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

cicerone imposter wrote:

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.

If she is covered by the law and they know it, they cannot give her name or reveal her identity to Novak whether he uses the name in the article or not.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

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.

I hate sound redundant, but you honestly think the Administration has briefed staffers to the effect that Valerie Plame was a "covert agent"?

0 Replies

President Lincoln: "First inaugural address,March 4, 1861 " Why should there not be patiant confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better, or equel hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the all Mighty Ruler of nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side on the north, or on yours of the south, that truth, and that justice, will surely prevail, by the judgment of this great tribunal, the American people "

0 Replies

Quote:

I hate sound redundant, but you honestly think the Administration has briefed staffers to the effect that Valerie Plame was a "covert agent"?

Any staffer, that would include the subjects of the investigation, with access to the referred memo, that would include the same subjects, would know that information regarding Valerie Plame was classified 'Secret'. Those same staffers would have been briefed on the handling and transmission of such information.

They generally remind readers of such classified information that it is not their decision as to whether or not such material ought to be classified, it just is.

Joe

0 Replies

Plame's Identity Marked As Secret
Memo Central to Probe Of Leak Was Written By State Dept. Analyst

By Walter Pincus and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 21, 2005; A01

A classified State Department memorandum central to a federal leak investigation contained information about CIA officer Valerie Plame in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret, a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified, according to current and former government officials.

Plame -- who is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson, in the memo -- is mentioned in the second paragraph of the three-page document, which was written on June 10, 2003, by an analyst in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), according to a source who described the memo to The Washington Post.

The paragraph identifying her as the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was clearly marked to show that it contained classified material at the "secret" level, two sources said. The CIA classifies as "secret" the names of officers whose identities are covert, according to former senior agency officials.

Anyone reading that paragraph should have been aware that it contained secret information, though that designation was not specifically attached to Plame's name and did not describe her status as covert, the sources said. It is a federal crime, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, for a federal official to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert CIA official if the person knows the government is trying to keep it secret.

Prosecutors attempting to determine whether senior government officials knowingly leaked Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative to the media are investigating whether White House officials gained access to information about her from the memo, according to two sources familiar with the investigation.

The memo may be important to answering three central questions in the Plame case: Who in the Bush administration knew about Plame's CIA role? Did they know the agency was trying to protect her identity? And, who leaked it to the media?

Almost all of the memo is devoted to describing why State Department intelligence experts did not believe claims that Saddam Hussein had in the recent past sought to purchase uranium from Niger. Only two sentences in the seven-sentence paragraph mention Wilson's wife.....

Washington Post

0 Replies

Squinney, you posted it before I did.

Tico,
I am going to 'call' you on several points that you have posted about, and have made copies of those quotes.

In the meantime, having caught up on the last several pages here, I am struck again at what appears to be your mean-spirited need to insult posters. And, your intellectual laziness. As a lawyer, you know better. You post fast and furiously, throwing your weight around as a lawyer in what feels like an arrogant attempt to be elitist here on that basis alone.

But your posts can be very shallow and unreasoned.

All hat, no cattle. New idiomatic expression to me, but I certainly like it.

If this post gets me banned, then so be it.

0 Replies

Quote:

All hat, no cattle

Just as a tiny aside here in Australia we have a saying "the bigger the hat the smaller the property" ("property" being a general term to describe someone's rural land holding). Sorry for the drift.

0 Replies

Tico

Quote:

I hate sound redundant, but you honestly think the Administration has briefed staffers to the effect that Valerie Plame was a "covert agent"?

Well, I don't know about 'briefed.' Much of this case seems to revolve around that state dept. memo discussed in the above story.

According to that story the memo was clearly marked 'secret.' If this is the source of WH knowledge, and not 'unnamed reporters,' then this, I'm sure I don't need to tell ya, opens up the door for a whole BUNCH of different indictments, if Fitzgerald wants to go that route.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

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.

Tico, Isn't that exactly what Lawyers at CIA did before they reported this as a possible crime to DoJ? Are you claiming CIA lawyers are incompetent?

0 Replies

I didn't realize ignorance of the law was a defense.

0 Replies

Bit by bit the evidence is being revealed that the WH knew or should have known that information about Plame was classified.

Rove and Libby may not have committed a crime but I don't see how anyone can argue that they didn't violate the rules governing their security clearance.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

I didn't realize ignorance of the law was a defense.

It isn't.

0 Replies

sumac wrote:

Tico,
I am going to 'call' you on several points that you have posted about, and have made copies of those quotes.

Then please do, rather than merely "threatening" me with doing so.

Quote:

In the meantime, having caught up on the last several pages here, I am struck again at what appears to be your mean-spirited need to insult posters.

If you are claiming I have exhibited a "mean-spirited need to insult posters" on the last several pages of this thread, you will need to tell me what you are referring to. Admittedly, I only went back 4 pages or so, and I didn't see a lot of anything that could reasonably be characterized as "insults." So please post your links.

Quote:

And, your intellectual laziness. As a lawyer, you know better. You post fast and furiously, throwing your weight around as a lawyer in what feels like an arrogant attempt to be elitist here on that basis alone.

lol. Again, please be specific in your accusation. I am not going to guess as to what specific comment of mine you're referring. If you find my posting style to be "arrogant," and that turns you off, I'm not sure what I can do for you.

Quote:

But your posts can be very shallow and unreasoned.

So can yours. What's your point?

Quote:

If this post gets me banned, then so be it.

No, that post won't get you banned. So you will be able to explain yourself in your next post.

0 Replies

Joe Nation wrote:

Quote:
I hate sound redundant, but you honestly think the Administration has briefed staffers to the effect that Valerie Plame was a "covert agent"?

Any staffer, that would include the subjects of the investigation, with access to the referred memo, that would include the same subjects, would know that information regarding Valerie Plame was classified 'Secret'. Those same staffers would have been briefed on the handling and transmission of such information.

They generally remind readers of such classified information that it is not their decision as to whether or not such material ought to be classified, it just is.

Joe

Joe: We hadn't been discussing the State Dept. memo discussed in the article Squinney posted. We were discussing the Time quote of the unnamed "US Official."

0 Replies

Tico isn't arguing ignorance of the law. He is arguing that the law requires intent on the part of the person revealing a covert agent before it rises to level of a crime. It is similar to the argument those that defended Clinton used when people claimed perjury on his part. The actions of Clinton never rose to the standard needed to meet the law.

Tico is right that it might not be a crime because of the "intent." His argument of Plame not being covert is an obfuscation and an attempt to really narrow the standard of the law. His argument might be a legal defense but if it IS the defense then it seems like it will be quickly buried by evidence to the contrary.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Tico

Quote:
I hate sound redundant, but you honestly think the Administration has briefed staffers to the effect that Valerie Plame was a "covert agent"?

Well, I don't know about 'briefed.' Much of this case seems to revolve around that state dept. memo discussed in the above story.

According to that story the memo was clearly marked 'secret.' If this is the source of WH knowledge, and not 'unnamed reporters,' then this, I'm sure I don't need to tell ya, opens up the door for a whole BUNCH of different indictments, if Fitzgerald wants to go that route.

Cycloptichorn

Agreed. If it is the source of Rove's knowledge, that does indeed open another door.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Quote:
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.

Tico, Isn't that exactly what Lawyers at CIA did before they reported this as a possible crime to DoJ? Are you claiming CIA lawyers are incompetent?

I think lawyers for the CIA would have that ability. But the referral of this case to the DOJ is NOT necessarily a finding that Ms. Plame is a "covert agent." I'm not claiming anyone is incompetent, nor am I claiming to know the basis for the belief of the CIA that a "possible crime" might have been committed.

0 Replies

squinney wrote:

I didn't realize ignorance of the law was a defense.

It isn't. What are you talking about?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Tico isn't arguing ignorance of the law. He is arguing that the law requires intent on the part of the person revealing a covert agent before it rises to level of a crime. It is similar to the argument those that defended Clinton used when people claimed perjury on his part. The actions of Clinton never rose to the standard needed to meet the law.

Correct.

Quote:

Tico is right that it might not be a crime because of the "intent." His argument of Plame not being covert is an obfuscation and an attempt to really narrow the standard of the law. His argument might be a legal defense but if it IS the defense then it seems like it will be quickly buried by evidence to the contrary.

<deep breath> I have not argued that Plame is not a "covert agent." To do so would require more information than I have available to me. I have raised the question whether it has been established that she was. And my doing so is not an attempt to "narrow the standard of the law." The law is the law. If Plame is not a "covert agent," the actions of Rove do not violate the IIPA. This is the reality that I'm pointing out. If there is evidence that Plame is a "covert agent" at the time of disclosure, she is covered by the IIPA. That is the case, and I've never stated otherwise.

More explosions in London.

0 Replies

Call it briefed, call it whatever you like.

I am assuming that Time asked a "US official" who is familiar with Plame's status if they thought she was covered. That the official said she was cannot be good for Rove's side.

As that memo was circulated to quite a few people in the White House, we can assume that anyone who read it should know Mrs Wilson was off limits.

Is there really anyone in the White House staffer closer to Bush than Rove? He's Bush's political strategist, and they have known each other 30 years.

It seems very likely Rove read that memo.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know