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

McClellan looks like Porky Pig (stutter, stammer, nervous stare) at those press briefings.

Apparently according to Republicans these days,

His job is to call reporters and warn them that they might be going to print false stories.

Because that's what we pay these people for; to check on whether reporters are going to get in trouble for printing the wrong things.

Tico,

I agree with your reading of the law in question. It seems likely however that Parados' analysis is correct that Fitzgerald and the CIA would know pretty quickly whether or not she fell under this statute.

This is why I have maintained all along that there is far more to this case than the mere outing, and far more than Rove to this case.

I also believe that 'agent' is probably a pretty strict term. There are undoubtedly many CIA employees who are undercover who are not agents. There are undoubtedly laws pertaining to the revealing of the cover of CIA employees who are not agents.

Another possible tack: seeing as Novak not only blew Plames' cover, but blew the cover of the company Plame worked for, and cooincidentially many other operatives worked for. Is it possible that the actions of the admin led to the exposure of MANY undercover operatives? We know for a fact that the cover of many operatives was blown at the same time Plame's was.

Therefore there may be many, many people who were left twisting in the wind over this one....

Cycloptichorn

I am getting a little tired about all the Toensing attention. Assuredly she must have some legal skills. But she is better known as a mercenary mouthpiece of the GOP and loves scandals. It would be great if people were identified properly so to put their claims in perspective.



http://mediamatters.org/items/200507120005

Okay. The CIA thinks everyone at Gitmo is a terrorist. Case closed.

synonymph


Makes you wonder how someone so inarticulate and unable to think on his feet got his job. Connections? His mother is a big money bags in Texas. Then, there is the other Rove-Gannon connection.

BBB

Toensig does bring up another point.
Rove may have disclosed classified information but not done it with intent. Interesting the cases of the last few years where people were indicted for unintentionally disclosing or not keeping such information under lock and key.
And yet those on the right think it is OK for Rove to reveal classified information because it wasn't a specific crime.

Anyone that treats classified information in such a cavalier manner should no longer have any access to it, plain and simple.

Oh? WHen did they say that? Or are you just making stuff up because you can't come up with any other argument?

I provided paperwork from the CIA where they stated there was a possible violation of criminal law in revealing Plame's identity.. Do you have anything from the CIA stating what you just claimed?

Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm
washingtonpost.com
Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm
By Walter Pincus and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, October 4, 2003; Page A03

The leak of a CIA operative's name has also exposed the identity of a CIA front company, potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure, Bush administration officials said yesterday.

The company's identity, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, became public because it appeared in Federal Election Commission records on a form filled out in 1999 by Valerie Plame, the case officer at the center of the controversy, when she contributed $1,000 to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign.

After the name of the company was broadcast yesterday, administration officials confirmed that it was a CIA front. They said the obscure and possibly defunct firm was listed as Plame's employer on her W-2 tax forms in 1999 when she was working undercover for the CIA. Plame's name was first published July 14 in a newspaper column by Robert D. Novak that quoted two senior administration officials. They were critical of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, for his handling of a CIA mission that undercut President Bush's claim that Iraq had sought uranium from the African nation of Niger for possible use in developing nuclear weapons.

The Justice Department began a formal criminal investigation of the leak Sept. 26.

The inadvertent disclosure of the name of a business affiliated with the CIA underscores the potential damage to the agency and its operatives caused by the leak of Plame's identity. Intelligence officials have said that once Plame's job as an undercover operative was revealed, other agency secrets could be unraveled and her sources might be compromised or endangered.

A former diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said yesterday that every foreign intelligence service would run Plame's name through its databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited their country and to reconstruct her activities.

"That's why the agency is so sensitive about just publishing her name," the former diplomat said.

FEC rules require donors to list their employment. Plame used her married name, Valerie E. Wilson, and listed her employment as an "analyst" with Brewster-Jennings & Associates. The document establishes that Plame has worked undercover within the past five years. The time frame is one of the standards used in making determinations about whether a disclosure is a criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

It could not be learned yesterday whether other CIA operatives were associated with Brewster-Jennings.

Also yesterday, the nearly 2,000 employees of the White House were given a Tuesday deadline to scour their files and computers for any records related to Wilson or contacts with journalists about Wilson. The broad order, in an e-mail from White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, directed them to retain records "that relate in any way to former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, his trip to Niger in February 2002, or his wife's purported relationship with the Central Intelligence Agency."

White House employees received the e-mailed directive at 12:45 p.m., with an all-capitalized subject line saying, "Important Follow-Up Message From Counsel's Office." By 5 p.m. on Tuesday, employees must turn over copies of relevant electronic records, telephone records, message slips, phone logs, computer records, memos, and diaries and calendar entries.

The directive notes that lawyers in the counsel's office are attorneys for the president in his official capacity and that they cannot provide personal legal advice to employees.

For some officials, the task is a massive one. Some White House officials said they had numerous conversations with Wilson that had nothing to do with his wife, so the directive is seen as a heavy burden at a time when many of the president's aides already feel beleaguered.

Officials at the Pentagon and State Department also have been asked to retain records related to the case. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday: "We are doing our searches. . . . I'm not sure what they will be looking for or what they wish to contact us about, but we are anxious to be of all assistance to the inquiry."

In another development, FBI agents yesterday began attempts to interview journalists who may have had conversations with government sources about Plame and Wilson. It was not clear how many journalists had been contacted. The FBI has interviewed Plame, ABC News reported.

Wilson and his wife have hired Washington lawyer Christopher Wolf to represent them in the matter.

The couple has directed him to take a preliminary look at claims they might be able to make against people they believe have impugned their character, a source said.

The name of the CIA front company was broadcast yesterday by Novak, the syndicated journalist who originally identified Plame. Novak, highlighting Wilson's ties to Democrats, said on CNN that Wilson's "wife, the CIA employee, gave $1,000 to Gore and she listed herself as an employee of Brewster-Jennings & Associates."

"There is no such firm, I'm convinced," he continued. "CIA people are not supposed to list themselves with fictitious firms if they're under a deep cover -- they're supposed to be real firms, or so I'm told. Sort of adds to the little mystery."

In fact, it appears the firm did exist, at least on paper. The Dun & Bradstreet database of company names lists a firm that is called both Brewster Jennings & Associates and Jennings Brewster & Associates.

The phone number in the listing is not in service, and the property manager at the address listed said there is no such company at the property, although records from 2000 were not available.

Wilson was originally listed as having given $2,000 to Gore during the primary campaign in 1999, but the donation, over the legal limit of $1,000, was "reattributed" so that Wilson and Plame each gave $1,000 to Gore. Wilson also gave $1,000 to the Bush primary campaign, but there is no donation listed from his wife.

Staff writers Dana Milbank, Susan Schmidt and Dana Priest, political researcher Brian Faler and researcher Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.

Not to mention this little gem:



http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0722-04.htm

Novak has previously claimed that he was 'given the name.' Rove has stated that he 'never said the name.' Rove has also stated that he had 2 different highly-placed sources.

This information has lead me to believe that the real story here is how the information has been handed around inside the Administration. Because apparently, if Rove is telling the truth (doubtful but possible), then the two administration officials who GAVE this information to Novak (remember, he said he didn't go searching for it) had to find out the information somehow.

And if they got it from here:



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5570006/site/newsweek/

Then there may be quite a few people who learned about it and passed it on to sources independently.

Think of the ways this could go... muahahahah

Cycloptichorn

You have asserted that because the CIA has suggested there may be a "possible" violation of criminal law in revealing Plame's identify, that therefore must mean Plame is a "covert agent" as defined in Sec. 426.

I meant to put a question mark after "Case closed" in my prior post. My point is this: If the CIA says they think everyone at Gitmo is a terrorist, but that information is classified and cannot be revealed in open court, would you be so quick to believe that because "the CIA says it is so, you will have to accept it"?

Or does this argument of yours only work for you when it suits you?

The CIA has asserted that there are terrorists who committed crimes.
The CIA has asserted that someone outed an undercover agent

Both are assertions based on facts known to the CIA

The CIA has not to my knowledge claimed that Rove commited a crime nor have they claimed that everyone at Gitmo is a terrorist.

Your argument fails because there is a difference between claiming a crime was committed and claiming someone committed that crime. I compared apples to apples you want to compare apples to oranges.

Weather Rove will be fired, indicted, or what - what is at issue is the fact the administration has the least integrity of any governing body the U.S has ever witnessed.

The Nation:

If you can't shoot the messenger, take aim at his wife.

That clearly was the intent of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove in leaking to a reporter that former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA agent. To try to conceal the fact that the President had lied to the American public about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, Rove attempted to destroy the credibility of two national security veterans and send an intimidating message to any other government officials preparing to publicly tell the truth.

Rove's lawyer now says that Rove didn't break the law against naming covert agents because he didn't know Plame's name and therefore couldn't have revealed it. Perhaps he can use such a technicality in court, but in the meantime he should resign immediately--or be fired by the President--for leaking classified information, trying to smear Wilson and possibly endangering Plame's life.

"The White House promised if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this Administration," said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). "I trust they will follow through on this pledge."

The background on this story is crucial. Ambassador Wilson had been honored as a patriot by President George H.W. Bush for standing up to Saddam Hussein in a face-to-face confrontation in Baghdad on the eve of the Persian Gulf War. But in 2003, Wilson committed an unpardonable crime in the eyes of the second Bush White House. He exposed its lies about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.

In sixteen now infamous words in Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech, the President--desperate to gain support for an invasion he was dead set on initiating--tried to scare Americans into believing Iraq was close to making nuclear weapons. "The British government," he told the nation, "has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." But the key documents that the claim was based on had already been proved to be fakes, and other intelligence reports along these lines were extremely speculative.

In fact, it was a CIA-organized mission by Wilson to the African country of Niger (where he had served as ambassador) that determined the reports were false. Wilson was therefore shocked to hear the uranium claims in the President's speech. When he exposed the chicanery in a New York Times commentary, Wilson became a prime target for a White House smear job.

According to e-mails that Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper sent to his editor (which were revealed by Newsweek over the weekend), Rove told Cooper that Wilson's devastating expose should be discounted because the Niger fact-finding trip had been authorized by Wilson's wife, who worked at the CIA.

This was three days before Robert Novak, citing two White House sources, outed Plame as a CIA agent in his column and put forward the same notion: that Wilson's information was suspect because the CIA had hired him on the advice of his wife.

In the end, though, what Rove's leak and Novak's column really exposed was the depravity of the Administration's deliberate use of a false WMD threat and its willingness to go after anyone willing to tell the truth about it.

It's ironic that the expertise of this couple should be turned against them by a White House that has demonstrated nothing but incompetence in dealing with the WMD issue. But clearly truth and competence are virtues easily shed by the Bush Administration in the pursuit of political advantage, even when this partisan game jeopardizes national security.

This is the most important issue raised by the Plame scandal. It has been unfortunately obscured by the secondary debate in the case: whether reporters should ever reveal their sources. Yet what the emerging Rove scandal demonstrates is the ease with which a wily top White House official can subvert the Bill of Rights' protection of the free press to serve the tawdriest of political ends.

I fail to see a material distinction. You assert that we ought to trust the CIA when they say a law may have been committed, but not trust them when they say a particular person may have committed that crime. Why is that?

Either: (A) you trust the CIA and don't question the factual basis for their conclusions, or (B) you trust the CIA but do question the factual basis for their conclusions, or (C) you don't trust the CIA and question the factual basis for their conclusions.

Which describes you with regard to the Plame matter? With regard to the terrorists at Gitmo?

I'm not seeing this as comparing apples to oranges. We're talking about blind faith in the CIA ... It appears you're willing to rely on the CIA's expertise and authority, but only when it's convenient to you.

Red Herring alert!

How so?

Because your argument doesn't make any sense.



None of these match up at all to your original ridiculous statement that 'evey person in Gitmo is a terrorist according to the CIA' or somesuch.

I can trust the CIA who says that MANY of the people in Gitmo are terrorists.

I can trust the CIA who says that a crime was possibly committed revolving around the outing of an undercover member of the CIA.

I can doubt that EVERY person in Gitmo is a terrorist.

None of these are exclusive. Your argument fails, becuase Parados could very easily doubt your straw man (that every person in Gitmo is a terrorist) without doubting the CIA's judgement in this case.

C'mon, man, you can do better than that

Cycloptichorn

Hmmm... doesnt that argument bounce right back to you? If you believe the CIA when it comes to Gitmo, but not when it comes to Plame, arent you doing the same thing?

Dancing on the head of a pin. This is fun to watch. LOL

Rove, America's Benedict Arnold of the New Millennium?"
July 14, 2005
BuzzFlash Talks with Our Favorite Specialist on Karl Rove, Texas Journalist James Moore on "What's Next with Rove, America's Benedict Arnold of the New Millennium?"

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

"Bush cannot function without Rove. And the GOP is equally invested in his skills. I expect that, if the pressure gets too great, the president will move Rove out of the White House so he can continue to use his brain on congressional matters like Social Security and tort reform while not having to suffer quite as much politically with Rove still sitting in the West Wing. But I don't think Bush will make such a move, if he can avoid it. His Achilles heel is his loyalty to his friends and it always has been. Bush will stick with Rove long past the point that he ought to have cut his losses and he will endure significant political harm."

-- James Moore, Co-Author of "Bush's Brain" and Author of "Bush's War for Reelection"

* * *

BuzzFlash is a great admirer of James Moore, a rare journalist with integrity, courage and respect for the truth. We have come to know Moore over several interviews and commentaries that he has written for BuzzFlash. The man feels democracy in his bones. He's not an evangelist, partisan or flamethrower; he just respects the truth: straight up, no chaser.

So we're proud to share with you Jim's take on the latest Rove outrage against decency, the law, and the interests of the United States of America.

* * *

BuzzFlash: Let's put the legal investigation aside, because no one can read Patrick Fitzgerald's mind or know whether he has the goods and the courage to indict Rove at this time. But, let's suppose an outcome where Rove is indicted and Bush has no choice but to ask him to step aside. How could Bush function without Rove? Rove just got a promotion and is basically the President of the United State for domestic affairs.

Moore: Bush cannot function without Rove. And the GOP is equally invested in his skills. I expect that, if the pressure gets too great, the president will move Rove out of the White House so he can continue to use his brain on congressional matters like Social Security and tort reform while not having to suffer quite as much politically with Rove still sitting in the West Wing. But I don't think Bush will make such a move, if he can avoid it. His Achilles heel is his loyalty to his friends and it always has been. Bush will stick with Rove long past the point that he ought to have cut his losses and he will endure significant political harm.

BuzzFlash: You are an expert on Rove, having covered him in Texas for years and co-authored the thorough and insightful book, "Bush's Brain." Given that Rove is now confirmed as one of at least two leakers in what we call PlameGate, how does his action -- which was an action of vengeance and a warning signal to other whistleblowers that everyone was fair game in Rove's world of counter attack -- fit in with prior dirty tricks and character assault that he launched since his young Republican college days?

Moore: He has done this kind of thing in the past. As a for instance, Rove worked with an FBI agent to launch an investigation into every Democratic officeholder in the state of Texas. None of them did anything wrong but they were all harmed by the news coverage of the probe. During the course of the investigations, reporters were constantly getting calls from Rove telling them about subpoenas that were being issued well before they had even been sent out by the FBI. There is a pattern of scurrilous behavior behind all of his political moves where he uses surrogates, cutouts, and other types of third party operatives to implement his plans and he keeps several layers of plausible deniability between himself and what he is doing. The ugly whisper campaign in South Carolina against John McCain, which questioned his mental health and suggested that he had a mixed race child out of wedlock, was classic Rove. He had done the same thing against Ann Richards, starting rumors about her sexual orientation based upon appointments she was making to state boards and commissions.

BuzzFlash: How do you think Rove could rationalize starting a war based on asserting that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction (which he didn't), while he neutralized a CIA operative whose job was to protect the United States by tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction and their illicit sales? He also exposed her "front company" in the process and possibly endangered her life.

Moore: Rove, most people don't realize, is partly pathological. He believes many of the lies he tells. In that regard, his world is a construct where, even if there is no a priori evidence that Saddam was connected to 911, Karl can easily convince himself there was a link. Whatever he does, regardless of how unethical, is always justified as being necessary for a greater political good. Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame are citizens Karl decided needed to be sacrificed for the benefit of the larger American population. The case against Saddam and WMD was trumped up because it was simple and readily accessible for most Americans and was something they would believe. Telling the truth and making an intelligent political case for action in Iraq or a US presence in the Mid East was too complicated. The lie was an expeditious tool needed to accomplish a political end and was, in Rove's mind, a much lesser sin than letting Saddam continue in power, even though he was not the greatest terrorist threat facing America.

BuzzFlash: The Republican National Committee issued talking points today that showed up in news coverage on the Republican leaning programs and radio commentators. Not only that, the Chair of the RNC launched a major attack on Joe Wilson's character once again, claiming that the controversy about Rove is all just a partisan witch hunt. Is Rove still "spinning away," with carte blanche from Bush to mount his own diversionary defense?

Moore: Nothing that is presently occurring will be happening without Karl's imprimatur. He is the message maker for the party and the White House. He probably had Mehlman and a few others offer input, but Karl will not trust his argument or his positioning to anyone other than himself. In fact, when his attorney, Robert Luskin said Karl did not "knowingly" out a CIA agent that was clearly Karl's parsing of language. He thought that it would protect him from conviction on the treason act and it reflected a strategic step by Karl from back in 1991 when he was testifying before a Texas Senate committee. He was asked if he knew FBI agent Greg Rampton, who had conducted the spurious investigations of Democrats, and Rove asked the senator what he meant by "knew."

BuzzFlash: The press and most people forget that Bush retained a lawyer shortly after PlameGate broke to legally represent him in any investigation, even while he was refusing to personally demand to know who leaked information detrimental to the national security of the United States and fire them on the spot. Is it possible that Rove let Bush know what he was up to and Bush just nodded? Or is that where plausible deniability comes in?

Moore: The history of their relationship involves a series of wink wink, nudge nudge agreements, where Rove is given implicit licenses to do what is necessary to achieve the political goal. Bush often knows what Karl is doing but, in many cases, he doesn't want to know and doesn't ask. As in the case of the slime attack against Sen. John McCain in South Carolina, Bush knew some of the tactics being used but not all of them. He was aware of and involved in the efforts by a dubious Vietnam veterans' organization to slur McCain's reputation, but Bush was mostly oblivious to the push polls and hate pamphlets flying around about McCain. I think in PlameGate, however, the president probably knew what was about to happen and did nothing to stop it, implying to Rove that he was on his own but to go ahead if he thought it was essential to protecting their arguments for war. The president likely has some exposure in this case, though I have my doubts anyone will ever be able to confront him on it legally or ethically.

BuzzFlash: Did Rove finally get cocky and overplay his hand, or was he just used to his "targets" lying down and taking it -- and when Joe Wilson fought back with tenacity and integrity, Rove was thrown a little off balance?

Moore: I don't think Karl was thrown off balance by Wilson. He always assumes he can outthink and out message any opponent, and generally he does. Wilson's intellectual heft turned this into more of a fight than Karl probably expected, but he still never thought Wilson's case would have long term traction.

Nonetheless, I am beginning to believe that we may be experiencing a rare moment of hubris for Mr. Rove. It is one thing to leak a story in Texas and quite different to do such a thing under the auspices of the White House. I have my doubts that Karl was the direct source of the leak because that is not his style. But I have no doubt that it was his idea and he implemented the plan and decided who was to make first contact with reporters before he came along behind them and pushed the story along. But he would have been very careful about what he said, whether he used Plame's name, and how he communicated with reporters. I think the phone records from Air Force One, enroute to Africa in July of 2003, will reveal the genesis of this sleaze and, if the public ever sees them again, the transcripts of the press gaggles on July 9 and 10 of that date, which have been pulled down from the White House web site.

BuzzFlash: Rove has been a master at manipulating the media through spin, propaganda, emotional appeals to patriotism, fear, intimidation, and the presumption that he was dealing with an acquiescent press. On Monday, July 11, the White House Press Corps momentarily awoke from a 5-year Rip Van Winkle snooze. What happened?

Moore: The people they cover on a daily basis --McClellan, Rove, Bush, et. al. -- got caught in a lie. Nothing animates journalists like being lied to.

The other piece of this is that they are all aware of the criticism they have endured for the past five years for being Bush administration lap dogs and many of them are trying to prove that they have spines and teeth. The tape of McClellan denying Rove's involvement, and Bush saying that the person would be fired, will be played and played again and will have increasing political damage as more Americans begin to pay attention to the details of politics. I don't think much of most of the reporters in the White House press corps and view the majority of them as White House stenographers in the mold of Judith Miller of the New York Times. But their job has gotten easier with the available videotape of administration lies on this issue and they can't help but perform now simply by showing up for work.

BuzzFlash: If Rove is not indicted (and there is a still at least one other source out there, if not more), will PlameGate die because Rove will position any continued charges that he committed treason as expected partisan attacks -- and that Bush would then say something like, "I said we should have a thorough investigation of this matter -- and we did. After two years of exhaustive work by the highly regarded U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, Karl Rove has been vindicated. I look forward to having him continue to advise me and be of service to the American people. I have no further comments." That's a question.

Moore: You've obviously paid close attention over the past five years. I think it will be even more orchestrated, however.

If Rove does get indicted, I can see the president pardoning him and saying we need to put this all behind us in a time of war and move on together as a nation. The only real question in all of this for me is how much political damage is going to be done before the president has to make some kind of move to get Rove out of the White House.

If Rove gets too harmed by this, and there are charges, he won't be able to help with legislation or all the work he is doing to set up the mid-term elections next year and that would be devastating for the GOP and what little hope Bush has left for some kind of meaningful legacy. The White House is placing tremendous pressure on Fitzgerald and he has to be even more principled than his fine reputation to not soften in his approach to this case. But you have to believe that the prosecutor did not go after reporters for two national publications unless he was very close to making a very big and important case. I will be extremely surprised if we don't see some indictments in PlameGate.

Perhaps you're missing the point: Rove will not be convicted of violating any section of Title 50, Chapter 15, Subchapter IV of the USCA based upon the CIA's determination that it's "possible" a crime may have been committed. Nor does such an assertion from the CIA mean that Valerie Plame is a "covert agent" as defined in 50 USC 426.