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

"Latest explanation from the left"?

Again, you're overstating, Tico.

As I am someone who has repeatedly pointed to that piece of evidence (and have said "US Official," not Senior Administration anything), I think it's reasonable for me to assume that is directed at me -- unfairly.

We are trying to figure out if she was covert or not.

We likely will not know anything until the grand jury returns an idictment.

Meanwhile, an interesting tidbit surfaces -- Time magazine, not some random rag with no credibility, sees fit to quote an anonymous US official as saying that, "Plame was indeed considered covert for the purposes of the Intelligence Identities Protection law."

Of course it's pertinent. Nothing has been established legally, nothing can be established legally by us observers, we don't have enough information and just need to wait and see.

This snippet can go a few ways. It could hang there in a vaccuum. It could be debunked in some way -- the U.S. official could be unmasked as someone who is in no position to know, or an email communication or memo or something could indicate he or she is not telling the truth. The U.S. official's case could be bolstered -- more quotes from reputable sources, or going on the record, or transcripts released, or memos released, or something.

But it's not meaningless. Unless it is debunked -- which, again, may happen, but as far as I know hasn't happened yet -- it's one more piece of evidence that indicates that it is more likely that she was considered covert under IIP than not.

0 Replies

Disclosure of CIA Agent Identity

Rep. Waxman Calls for Hearing on Rove's Role in Plame Outing

Monday, July 11, 2005 -- VIDEO

In light of mounting evidence that Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove may have been involved in the outing of a covert CIA agent, Rep. Waxman once again called for Chairman Davis to hold a hearing to investigate whether White House officials breached national security law by disclosing the agent's identity. In on a one-minute speech on the House floor, Rep. Waxman cited former-President Bush's statement that those who expose the identity of such agents are "the most insidious of traitors."

0 Replies

"Twas I who affixed the "Senior" to the person Time identified as a "US official". My error.

Still, I do not believe Time would go to a low ranking official and publish his statement in such an important case.

That would be more in the style of the New York Post or Newsmax. Very Happy

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

"Latest explanation from the left"?

Again, you're overstating, Tico.

Of course I am. I meant to say "the latest explanation from the left on this thread."

Quote:

As I am someone who has repeatedly pointed to that piece of evidence (and have said "US Official," not Senior Administration anything), I think it's reasonable for me to assume that is directed at me -- unfairly.

Kelticwizard has owned up to calling this person a "Senior" official. I was referring to his comment, which I ran with for a while, not to you.

Quote:

We are trying to figure out if she was covert or not.

We likely will not know anything until the grand jury returns an idictment.

Meanwhile, an interesting tidbit surfaces -- Time magazine, not some random rag with no credibility, sees fit to quote an anonymous US official as saying that, "Plame was indeed considered covert for the purposes of the Intelligence Identities Protection law."

Of course it's pertinent. Nothing has been established legally, nothing can be established legally by us observers, we don't have enough information and just need to wait and see.

This snippet can go a few ways. It could hang there in a vaccuum. It could be debunked in some way -- the U.S. official could be unmasked as someone who is in no position to know, or an email communication or memo or something could indicate he or she is not telling the truth. The U.S. official's case could be bolstered -- more quotes from reputable sources, or going on the record, or transcripts released, or memos released, or something.

But it's not meaningless. Unless it is debunked -- which, again, may happen, but as far as I know hasn't happened yet -- it's one more piece of evidence that indicates that it is more likely that she was considered covert under IIP than not.

I nearly agree with you completely here, Soz. But I do think, at this time, it is meaningless. Put it aside ... keep an eye on it ... but until such time as it is explaned more fully, and given context and form, it is meaningless. And it isn't evidence, unlike the very relevant opinion of Karl Rove concerning his intent. The only possible way it would be evidence is if this official is in a position to have knowledge concerning where Ms. Plame has been stationed in the last year, and his/her opinion as to the legal effect of that knowledge is only pertinent if he has the legal background and experience to square those facts with the IIPA, and form a reasoned legal opinion.

-----

KW: As far as whether Time would make an error in publishing this statment of an anonymous "US official," let's not forget Newsweek's Toiletgate.

0 Replies

I'd say it's more meaningful than Rove's own stated opinion. If his intent were nefarious, why would he say so?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

I'd say it's more meaningful than Rove's own stated opinion. If his intent were nefarious, why would he say so?

You called it "evidence." Perhaps you weren't referring to legally sufficient evidence -- evidence admissible at trial, but I was. Rove's opinion and statement as to his own motive and intent is certainly admissible if he were to testify. He has already testified under oath at the Grand Jury. There is no question that his statement is evidence.

Meanwhile, we have an unknown, unnamed US Official, whose capacity we don't know, who may or may not be in a position to know Ms. Plame's whereabout during the last 5 years. In short, we don't know whether this person would be in a position to be called as a fact witness at trial (in which case their testimony concerning the facts -- where Ms. Plame has been stationed in the 5 years prior to the disclosure -- would be evidence). In any event this person would not be called as an expert witness at trial to give their opinion as to whether Ms. Plame is a "covert agent" under the IIPA, inasmuch as that is a function for the jury to perform. So, until we know more, we don't know whether this is evidence or not.

And it seems silly to call it more meaningful at this point, given the complete lack of foundation for the statement, other than it being from a "US Official."

-----

Again I feel compelled to remind you all of the Gitmo/Toiletgate thread, and the argument from the left there was that the accusation of an anonymous US Official saying a Koran had been flushed down the toilet (as quoted in Newseek) was more meaninful than the Justice Department claiming it didn't happen. The left claimed a detainee, a suspected terrorist, was more believable than the Bush Administration, because the Bush Administration had a motive to lie. As I recall, things didn't pan out well for the left in that argument.

0 Replies

"Toiletgate"....."things didn't pan out well.." I love the English language, it's fun Very Happy

0 Replies

Tikey, since your burden of proof is so high on everything concerning this case, you could save everyone a lot of time by just waiting until there are convictions in this case before commenting further.

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

Tikey, since your burden of proof is so high on everything concerning this case, you could save everyone a lot of time by just waiting until there are convictions in this case before commenting further.

Do as I say, not as I do, huh?

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

Tikey, since your burden of proof is so high on everything concerning this case, you could save everyone a lot of time by just waiting until there are convictions in this case before commenting further.

Why don't you just ignore me while I continue to point out the faults in your thinking on this issue? I usually ignore you.

0 Replies

You have yet to point out any fault in my thinking but you have claimed you have several times. I am originally from Texas, we have a saying for y'all.

All Hat, No Cattle Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Tico, you might wish to characterize the position of the "US Official" as the guy who sells souveneirs in a Federal building, but I believe that Time aims a bit higher than that.

I believe it likely that each Administration has sessions where it's high ranked officials are briefed on how to deal with classified information. It would behoove them to do so.

Therefore, the thinking of one person from an Administration is likely to be indicative of everyone in the Administration on this issue, assuming the same people did the briefing or were in charge of the briefing personnel.

For that reason, I think Time's publication of the fact that a "US Official" thinks that Valerie Wilson is indeed covered by the statute is relevant indeed.

I eagerly await Tico's response:

A) Do you know for a fact that such sessions take place?

B) Do you know for a fact that the same people brief the officials?

C) Do you know how highly ranked the offical has to be before they qualify for the sessions?

D) Do you know if the Time quoted official meets that ranking?

And so on.

See? Anyone can play Tico's game. It's not hard.

Just attack any line of thinking that is not presentable to a court as unreasonable.

We are not trying the case here, Tico. We are discussing the case, from the info that is made available to us.

Fact is, if there was nothing for Rove and Libby to worry about, they would have given press conferences months ago, told everyone they were the ones behind the story, and gotten the whole thing over with. Instead, we wait for weeks for Rove and then Libby to own up to being the people involved.

They are certainly not acting like people who have nothing to worry about.

0 Replies

kelt, In addition to the briefing, they also signed documents that outlined the prohibiton of releasing secret information to the public. Senator Waxman provided these documents that even prohibits the president to release secret information, and addressed president Bush to respond. We'll wait until hell freezes over.

0 Replies

And, for what it's worth, Bush should have said 'indicted'... there's no reason to have to wait until the conclusion of a trial.

This sounds sensible, but of course the question what to do when a clearance-holder violates his security agreement isn't a new one. There are procedures for this circumstance established by Executive Order (the latest one signed by George W. Bush).

Those procedures do not call for waiting until the criminal process has ground to a conclusion. The head of department -- which in this case would be George W. Bush -- is responsible for figuring out what was done and taking appropriate action, including revocation of clearance and dismissal, as appropriate.

Here's section 5.5, in full:

(a) If the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office finds that a violation of this order or its implementing directives has occurred, the Director shall make a report to the head of the agency or to the senior agency official so that corrective steps, if appropriate, may be taken.

(b) Officers and employees of the United States Government, and its contractors, licensees, certificate holders, and grantees shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently:

(1) disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified under this order or predecessor orders;

(2) classify or continue the classification of information in violation of this order or any implementing directive;

(3) create or continue a special access program contrary to the requirements of this order; or

(4) contravene any other provision of this order or its implementing directives.

(c) Sanctions may include reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions in accordance with applicable law and agency regulation.

(d) The agency head, senior agency official, or other supervisory official shall, at a minimum, promptly remove the classification authority of any individual who demonstrates reckless disregard or a pattern of error in applying the classification standards of this order.

(e) The agency head or senior agency official shall:

(1) take appropriate and prompt corrective action when a violation or infraction under paragraph (b) of this section occurs; and

(2) notify the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office when a violation under paragraph (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section occurs.

So, if the White House press corps wants a new way to torment Scott McClellan, they might start asking "Scott, does the President intend to comply with Section 5.5 of Executive Order 12958?"[/[/color]B]

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Tico, you might wish to characterize the position of the "US Official" as the guy who sells souveneirs in a Federal building, but I believe that Time aims a bit higher than that.

One would hope.

Quote:

I believe it likely that each Administration has sessions where it's high ranked officials are briefed on how to deal with classified information. It would behoove them to do so.

Therefore, the thinking of one person from an Administration is likely to be indicative of everyone in the Administration on this issue, assuming the same people did the briefing or were in charge of the briefing personnel.

For that reason, I think Time's publication of the fact that a "US Official" thinks that Valerie Wilson is indeed covered by the statute is relevant indeed.

If I understand you correctly, KW, you are of the opinion that because this "US Official" has stated to a Time reporter that he/she believes Plame was a "covert agent" for the purposes of the IIPA, that must mean that everyone in the Administration thinks the same, because that is how they've been briefed?

Please correct me if I'm wrong in that restatement.

Quote:

I eagerly await Tico's response:

A) Do you know for a fact that such sessions take place?

No.

Quote:

B) Do you know for a fact that the same people brief the officials?

No.

Quote:

C) Do you know how highly ranked the offical has to be before they qualify for the sessions?

No.

Quote:

D) Do you know if the Time quoted official meets that ranking?

No.

Now, you answer those same questions.

Quote:

And so on.

See? Anyone can play Tico's game. It's not hard.

I don't think you understand the rules.

Quote:

Just attack any line of thinking that is not presentable to a court as unreasonable.

We are not trying the case here, Tico. We are discussing the case, from the info that is made available to us.

I understand we aren't trying the case here ... I've made that point several times. But the info that is available to us is very limited. Your questions posed above serve to highlight that fact, regardless of what your intentions were in asking them. Because we have limited info we are unable to determine whether Ms. Plame is a "covert agent" at this time. I first said that about 100 pages ago on this thread.

The efforts to characterize Ms. Plame - definitively - as a "covert agent" under the IIPA by those on this thread who have done so, have been exercises in assumption, conjecture, and hypothesis. I have merely pointed that out. And instead of simply agreeing that indeed because we have limited facts, they are only assuming and guessing when they claim she fits the definition, they claim that I am being partisan, when I'm only being reasonable and measured.

If I am following your line of thought as stated above, you are of the belief that because an unknown US Official has stated his opinion is that Valerie Plame was a "covert agent," that means that person has been briefed by the Administration to that effect, and that thinking represents the thinking of the Administration. You really think the administration has briefed staff to the effect that Ms. Plame was in fact a covert agent? Are you talking WH staff? Someone with the CIA? DOJ?

0 Replies

tico might be right; according to a Novak statement to CNN.

"They asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operative and not in charge of undercover operators," Novak said.

I think, at this point, we must wait for Fitzgerald's investigation report to determine whether any laws were broken. It seems it can go either way.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

And, for what it's worth, Bush should have said 'indicted'... there's no reason to have to wait until the conclusion of a trial.

I agree.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

tico might be right; according to a Novak statement to CNN.

Well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then. Wink

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Now, you answer those same questions.

The questions were written as examples of your expected response.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

If I am following your line of thought as stated above, you are of the belief that because an unknown US Official has stated his opinion is that Valerie Plame was a "covert agent," that means that person has been briefed by the Administration to that effect, and that thinking represents the thinking of the Administration.

Very likely. I don't think Time was asking the fellow in charge of maintenance in a Federal building.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know