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

Presidents apparently do give their political strategists access to classified information. Remember when it came out that Dick Morris was telling bits of classified information to the hooker he was paying to let him lick her toes?

Although the info was apparently declassified a few weeks later. I am not certain as to why possible evidence of microbes on a meteorite apparently coming from Mars was classified in the first place.

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.

I had taken that quote to mean knowledge concerning Plame's position in the CIA was required in order for the leak to be unlawful.

0 Replies

Tico wrote:

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.

Correct. You just keep emphasizing that nobody here has any conclusive evidence she was a covert agent-which evidence would be likely unavailable to the general public-in an attempt to derail conversation on the thread. Very Happy

Meanwhile, if she is not covered by the law, I suppose there are alternative explanations as to why neither Rove nor Libby came out and admitted their role-they kept dodging for months. And why Fitzgerald has been investigating for months.

Alternative explanations are welcome. Mr. Green

0 Replies

Quote:

If Plame is not a "covert agent," the actions of Rove do not violate the IIPA.

Or anyone else for that matter, if that was the case 1) There wouldn't have been a Grand Jury impaneled or 2) The investigation would have been wrapped up long ago.

But again the "not covert" canard is a RED HERRING anyway as the investigation has moved into other areas. Maybe the serious crime Judge Tatel refers to is a conspiracy under the Espionage Act (have you read it?) Although I believe the convictions most easily prosecuted will be perjury, lying to the FBI, etc I doubt those are the serious crime(s) laid out in the redacted 8 pages.

On this public forum, because we have so few real facts, the burden of proof should be "preponderance of evidence" not "beyond a reasonable doubt." The preponderance of the evidence clearly shoes Plame was covered.

Although Tikey and others are welcome rto keep dancing on the head of a pin to deny this, I suggest we move on, at least until there are new revelations on the "covert" issue.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

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.

What other crimes do you think could be charged in connection to the Valerie Plame case besides revealing the identity of a CIA officer whose name we now find out was classified?

Absent any other possible explanation I think any reasonable person can think it is probable that the crime that may have been committed was revealing the identity of the CIA officer.

0 Replies

The preponderance of the evidence clearly indicates that the "core" crime is violation of th IIPA.

0 Replies

squinney 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.

I had taken that quote to mean knowledge concerning Plame's position in the CIA was required in order for the leak to be unlawful.

No, the "official" I was referring to was the unnamed "US Official" quoted by Time magazine who has opined that Ms. Plame was a "covert agent" for purposes of the IIPA.

0 Replies

"opined" LOL Like he wouldn't know. Anyway this is a Red Herring. I wish I had so much time on my hands that I could spend hours on an issue that no longer matters.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Tico wrote:
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.

Correct. You just keep emphasizing that nobody here has any conclusive evidence she was a covert agent-which evidence would be likely unavailable to the general public-in an attempt to derail conversation on the thread.

Meanwhile, if she is not covered by the law, I suppose there are alternative explanations as to why neither Rove nor Libby came out and admitted their role-they kept dodging for months. And why Fitzgerald has been investigating for months.

Alternative explanations are welcome.

I keep emphasizing that nobody is able to answer the simple question of whether she is a covert agent, a prerequisite for triggering the IIPA. It isn't that there isn't any conclusive evidence ... it's that there is NO evidence.

Many on this thread are pretty much willing to believe anything, so long as it tends to implicate Rove or the Bush Administration in some form of wrongdoing. Some of you point to the fact that there is a grand jury investigation going on as evidence that Ms. Plame is a "covert agent." Some point to the fact that the CIA has referred the case to the DOJ for further investigation of a "possible" crime as evidence that Ms. Plame is a "covert agent." I'm not sure, but I think it's possible that Kuvasz believes the fact that the Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari to Judith Miller is evidence that Ms. Plame is a "covert agent."

My purpose has only been to try and point out the fact that this hasn't been established. It's been wished, it's been inferred, it's been assumed, it's been hypothesized, and it's now been opined by some anonymous "US Official." I've no idea whether she was or wasn't, but the fact is neither do any of you. And if you think that my pointing this out has "deraiiled" your fanciful discussions and desires that Rove be terminated post haste because he has clearly breached the IIPA, you will, I'm sure, forgive me in time.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
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.

What other crimes do you think could be charged in connection to the Valerie Plame case besides revealing the identity of a CIA officer whose name we now find out was classified?

Absent any other possible explanation I think any reasonable person can think it is probable that the crime that may have been committed was revealing the identity of the CIA officer.

Notice how you didn't call her a "covert agent"? Do you understand the legal significance of your doing so?

0 Replies

Chrissee wrote:

Although Tikey and others are welcome rto keep dancing on the head of a pin to deny this, I suggest we move on, at least until there are new revelations on the "covert" issue.

Chrissee wrote:

"opined" LOL Like he wouldn't know. Anyway this is a Red Herring. I wish I had so much time on my hands that I could spend hours on an issue that no longer matters.

I thought you were going to ignore me.

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?

[/b]

this is exactly what the march 2005 amicus brief by ms tonsiles alleges, along with allegations that fitzgerald's office is also incompetent. you will hear more of this nonsense as the case procedes.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Many on this thread are pretty much willing to believe anything, so long as it tends to implicate Rove or the Bush Administration in some form of wrongdoing. Some of you point to the fact that there is a grand jury investigation going on as evidence that Ms. Plame is a "covert agent." Some point to the fact that the CIA has referred the case to the DOJ for further investigation of a "possible" crime as evidence that Ms. Plame is a "covert agent." I'm not sure, but I think it's possible that Kuvasz believes the fact that the Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari to Judith Miller is evidence that Ms. Plame is a "covert agent."

My purpose has only been to try and point out the fact that this hasn't been established. It's been wished, it's been inferred, it's been assumed, it's been hypothesized, and it's now been opined by some anonymous "US Official." I've no idea whether she was or wasn't, but the fact is neither do any of you. And if you think that my pointing this out has "deraiiled" your fanciful discussions and desires that Rove be terminated post haste because he has clearly breached the IIPA, you will, I'm sure, forgive me in time.

sadly, no. the brief, as you surely read on its first page, was originally submitted to the Appellate Court, who rejected its claims as a defense to stop Miller and Cooper from doing the Grand Jury's bidding and reveal their sources. my claim was it was a part of the data from which the Appellate Court based its ruling to jail Miller, and since the Supreme Court decided not to take the appeal case that the matters of Gertz's accusations of previous outings of Plame as covert in his Washington Times article of july 22, 2004 was deemed irrelevant to the matter of whether or not Plame was covert. by the Appellate Court ruling to jail Miller, it rejected the premise of the brief. If it had accepted the premise of the brief, viz., Plame was not covert, or that either the special prosecutor or the CIA was sloppy in determining Plame's covert status then there would have been no legal reason to jail Miller.

that brief used as its premise essentially what you have proposed here, viz., that it is either untrue that Plame was covert or that it is questionable to the point that jailing Miller and Cooper would be itself unjust becaue of the allegations by Ms Tonsiles of the questionable nature of Plame's status.

since miller sits in jail, it is obvious how the judicial system feels about the question of Plame's covert status.

0 Replies

What it all boils down to is that anyone charging that Rove has been less than above-board re Plame is not supporting the troops in the ME. When you critize Rove you are undermining our boys and girls who are fighting the good fight bringing democracy to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. Loose lips sink ships and all that you know. You can atone for your sins by giving Rove and the entire Bush team a medal of freedom for defending american democracy. Keep this in mind, Plame is a girl!

0 Replies

White House Iraq Group
read at http://www.bushwatch.net/
Thursday, July 21, 2005

Rove-Plame Scandal Leading to Deeper White House Horrors?
Opinion by Bernard Weiner

It would appear that this scandal goes way beyond Karl Rove and who said what to whom when about Ms. Plame. It certainly is true, though, that turning over that slimy Rove-Plame rock was the way into the larger issues upon which Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald and his grand jury apparently are focusing....

What's being covered up in the Plame/Rove case seems to revolve around the Bush Administration's orchestrated, and perhaps illegal, propaganda campaign to justify its invasion of Iraq. Valerie Plame and her husband Ambassador Joseph Wilson -- who wrote the op-ed in the New York Times that got this whole thing going -- are just the tips of very large icebergs, and one of those icebergs has a name: the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), which we'll examine below.
---------------------------------------

White House Iraq Group
From SourceWatch

Barton Gellman and Walter Pincus, in the August 10, 2003 Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39500-2003Aug9?language=printer), seem to have broken the story of the White House Iraq Group, with credit to Josh Marshall for keeping the story alive

(http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/002642.html):

The escalation of nuclear rhetoric a year ago, including the introduction of the term "mushroom cloud" into the debate, coincided with the formation of a White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, a task force assigned to "educate the public" about the threat from Hussein, as a participant put it.

Systematic coordination began in August, when Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card, Jr. formed the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, to set strategy for each stage of the confrontation with Baghdad. A senior official who participated in its work called it "an internal working group, like many formed for priority issues, to make sure each part of the White House was fulfilling its responsibilities."

The group met weekly in the Situation Room. Among the regular participants were Karl Rove, the president's senior political adviser; communications strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio; and policy advisers led by Rice and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, along with I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff.

"In September 2002, the White House was beginning a major press offensive designed to prove that Iraq had a robust nuclear weapons program. That campaign was meant to culminate in the president's Oct. 7 speech in Cincinnati." [1]

(http://www.hillnews.com/marshall/030404.aspx)

[edit]Publications
Sam Gardiner's "Truth from These Podia: Summary of a Study of Strategic Influence, Perception Management,
Strategic Information Warfare and Strategic Psychological Operations in Gulf II," (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/documents/truth.pdf) October 8, 2003. Posted on US News.com website.

[edit]SourceWatch Resources
Bush administration leaks
Karl Rove: Outing Valerie Plame
Plamegate: Beyond Karl Rove
Valerie Plame
[edit]External Links

Barton Gellman and Walter Pincus, "Depiction of Threat Outgrew Supporting Evidence," (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A39500-2003Aug9?language=printer) Washington Post, August 10, 2003.

Joshua Micah Marshall, "Big Trouble?" (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_02_29.php#002642) Talking Points Memo, March 4, 2004.
Murray S. Waas, "Plugging Leaks.

(http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2004/03/waas-m-03-08.html) More details emerge on the Plame investigation, as Karl Rove's testimony is revealed for the first time," The American Prospect, March 8, 2004.
"The Iraq Group,"

(http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_06_26_digbysblog_archive.html#112033738595771627) Hullabaloo, July 2, 2005.

"White House Iraq Group,"
(http://www.pacificviews.org/weblog/archives/001267.html) Pacific Views, July 3, 2005.

0 Replies

Tico

Quote:

I keep emphasizing that nobody is able to answer the simple question of whether she is a covert agent, a prerequisite for triggering the IIPA. It isn't that there isn't any conclusive evidence ... it's that there is NO evidence.

Oh, I understand you keep emphasizing the IIPA, when you know perfectly well that there is a wide variety of laws that could be prosecuted by Fitzgerald in this case. It is merely the point which you feel you have a good case to argue against.

There IS evidence that she is a 'covert agent,' but none of it conclusive enough to say that she is from a legal standpoint.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/20/AR2005072002517.html

Quote:

Tuesday's Journal first reported that the State Department memo warned that Plame's info was classified. But the Post has a few more details. The memo didn't say Plame was a covert agent, but, as the Post says, anybody reading the Plame paragraph "should have been aware that it contained secret information." One other thing the WP notes: The memo made only glancing reference to Plame. Instead, of most of it was taken up with supporting claims by Plame's husband, (and White House critic) Joseph Wilson, that Saddam didn't really seem to be going after yellowcake in Niger.[/[/b]QUOTE] http://slate.msn.com/id/2123202/

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
Many on this thread are pretty much willing to believe anything, so long as it tends to implicate Rove or the Bush Administration in some form of wrongdoing. Some of you point to the fact that there is a grand jury investigation going on as evidence that Ms. Plame is a "covert agent." Some point to the fact that the CIA has referred the case to the DOJ for further investigation of a "possible" crime as evidence that Ms. Plame is a "covert agent." I'm not sure, but I think it's possible that Kuvasz believes the fact that the Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari to Judith Miller is evidence that Ms. Plame is a "covert agent."

My purpose has only been to try and point out the fact that this hasn't been established. It's been wished, it's been inferred, it's been assumed, it's been hypothesized, and it's now been opined by some anonymous "US Official." I've no idea whether she was or wasn't, but the fact is neither do any of you. And if you think that my pointing this out has "deraiiled" your fanciful discussions and desires that Rove be terminated post haste because he has clearly breached the IIPA, you will, I'm sure, forgive me in time.

sadly, no. the brief, as you surely read on its first page, was originally submitted to the Appellate Court, who rejected its claims as a defense to stop Miller and Cooper from doing the Grand Jury's bidding and reveal their sources. my claim was it was a part of the data from which the Appellate Court based its ruling to jail Miller, and since the Supreme Court decided not to take the appeal case that the matters of Gertz's accusations of previous outings of Plame as covert in his Washington Times article of july 22, 2004 was deemed irrelevant to the matter of whether or not Plame was covert. by the Appellate Court ruling to jail Miller, it rejected the premise of the brief. If it had accepted the premise of the brief, viz., Plame was not covert, or that either the special prosecutor or the CIA was sloppy in determining Plame's covert status then there would have been no legal reason to jail Miller.

that brief used as its premise essentially what you have proposed here, viz., that it is either untrue that Plame was covert or that it is questionable to the point that jailing Miller and Cooper would be itself unjust becaue of the allegations by Ms Tonsiles of the questionable nature of Plame's status.

since miller sits in jail, it is obvious how the judicial system feels about the question of Plame's covert status.

My comment was mostly tongue in cheek ... but I'm sure you knew that.

But you continue to show your ignorance of how the Supreme Court operates. And the fact that Miller sits in jail shows that the Appellate Court does not think that she has a privilege to refuse to testify, and says nothing about the issue of Plame's status as a "covert agent."

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Tico

Quote:
I keep emphasizing that nobody is able to answer the simple question of whether she is a covert agent, a prerequisite for triggering the IIPA. It isn't that there isn't any conclusive evidence ... it's that there is NO evidence.

Oh, I understand you keep emphasizing the IIPA, when you know perfectly well that there is a wide variety of laws that could be prosecuted by Fitzgerald in this case. It is merely the point which you feel you have a good case to argue against.

There IS evidence that she is a 'covert agent,' but none of it conclusive enough to say that she is from a legal standpoint.

Cycloptichorn

So then you completely disagree with Chrissee's position on this, I take it?

Chrissee wrote:

The preponderance of the evidence clearly indicates that the "core" crime is violation of th IIPA.

Link.

0 Replies

Yeah, I disagree with that statement.

There have been many times in the past where it has been clear that someone is guilty, but not neccessarily clear from a legal point of view.

We would have to recieve more evidence that she was a covert agent to say for sure; though I think there is quite a bit of evidence already, there's not enough to label it as Fact.

Now, you agree that Fitz could be going after many other crimes here than the IIPA? With less-strict definitions?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know