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

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:

The big difference is the known facts.. We know that the CIA asserted that a covert agent was revealed.

We know this is a fact? We have heard a high ranking CIA official say it? or has it been quoted with an inference that this was the intent? From what I've been reading from numerous sources, there is considerable question about that at this time.

Perhaps we need to see it written on CIA letterhead?

Quote:

The big difference is the known facts.. We know that the CIA asserted that a covert agent was revealed.

We know this is a fact? We have heard a high ranking CIA official say it? or has it been quoted with an inference that this was the intent? From what I've been reading from numerous sources, there is considerable question about that at this time.

Ticomaya wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:

The big difference is the known facts.. We know that the CIA asserted that a covert agent was revealed.

We know this is a fact? We have heard a high ranking CIA official say it? or has it been quoted with an inference that this was the intent? From what I've been reading from numerous sources, there is considerable question about that at this time.

Perhaps we need to see it written on CIA letterhead?

CIA letterhead discussing the revelation of a covert agent and the dates they contacted the DoJ about that fact are located here...
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/plame.cia.letter.pdf

Anything on when they asserted that everyone in Gitmo was a terrorist?
Your speculation vs the CIA determination reported to law enforcement are apples and oranges.

parados wrote:

Provide your source of the CIA claiming everyone in Gitmo is a terrorist, preferably written on CIA letterhead.

I forgot to type those last two posts to you slowly ... my fault. Maybe if you just read them slowly it will have the same effect. Try reading THIS POST in particular. Good luck.

And in case you forgot, you didn't answer my questions in that last post to you.

Ticomaya wrote:

Each one has his own set of facts supporting that conclusion, and no I don't know what those facts are. But the decision to detain them should be made upon an articulable set of facts, not merely because the CIA thinks they should be held indefinitely.

Quite. The Gitmo case is a complicated total of elements, some of which we can not know, others are for all of us to review in the news and reports.

You have come to the conclusion that the detainees there are probably terrorists, on the basis of the different things you have read about it. Not just on the basis of what the CIA says or didn't say.

Similarly, I'm sure Parados, like the rest of us, has come to the conclusion that there are probably a significant number of innocents at Gitmo on the basis of a scope of information. Knowing Parados, he has not come to that conclusion simply because he does or does not want to believe the CIA; he has reviewed the prospect of what the CIA might know, and balanced it off against all the other information he has read that would suggest otherwise. And this of course is where your equation with the Plame case (and your allegation of hypocrisy or at least inconsistency to Parados), falls flat.

I, for one, do not believe all detainees at Gitmo are probably terrorists and I do not believe so, not because I simply wouldn't take the CIA at its word, but because I have seen enough other information IMO to suggest otherwise.

In comparison, have you seen any information regarding Plame's status that would give you reason to not accept the CIA's assertion on the matter? Could you share it with us?

If your argument is simply - well, I don't know anything that would refute the CIA's assertion about Plame's work for them, but I am simply not willing to just take them on their word on it - then you are going a lot further than Parados or the rest of us are going re: Gitmo.

Our unwillingness to believe the CIA on Gitmo is at least based on pieces of information that in our eyes contradict it. Your unwillingness to believe the CIA on the question of who actually worked for them would be based on - sheer principle?

(Now that would be quite a can of worms - did you show the same unwillingness to take the CIA on its word when it came to Saddam Hussein's alleged posession of WMD, for example?)

See, I was actually going somewhere with that ;-)

There's also the question of sheer scope of course: not taking an agency's word on the guilt of hundreds of people at a stroke is quite another thing than not believing their statement about a single employee of theirs. But that flaw in your equation was already clear enough, I think.

Tico...
Are you really going to argue that an "undercover CIA employee" can not be a "covert agent"? and is not covered as such under 426?

I find that argument laughable.. I will have to bookmark that one for when and if there is a trial to trot it out as your defense. It's too funny. 426A specifically defines covert agent as an undecover CIA employee that works or has worked overseas. This puts us right back to your argument that you have no evidence of Plame being overseas for any assignment..

Gee. That would be classified and the CIA would have that information to make the determination if revealing her name violated the law and they DID make that determination. Your only logical refutation is that the CIA either failed to read the law or they lied.

Which argument are you making Tico? Are you calling the CIA investigators incompetent or liars?

'Mark of Rove': Attack, leave no trail
His Texas opponents saw pattern in political operatives' campaigns
07:45 AM CDT on Wednesday, July 13, 2005
By WAYNE SLATER / The Dallas Morning News

AUSTIN - As Texas' top political operative, Karl Rove honed an ability to damage an opponent without clear evidence that he was responsible.

Quote:

Rove Source of Plame Leak?
Editor & Publisher reported this just before midnight Friday. Time Magazine has turned over documents to the Grand Jury which is investigating the Valerie Plame leak. On the McLaughlin Group Friday night, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, said that the leak came from Karl Rove.

Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's remarks:

"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury, the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.

"And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/182409.htm

He isn't superman either, and I would be damned frustrated trying to do my job with reporters hounding my every step, seeing myself accused every night on the nightly news, being on the front page of every newspaper, and knowing the Democrats were leaping in front of every camera demanding that I be investigated, reprimanded, fired, or tarred and feathered.

Rove doesn't deserve the punishment so many people want to dole out on him. I think 100,000 years of continuous rape by the most vile demons in the deepest pits of hell should me more than adequate retribution for Karl.

After that give him a glass of lemonade and send him home to his boy-lover.

The Letter to Conyers implies possible wrong doing, but that could be just about anything. It does not explicitly say that Valerie Plame was a covert agent or that she was intentionally outed. That could be inferred, but only by speculation. It meaning could also be an effort to clear up an accusation that somebody intended to commit a crime. We honestly can't know what was in the memo sent over to the DOJ at this time.

I'm not asserting she's not a covert agent. I recognize I don't have all the facts at my disposal. You'll recall my first question was asking whether it's been established -- or just assumed -- that she's a covert agent.

What authority are you deferring to? This is the whole point. I've seen nothing to establish that Ms. Plame is a covert agent, except for you all claiming: (A) "of course she's a covert agent," (B) the fact that CIA has suggested the possibility there might have been a law violated means she's a covert agent, and (C) -- my personal favorite -- the fact that Fitzgerald is investigating the matter means she's a covert agent.

For all I know, the CIA knew that at one time Ms. Plame was a CIA covert agent (probably up until 2002 [1997 + 5 years] if certain reports are to be believed), and relied upon that in taking their position. They might be looking at a different law entirely. But I'm not aware of there being anything to suggest definitively that the CIA has concluded that Ms. Plame fits the Sec. 426 definition of "covert agent" at all times material herein.

So while I'm interested in engaging in a legal analysis of this particular issue based on the known facts, you folks would prefer to not do that. I imagine it's because you can't prove she's a covert agent based on the known facts. And you can't bring yourselves to admit it, for some reason. Perhaps there are facts that exist that establish Ms. Plame is a covert agent ... perhaps Fitzgerald has information that will establish that Ms. Plame is a covert agent ... perhaps the CIA has facts that will establish that Ms. Plame is a covert agent. But at the present time you don't know what those facts are, or frankly, whether any such facts exist.

I will explain it for Tico in my next post. Feel free to read it and explain how you think the CIA failed to meet its requirements.

He isn't superman either, and I would be damned frustrated trying to do my job with reporters hounding my every step, seeing myself accused every night on the nightly news, being on the front page of every newspaper, and knowing the Democrats were leaping in front of every camera demanding that I be investigated, reprimanded, fired, or tarred and feathered.

The CIA claimed she was.

You are questioning their classification. OK. Fine.. what evidence do you to contradict the CIA which is the ONLY source that would have the relevent information. Such information would be obviously classified since a trip overseas as a covert agent would have to be that. You are requiring that you be given information that can not be provided then asking if it is true because you aren't being given that information. A lame argument on your part Tico. Using that argument one could make the case that Rove is obviously guilty since they don't have information that the prosecuter has.

The facts are Tico that the CIA examined the law and the revelation and concluded that based on those facts there was the possibility of a crime. Lets assume for a moment that your argument is correct and Plame was NOT overseas in the last 5 yeas and did not meet the standard set out in 426. If that was the case then there is NO possibility of a crime, is there.

The ONLY way there can be the possibility of a crime being committed in revealing the identity of an employee of the CIA that was undercover is if it meets the standard set out in 426.

In order for your argument to have any validity Tico it means that the CIA was incompetent or lying.

REPEAT - If Plame did NOT meet the standard set out in 426 then there is NO POSSIBILITY of a crime.
The CIA said there WAS that possibility hence either Plame did meet that standard or they are lying or incompetent. There are NO OTHER CHOICES here Tico..

Can you present ANY OTHER reason of why the CIA would say there was the possibility of a crime Tico? I can see NONE based on the specifics of what the CIA alleged was the crime.

As you have repeatedly stated Tico the ONLY way it could POSSIBLY be a crime is if Plame met the standards in 426.. The CIA said it was POSSIBLY a CRIME.