this one - as difficult as that is to get one's head around given what all else has come up.

The force of this issue does rest upon earlier matters, particularly the growing comprehension in the American public that the administration began the war with Iraq using lies and exaggerations. "Maybe these folks are not to be trusted" was the dawning realization.

Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo too fit into the picture..."Is this us? Is this America, to torture, to hold people forever? Can we trust the military and the politicians to really tell us the truth about what has happened there?"

And social security..."Is this just a political ideology behind this? Are they going to risk my security in old age because some sharpies from Wall Street hate FDR and probably wouldn't have liked my grandpa either because he was in a union?"

And the church stuff...the growing realization that this corner of the Republican Party has become very powerful and wishes an America which we are not at all certain is the sort of America we want.

And maybe we aren't more safe after all. Maybe we are in a hell of a lot more danger because of what these guys have done.

Bush's stats have crashed, and they have crashed on the matters of trust...trust in their competence and trust in their honesty.

The Rove issue is so important because it follows on all the above questions and doubts and adds a very important focus on an even deeper issue...integrity.

0 Replies

Well, dang. I guess (as McG has reminded us), Dubya won't win in '08.

Dang, dang and double dang.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

"Tico's post is magnificent"

Oh, indeed. I've never seen the term 'magnificent' used more appropriately than in the instance above. Up there with the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.

Jealous?

0 Replies

This is from the online discussion with Dana Millbank provided by Chrissee:

McLean, Va.: Good Afternoon, Dana

Do you believe there is any way president Bush will come out of this whole situation unscathed? It seems that if he fires Rove he has kept his word, but given the Democrats a big victory and loses his political architect. However, if he does not fire Rove he doesn't give in to Democrats but certainly risks scorn for not following through on his word to fire anyone involved. Your thoughts?

Dana Milbank: This is tricky. McClellan gave a blanket statement saying anybody found to be involved in this whole matter would no longer be employed in this administration. Bush, in retrospect, was more specific. He said he'd fire people who were found to violate the law, or found to leak classified information. This is why Rove, by employing some clever parsing, can stay on the job without violating the Bush standard, even if it violates the McClellan standard.

Bush, in retrospect, was more specific. He said he'd fire people who were found to violate the law, or found to leak classified information. This is why Rove, by employing some clever parsing, can stay on the job without violating the Bush standard, even if it violates the McClellan standard.

Could it be that Bush and Rove will have the last laugh yet? Laughing

Anyone want McClellan's job Shocked

0 Replies

Tico wrote:

"So ... for those of you who are so elated over the possibility of finally nailing the hated Karl Rove ... make your case. Show me:

2. That Valerie Plame was, in fact, working undercover for the CIA. (Looks like a desk job to me.)"

The investigation was launched because Ms Plame was a former covert CIA agent. Otherwise the whole matter would be totally without merit.

An interesting older article:

(Wilson, you remember, traveled to Niger in 2002 to investigate claims that the Iraqis were shopping for uranium. He concluded that they had not purchased the goods and described his inquiry in a July 6, 2003, New York Times op-ed.) On Friday, Sept. 26, MSNBC.com and NBC commenced a press stampede of sorts with their exclusive report that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations that two government officials had broken federal laws by leaking information to Novak about Wilson's wife, namely that she worked undercover for the CIA.

The fact that the CIA's request to the Justice Department for an investigation confirms the insinuation that Plame was an undercover agent until Novak and the leakers blew her cover

http://slate.msn.com/id/2089017/

And:

Sources told CNN that Plame works in the CIA's Directorate of Operations -- the part of the agency in charge of spying -- and worked in the field for many years as an undercover officer.

"If she were only an analyst, not an operative, we would not have filed a crimes report" with the Justice Department, a senior intelligence official said.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/30/wilson.cia/

The fallout of the Plame affair still rests with us and the Iraqi war. The Bush administration so intent on putting a positive spin to its war propaganda tried time and time again to brush a doomsday nuclear picture about Iraq which Plame's husband was sent to investigate in Niger. As we all know the Iraqi nuclear threat was as empty as can be. Yet, with ingenious spin, to this day the administration still hasn't recanted it's doomsday nuclear scenario despite never finding a trace of not only weapons manufacturing capacity but even of an active nuclear program on the eve of the war.

So whether Rove and cohorts broke the law is still an open question where facts are still sparingly discovered. One thing for sure, the Bush administration is stuck with its own transparency problems and misrepresentations bordering on lies (if not outright lies).

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

Well, dang. I guess (as McG has reminded us), Dubya won't win in '08.

Dang, dang and double dang.

Regardless of the legal standing and formal postion of Rove after the hearing is completed, he will almost certainly continue in the roll for which he has demonstrated such genius...completely amoral political strategist. It will be fun to imagine, if he ends up looking like poop from all this, other republicans going after him, but that will be backroom and we won't get the pleasures we deserve.

The problem, of course, isn't as JustGiggles pretends. If Bush's stats continue to drop, made more precipitous by this Rove issue, that will effect people's notions regarding the broad conservative agenda - which is represented by this administration and its allies. If that drop in public opinion continues in such a manner, many others besides Bush will be tarred, and rightfully so. Jeb Bush will not be successful in 2008, nor will Condi Rice, nor will anyone from the religious right.

That will mean a real moderate might be the only chance for Republicans in 2008. And that will probably mean McCain.

And if McCain is the person, then the new conservative movement will likely suffer a blow from which it will not recover.

Things will have to procede in a certain manner for such a final consequence, but that now becomes increasingly possible.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Chrissee wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Tico's post is magnificent.

Scrappleface... only in the world of today's Know Nothings, the mindless right-wing, could sophomoric attempts at satire like this find an audience...much less receive acclaim.

You obviously despise Scrappleface. Not a surprise.

I do not despise it. it is just sophomoric and very unimaginitive. Anytime someone posts one of those pathetic attempts at satire, I immediately recognize this hack. It is amazing that anyone would praise this drivel.

There are some great and funny satirists like my close, personal friend P.J. O'Rourke.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

You have the law ... now tell me, what is the set of facts that apply to Valerie Plame that cause her to meet this definition of "covert agent"?

LOL Tico.. Your attempt at obfuscation is very transparent.

The fact that she was a covert agent has been stipulated by all the parties involved. There would be no reason for a recusal by Ashcroft if she was not a covert agent. Fitzgerald would have no reason to call a GJ if there she was not a covert agent. The WH would not have made their comments if not for that fact. You can sit here and claim that you have no evidence all you want. The evidence is there for all but the blind to see.

Plame worked for a CIA cover company. ( Brewster Jennings & Associates, which was subsequently acknowledged by the CIA as a front.) She was overseas. She worked in the Counterproliferation Division. All of those facts can be found in various statements by government, CIA and other sources.

Lets look at this in a reasonable fashion Tico. Based on the above 3 facts being true how is she not covered under the law as stated?

A front company means they are attempting to hide that employees are CIA. It is easy to see that such information would need to be classified or it defeats the purpose of setting a front company up in the first place.
Overseas fits nicely into the law.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

JustWonders wrote:
Well, dang. I guess (as McG has reminded us), Dubya won't win in '08.

Dang, dang and double dang.

Regardless of the legal standing and formal postion of Rove after the hearing is completed, he will almost certainly continue in the roll for which he has demonstrated such genius...completely amoral political strategist. It will be fun to imagine, if he ends up looking like poop from all this, other republicans going after him, but that will be backroom and we won't get the pleasures we deserve.

The problem, of course, isn't as JustGiggles pretends. If Bush's stats continue to drop, made more precipitous by this Rove issue, that will effect people's notions regarding the broad conservative agenda - which is represented by this administration and its allies. If that drop in public opinion continues in such a manner, many others besides Bush will be tarred, and rightfully so. Jeb Bush will not be successful in 2008, nor will Condi Rice, nor will anyone from the religious right.

That will mean a real moderate might be the only chance for Republicans in 2008. And that will probably mean McCain.

And if McCain is the person, then the new conservative movement will likely suffer a blow from which it will not recover.

Things will have to procede in a certain manner for such a final consequence, but that now becomes increasingly possible.

Neither Jeb nor Condi will be successful in '08 because they aren't running in '08 LOL.

I do, however, like the fact that you've all but conceded it will definitely be another Republican victory in '08.

Not McCain, though.

0 Replies

Quote:

Neither Jeb nor Condi will be successful in '08 because they aren't running in '08 LOL.

How do you know? LOL

0 Replies

Welcome, pngirouard. Good point about why there is a case, at all. (Parados makes the same point later.)

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know