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

See, they are already posturing. Rove indicted. No big deal.

Chrissee wrote:

Do you admit that you just want to see Rove go down, whether he's guilty of a crime or not?

It would be satisfying to see the world's top dirty trick player to go down. But I'm more interested in seeing his boss go down for cover up and obstruction of justice, an impeachable offense.

BBB

Whichever way this goes, one thing's for sure: whole lotta stuff is being said now that will be of some later embarrassment and inconvenience to its speakers - one way or the other. And it seems to me one side in this game has a lot more at stake than the other.

Another postulation - framed as a Texas Hold 'em metaphor (a poker game, for those to whom the reference is obscure): who has the most to lose? The Current Administration, or The Opposition? Win or lose, The Current Administration remains The Current Administration, in control of The Big Game, at least nominally, untill the '06 mid-terms, and reasonably assured of a seat at the table at least untill the '08 General Election. They can be hurt, yeah, but this hand isn't "Make or Break".

Seems to me the ones who are "All In", no chips left, they're betting table stakes, are The Opposition; lose this hand, and they're pretty much out of the game - off the table. This one hand can't win them The Big Game, but it will determine whether or not they continue as players. Fine, the betting is done, now we wait for the last card to fall.

"This is a serious investigation," Bush told reporters after a Cabinet meeting, with Rove sitting just behind him. "And it is very important for people not to prejudge the investigation based on media reports."

Bush said he would not discuss the matter further until a criminal investigation is finished.

With urging from the White House, Republican congressmen lined up in support of Rove and most GOP politicians outside Washington followed suit.

"It's a tempest in a teapot," said Denzil Garrison, former state GOP leader in Oklahoma. But some Republicans said Rove may need to go. "I think he should resign," said Jim Holt, a Republican state senator in Arkansas who is running for lieutenant governor. "I hope Karl Rove doesn't come gunning for me."

Bush previously had suggested he'd fire anyone found to have been a leaker in the case.

McClellan said Bush agreed with Laura Bush, who earlier Wednesday told reporters traveling with her in Africa that Rove was a good family friend.

Do you admit that you just want to see Rove go down, whether he's guilty of a crime or not?

Ticomaya wrote:

Do you admit that you just want to see Rove go down, whether he's guilty of a crime or not?

Piffka raises her hand. "I do! I do!"

I've hated that SOB since his dirty tricks took down McCain and I hope he leaves Washington (finally) in complete disgrace. That wasn't a crime either and probably not against the Ten Commandments... but it was the kind of crap that only a low-life immoral bastard would do.

He dishonors the country and the White House.... always has.

The emerging GOP strategy -- devised by Mehlman and other Rove loyalists outside of the White House -- is to try to undermine those Democrats calling for Rove's ouster, play down Rove's role and wait for President Bush's forthcoming Supreme Court selection to drown out the controversy, according to several high-level Republicans.

[..] Mehlman, who said he talked with Rove several times in recent days, instructed GOP legislators, lobbyists and state officials to accuse Democrats of dirty politics and argue Rove was guilty of nothing more than discouraging a reporter from writing an inaccurate story, according to RNC talking points circulated yesterday.

"Republicans should stop holding back and go on the offense: fire enough bullets the other way until the Supreme Court overtakes" events, said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.).

[..] Privately, even Rove's staunchest supporters said the situation could explode if federal prosecutors accuse Rove or any other high-level official of committing a crime. William Kristol, a conservative commentator with close White House ties, said it would be hard to imagine a prosecutor conducting an investigation that has landed one reporter in jail and challenged the constitutional rights of the journalism profession without indicting someone. Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald "is the problem for the White House, and we have no idea what he knows," Kristol said.

But some Republicans said Rove may need to go. "I think he should resign," said Jim Holt, a Republican state senator in Arkansas who is running for lieutenant governor. "I hope Karl Rove doesn't come gunning for me."

Rove Did Leak Classified Information David Corn
Wed Jul 13, 4:39 PM ET



The Nation -- "The fact is, Karl Rove did not leak classified information." So said Ken Mehlman, head of the Republican Party.


"I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name." So said Karl Rove of Valerie Wilson/Plame last year on CNN.

"He did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." So said Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, after Newsweek reported Rove had been a source for Time magazine's Matt Cooper but before Newsweek revealed a Cooper email that said Rove had told Cooper that "wilson's wife...apparently works at the agency on wmd issues."

The White House may be stonewalling on the Rove scandal, but the Rove camp--aided by its echo-ists in the conservative media--has been busy establishing the twin-foundation for his defense: he did not mention Valerie Wilson/Plame by name; he did not disclose classified information. The first of these two assertions is misleading and irrelevant; the second is wrong.

Did not disclose her name

According to Cooper's email, Rove told Cooper that "Wilson's wife"--not "Valerie Plame," or "Valerie Wilson"--worked at the CIA. But this distinction has absolutely no legal relevance. Under the relevant law--the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982--a crime is committed when a government official (not a journalist) "intentionally discloses any information identifying" an undercover intelligence officer. The act does not say a name must be disclosed. By telling a reporter that Joseph Wilson's wife was a CIA officer, Rove was clearly disclosing "identifying" information. There was only one Mrs. Joseph Wilson. With such information in hand, Cooper or anyone else could easily have ascertained the name of this officer. (A Google search at the time would have yielded the name--and maiden name--of Wilson's wife.) Revealing the name is not the crime; it's disclosing information that IDs the officer. Imagine if a government official told a reporter, "At 3:15, a fellow in a green hat, carrying a red umbrella and holding a six-pack of Mountain Dew, will be tap-dancing in front of the Starbucks at Connecticut Avenue and R Street--he's the CIA's best undercover officer working North Korea." That official could not defend himself, under this law, by claiming that he had not revealed the name of this officer. The issue is identifying, not naming. Rove and his allies cannot hide behind his no-name claim.


Did not disclose classified information

A reading of this law also indicates that if Cooper's email is accurate then Rove did pass classified information to Cooper. It's possible that Rove did so unwittingly. That is, he did not know Valerie Wilson's employment status at the CIA was classified information. But he and his posse cannot say the information he slipped to Cooper was not classified.

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act makes it a crime to identify "a covert agent" of the United States. The law defines "covert agent," in part, as "a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information." (My emphasis.)

This definition clearly recognizes that the identity of an undercover intelligence officer is "classified information." The law also notes that a "covert agent" has a "classified relationship to the United States." Since the CIA asked the Justice Department to investigate the Plame/CIA leak and the Justice Department affirmed the need for an investigation and special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, once handed the case, pursued the matter vigorously, it is reasonable to assume that Valerie Wilson fits the definition of a "covert agent." That means she has a "classified relationship" with the government.

By disclosing Valerie Wilson's relationship to the CIA, Rove was passing classified information to a reporter.

"There is little doubt," says Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, that the employment status of an undercover CIA officer, "is classified information." He notes that the "most basic personnel information of the CIA--the number of personnel, the salaries--is classified. Anything more specific--like the identity of a NOC [an officer working under "nonofficial cover," as was Valerie Wilson] or the numbers and identities of officers working in a particular region of the world--is classified."

To sum up, it does not matter if Rove did not mention Valerie Wilson by name, and it is not true that the information he passed to Cooper was not classified.

Rove may still have a defense against criminal prosecution. Under the law, a government official is only guilty if he or she discloses information "knowing that the information disclosed so identifies" a "covert agent." Rove could claim that he was not aware that Valerie Wilson was working at the CIA as a covert official. After all, there are CIA employees--analysts, managers, and others--who do not work under cover. If special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald indicts Rove or anyone else, the most difficult part of the case will likely be proving that the person charged with the crime meets this he-knew-she-was-undercover test.

Not all wrongdoing is a crime. But leaking classified information is always serious business. George W. Bush took an unambiguous stand on the leaking of classified information when he was asked on September 30, 2003, about Karl Rove's possible role in the Plame/CIA leak. Bush noted,

I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.

Well, now Bush knows. Rove, according to the Cooper email, did not leak a name but he did leak classified information. Much of his defense is in tatters. And where is Bush's "appropriate action"?

*******************

Furthermore, only 41 percent give Bush good marks for being "honest and straightforward" -- his lowest ranking on this question since he became president. That's a drop of nine percentage points since January, when a majority (50 percent to 36 percent) indicated that he was honest and straightforward. This finding comes at a time when the Bush administration is battling the perception that its rhetoric doesn't match the realities in Iraq, and also allegations that chief political adviser Karl Rove leaked sensitive information about a CIA agent to a reporter. (The survey, however, was taken just before these allegations about Rove exploded into the current controversy.)

On the other hand, Bush Approval Rises Five Points in U.S. in July ...

bit soon to be talking of falling walls and pillars, perhaps

And you know what's so bloody unbelievable, Piffka. Tico, Timber, Lash, McG, etc. condone, nay support, trumpet this immoral behavior as something grand, something to be proud of, something to emulate.

Timber, your glib response only serves to highlight the moral vacuum surrounding those who blindly offer continued support when all they've been given is lie after lie. How some can be so gullible amazes me! Those that aren't gullible should be profoundly ashamed of themselves.

We're talking here about the most basic elements of human decency. Isn't this something that we've heard out of Republicans for the last, oh, how many years. Where's this personal accountibility that's trumpeted far and wide?

Instead of honestly addressing the issues, it's a right back at ya smear campaign. Something just doesn't jive, Timber, in your actions or in the Republican party's actions.

You're being glib because you're embarrassed. You'd never do anything like this to your wife, children, grandkids, friends, acquaintances nor would you want them to do it to you, but you're willing to accept it from the people who you've entrusted to govern your country?

Today should be another interesting day in another interesting week. Especially when articles like this abound all over the nets:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20050713/cm_thenation/35857/nc:742

Quote:

Rove Did Leak Classified Information David Corn
Wed Jul 13, 4:39 PM ET


[snip]

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act makes it a crime to identify "a covert agent" of the United States. The law defines "covert agent," in part, as "a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information." (My emphasis.)

This definition clearly recognizes that the identity of an undercover intelligence officer is "classified information." The law also notes that a "covert agent" has a "classified relationship to the United States." Since the CIA asked the Justice Department to investigate the Plame/CIA leak and the Justice Department affirmed the need for an investigation and special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, once handed the case, pursued the matter vigorously, it is reasonable to assume that Valerie Wilson fits the definition of a "covert agent." That means she has a "classified relationship" with the government.

...

and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States;

None of this addresses the fact that noone on the right seems to care in the slightest that laws are broken, or that national security is compromised, by the actions of the ADMINISTRATION; we know for a fact that more people than Rove are involved in this.

Once again, you cannot honestly address the issue of the moral failings of those you hold up as your leaders. Instead you have changed the subject to an attack on Liberals. How typical.

Cycloptichorn