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

One of the ruling judges on the case of the two reporters who refused to divulge their Plame-outing source was about to go easy on them when he read Fitzgerald's new information - eight pages of which were redacted from the public - and said that the national-security seriousness of what he read changed his mind. The court then ordered Time's Matthew Cooper and the New York Times' Judith Miller to testify or else; Cooper finally did, and Miller is in jail for contempt of court.

We don't know what is in those eight blacked-out pages - and, if they really do involve national-security matters, we may never be permitted to know precisely. But apparently they provide the locus around which Fitzgerald is building a case that could result in indictments at least for perjury for a number of Administration officials and perhaps journalists as well.

(Another judge said that the prosecutor's classified filing - those missing eight pages - "decides the case." In other words, to quote Lawrence O'Donnell: "All the judges who have seen the prosecutors secret evidence firmly believe he is pursuing a very serious crime, and they have done everything they can to help him get an indictment.")

Further, depending on what Bush and Cheney knew and when they knew it - and what they did or covered-up in the possible light of such knowledge - there may be plenty of ammunition for those calling for impeachment hearings. Note that Bush hired a private attorney last summer for this CIA leak case.

But, from what Fitzgerald has suggested, he and the grand jury long ago determined who the leakers were. That's not what the issue is about now. The investigation is all tied in with the national-security matters talked about on those blacked-out eight pages.

And, a reasonable guess is that those pages deal in some fashion with the actions - legal or illegal, overt or covert, actual or covered-up - of the members of an inner council of Administration heavies called the White House Iraq Group.

One of the ruling judges on the case of the two reporters who refused to divulge their Plame-outing source was about to go easy on them

Rove's anger at a former diplomat's opinion piece in a newspaper may destroy all that he has dreamed. And if it does, it will ruin more than just a political operative. A president will likely come to grief. And disaffected Americans, made cynical by the failures of their government and its elected leaders, will find one more reason to disengage from the democratic process.

And that's the reason we all ought to be worried.

Bush shouldn't fire Karl Rove

The "gotcha" game is in full swing in Washington as the vultures circle slowly over the White House, hoping for Karl Rove's scalp.

The ritualized homicide/suicide is well-programmed. A White House insider is accused of doing something, the news media hype the story and, finally, without proof or presumption of innocence, the staffer resigns so as not to become a "distraction" from the president's agenda.

But maybe this time the cycle can be stopped before it runs its bloody course.

Karl Rove did nothing wrong. The statute he allegedly violated has a number of very specific triggers. The person who reveals the identity of a covert CIA operative has to intend to uncover her identity, know she is a covert operative and know that he is blowing her cover.

The law is designed to stop the likes of Philip Agee, whose 1975 book Inside the Company revealed secret CIA information to sell books. Rove's actions are a far stretch from those the statute was designed to cover.

Rove did not call Time magazine's Matt Cooper. Cooper called him. He did not mention Valerie Plame's name. He may not have even known it. He had no intent to reveal her identity. The context of the conversation was that Rove was trying to disabuse Cooper of the impression that CIA Director George Tenet had been the moving force in choosing former Ambassador Joe Wilson to investigate the nuclear dealings reported to be going on in Niger.

Rove said that it was not Tenet who pushed the appointment but that it likely stemmed from the fact that Wilson's wife "apparently works" at the CIA.

To call that conversation a deliberate revelation of an agent's identity designed to blow her cover is a far, far stretch of the statute's wording and intent.

But just as Rove did not intend to blow Plame's cover, so the Democrats demanding his head are not very interested in upholding the statute in question. Their motives are totally political. They want revenge against Rove for his successful role in piloting the Bush election and reelection campaigns, and they want to be sure that Bush does not have access to Karl's advice in the remaining years of his second term.

Washington is a mean town where human sacrifice has been raised to an art form. But Karl Rove does not deserve this fate. He has served loyally and well, resisting enormous opportunities to leave midway and reap a bonanza of income in the private sector. He has shown himself to be a man of uncommon integrity and selflessness in serving this administration and this country. He should not be tossed to the partisan wolves.

Bush, having appointed a special prosecutor and pledged to fire anyone who was responsible for revealing Plame's identity, cannot just sweep the matter under the rug. But he should allow Rove to clear his name through the normal process of investigation and testimony.

He should keep Karl onboard, stipulating only that he fully answer all questions from a grand jury ?- as he has done already? ?- should the prosecutor need him to appear again.

If Rove is indicted or even named as a target, Bush will have to let him go. But that's not going to happen based on the current fact pattern, and Bush should not let himself be pushed ahead of the process by firing Rove.

Indeed, there is some question that the reporters who took Rove's lead, looked up Plame's name and published it may themselves be more likely to have violated the statute than is Rove himself. Whoever took the information Rove provided and outed Plame was, in fact, deliberately outing a CIA operative and may be a better fit for the statute's intent than Karl Rove.

Bush should not fire Rove. He should stick by him until or unless the criminal investigation makes it evident that he may have violated the statute. Otherwise, he should stay on the job.

Waxman: Bush Statement on Rove Conflicts with Executive Order
By Rep. Henry A. Waxman
YubaNet

Monday 18 July 2005

Dear Mr. President:

In June 2004, you said that you would fire anyone found to be involved in the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's identity as a covert CIA agent. [1] Today, you significantly changed your position, stating that you would remove Karl Rove or other White House officials involved in the security breach only "if someone committed a crime."

[snip]

Your piece, while well-intentioned, chooses to focus on a single statute; whereas there are many, many other crimes that could be levied against Rove et al.

See my piece on the last page as to why the 'I didn't know the information was secret' defense isn't going to hold up long.

Cycloptichorn

Actually we don't. It is common knowledge that the investigation has moved well past focusing just on the IIPA statute. But if you stay in denial, be my guest.

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Waxman: Bush Statement on Rove Conflicts with Executive Order
By Rep. Henry A. Waxman
YubaNet

Monday 18 July 2005

Dear Mr. President:

In June 2004, you said that you would fire anyone found to be involved in the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's identity as a covert CIA agent. [1] Today, you significantly changed your position, stating that you would remove Karl Rove or other White House officials involved in the security breach only "if someone committed a crime."

[snip]

He didn't "change his position," he clarified it. On September 30, 2003, when Bush was first asked about the leak, he said: "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of." Link.

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Waxman: Bush Statement on Rove Conflicts with Executive Order
By Rep. Henry A. Waxman
YubaNet

Monday 18 July 2005

Dear Mr. President:

In June 2004, you said that you would fire anyone found to be involved in the disclosure of Valerie Wilson's identity as a covert CIA agent. [1] Today, you significantly changed your position, stating that you would remove Karl Rove or other White House officials involved in the security breach only "if someone committed a crime."

[snip]

He didn't "change his position," he clarified it. On September 30, 2003, when Bush was first asked about the leak, he said: "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of." Link.

White House statements, dating back over the two years of the case, have varied. On Sept. 30, 2003, Bush used language reminiscent of what he said on Monday. "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is, " he said then. "And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

At other moments, though, Bush's language has been less precise. In Sea Island, Ga. in June 2004, Bush was asked whether he would fire anyone who was involved in leaking Plame's name -- which might or might not violate the law, depending on the circumstances. Without hesitation, Bush said "yes."

Chrissee wrote:

Actually we don't. It is common knowledge that the investigation has moved well past focusing just on the IIPA statute. But if you stay in denial, be my guest.

lol. I can't keep up with your ever changing theories of why Karl Rove should be strung up ... so I don't try.

So now it's the old "it's common knowledge" approach again. That worked out quite well for you with the "of course she's a 'covert agent'" angle, didn't it?