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

Keep this in mind, Plame is a girl!

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

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."

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?

Ticomaya wrote:

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."

sure it does, the reason miller sits in jail is because she refused the grand jury's demand that she reveal her sources,

... and the reason the grand jury sits is because there is the premise that a law was broken, and that law was one legally can not publish a covert agent's identity. there would be no cause to sit the grand jury nor enforce its power, viz., to demand miller reveal her sources had fitzgerald not shown such a cause.

without plame's status as covert been shown, there is no reason to do any of this. turn it around, if plame's status was not covert, there would be no fitzgerald nor grand jury investigation. what that brief attempted to do was prove plame's covert status was not true or nebulous. the courts rejected that argument.

An investigative reporter for the
New York Times; the White House correspondent for the
weekly news magazine Time; and Time, Inc., the publisher of
Time, appeal from orders of the District Court for the District of
Columbia finding all three appellants in civil contempt for
refusing to give evidence in response to grand jury subpoenas
served by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Appellants
assert that the information concealed by them, specifically the
identity of confidential sources, is protected by a reporter's
privilege arising from the First Amendment, or failing that, by
federal common law privilege. The District Court held that
neither the First Amendment nor the federal common law
provides protection for journalists' confidential sources in the
context of a grand jury investigation. For the reasons set forth
below, we agree with the District Court that there is no First
Amendment privilege protecting the evidence sought. We
further conclude that if any such common law privilege exists,
it is not absolute, and in this case has been overcome by the
filings of the Special Counsel with the District Court. We
further conclude that other assignments of error raised by
appellants are without merit. We therefore affirm the decision
of the District Court.

A rare moment of agreement between us, Cyclops. But we have been in agreement on several points on this thread. Your "wait and see" attitude is appropriate ... but we still know what you want to have happen.

Ticomaya wrote:

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?

I understand the legal significance of whether Valerie Plame was a covert agent or not. It has been explained on this thread often enough for me to be able to grasp it. I notice that you did not answer my question.


What I would like for you to do is to simply offer up other alternative crimes that may have been committed other than outing a CIA officer just for the purpose of exploring those alternatives for the purpose of debate. If you cannot offer up other alternatives for the original charge that started the investigation, then for the purposes of this thread it is reasonable to assume that it is probable that outing the CIA officer is the subject of the investigation absent any other information that tells us otherwise.

(I purposely left out the word "covert" to keep from going round and round on the word and legal definitions thereof.)

snood wrote:

Hey, Tico - help me out with understanding something here...
Just for my own clarification - You don't have any doubt that Rove had ill intent when he was talking to reporters about Plame, do you?

I hate to sound like a lawyer ... but I am, and I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to explain what you mean by "ill intent." But even before you do, I can tell you that I think Rove's intent was to clarify what he perceived was a miscommunication by Wilson in conveying that Cheney's office had sent Wilson to Niger. I don't think he intended to "out" Ms. Plame, nor do I think he believed her to be "under cover." Those are my beliefs based on the facts as I know them to be.

snood wrote:

Uh, Tico?

Hey ... like I said, I'm a lawyer. I wasn't ignoring you, but I do have to work every now and then. :wink:

Yeah, I work for a living, as well. And I didn't think you were ignoring me, but I do believe that you are in denial about some things that are painfully obvious (to anyone with a shred of decency and a modicum of common sense). Anyone who is aware what Rove has spent a career doing is aware that he excels at attack politics. Teaching College Republicans dirty tricks; spreading a rumor that former Governor Ann Richards was too tolerant of gays and lesbians; circulating a mock newspaper that featured a story about a former Democratic governor's drinking and driving when he was a college student; spreading stories about Jim Hightower's alleged role in a contribution kickback scheme; and alerting the press to the fact that Lena Guerrero, a rising star in the Texas Democratic Party, had lied about graduating from college.
This is that Karl Rove. Anyone who has even peripherally been aware of what Rove has done for a career would know that he wasn't just tring to correct some misspoken reference when he set his grimy crosshairs on Plame and Wilson.
Being a lawyer may be a good excuse for having confused priorities and questionable morals, but it's not an alibi for being willfully deaf dumb and blind.

Was Anne Richards too tolerant of gays?

Oh, I get it - Ignorant, deaf, dumb, blind and proud of it.

Eleven former intelligence officers are speaking up on behalf of CIA officer Valerie Plame, saying leaking her identity may have damaged national security and threatens the ability of U.S. intelligence gathering.

In a statement to congressional leaders, the former officers said the Republican National Committee has circulated talking points focusing on the idea that Plame was not working undercover and deserved no protection.


There are thousands of U.S. intelligence officers who work at a desk in the Washington, D.C., area every day who are undercover as Plame was when her identity was leaked, the 11 former officers said in a three-page statement.

The former officers' statement comes amid revelations that top presidential aide Karl Rove was involved in leaking Plame's identity to columnist Robert Novak and Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, and that Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, also was a source for Cooper on the Plame story.

The leaking of Plame's identity followed public criticism leveled against the Bush White House by Plame's husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson. He suggested the administration had manipulated intelligence to justify going to war in Iraq. A criminal investigation into the leaks is ongoing.

"Intelligence officers should not be used as political footballs," the 11 said. "In the case of Valerie Plame, she still works for the CIA and is not in a position to publicly defend her reputation and honor."

kuvasz wrote:

... and the reason the grand jury sits is because there is the premise that a law was broken, and that law was one legally can not publish a covert agent's identity. there would be no cause to sit the grand jury nor enforce its power, viz., to demand miller reveal her sources had fitzgerald not shown such a cause.

To whom to you claim Fitzgerald has shown this "cause"?

The Court of Appeals rejected the argument that Cooper and Miller didn't need to testify to the Grand Jury and reveal their sources. They ruled that no privilege existed that would operate to shield them from testifying in that regard. The Court of Appeals did not rule on the issue of whether or not Plame was in fact a cover agent. In fact, the opinion refers to the "alleged exposure of a covert agent." In another place it says, "An alleged covert agent, Plame evidently traveled overseas
on clandestine missions beginning nearly two decades ago."

In supporte hereof, I submit the following. The Appellate Court' opinion begins thusly:

Quote:

An investigative reporter for the
New York Times; the White House correspondent for the
weekly news magazine Time; and Time, Inc., the publisher of
Time, appeal from orders of the District Court for the District of
Columbia finding all three appellants in civil contempt for
refusing to give evidence in response to grand jury subpoenas
served by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Appellants
assert that the information concealed by them, specifically the
identity of confidential sources, is protected by a reporter's
privilege arising from the First Amendment, or failing that, by
federal common law privilege. The District Court held that
neither the First Amendment nor the federal common law
provides protection for journalists' confidential sources in the
context of a grand jury investigation. For the reasons set forth
below, we agree with the District Court that there is no First
Amendment privilege protecting the evidence sought. We
further conclude that if any such common law privilege exists,
it is not absolute, and in this case has been overcome by the
filings of the Special Counsel with the District Court. We
further conclude that other assignments of error raised by
appellants are without merit. We therefore affirm the decision
of the District Court.

Starting on page 10 of the opinion:

Quote:

Link.

Ticomaya wrote:

I welcome you to point out for me where the Appellate Court stated Plame is a "covert agent."

The denial did not have to, it is implicit, and a priori since the Court applied Branzburg instead of Zerilli


To prove that a crime was committed, Fitzgerald must show that a government official revealed Plame's name or likeness while knowing that the administration was working to keep it concealed.

Attorneys for the Times and Time magazine argued that reporters have a First Amendment right to resist disclosing confidential sources.
In a separate brief before the Appelate Court, several dozen news organizations argued that journalists should not be questioned because there was "doubt that a crime has been committed" in the disclosure of Plame's name.

The trial record accompanying the appeals by Miller and Cooper carried information -- a sealed record -- that has not been made public. It is an affidavit that was submitted by Special Counsel Fitzpatrick to Judge Hogan when Miller, Cooper, and other reporters (who have since cooperated with the investigation) sought to first block the subpoenas calling for them to appear before the grand jury.

In a November 10, 2004 ruling, Judge Hogan addressed this information: "In his ex parte affidavit, Special Counsel outlines in great detail the developments in this case and the investigation as a whole," he explained. "The ex parte affidavit establishes that the government's focus has shifted as it has acquired additional information during the course of the investigation. Special Counsel now needs to pursue different avenues in order to complete its investigation."

Judge Hogan then found, based on Fitzpatrick's information, that "the subpoenas were not issued in an attempt to harass the [reporters], but rather stem from legitimate needs due to an unanticipated shift in the grand jury's investigation."

Judge Hogan concluded that because the "subpoenas bear directly on the grand jury investigation and are of a limited time and scope," Fitzpatrick was entitled to this information.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, relied on Branzburg, stressing that the leak at issue seems to have also been a crime:

[quote]"On the record before us,there is at least sufficient allegation to warrant grand jury inquiry that one or both journalists received information concerning the identity of a covert operative of the United States from government employees acting in violation of the law by making the disclosure."

United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued December 8, 2004 Decided February 15, 2005
Reissued April 4, 2005
No. 04-3138
IN RE: GRAND JURY SUBPOENA, JUDITH MILLER
Consolidated with
04-3139, 04-3140
Before: SENTELLE, HENDERSON and TATEL, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SENTELLE.
Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge SENTELLE.
Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.
Opinion concurring in the judgment filed by Circuit Judge TATEL.

SENTELLE, Circuit Judge: An investigative reporter for the
New York Times; the White House correspondent for the
weekly news magazine Time; and Time, Inc., the publisher of
Time, appeal from orders of the District Court for the District of
Columbia finding all three appellants in civil contempt for
refusing to give evidence in response to grand jury subpoenas
served by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Appellants
assert that the information concealed by them, specifically the
identity of confidential sources, is protected by a reporter's
privilege arising from the First Amendment, or failing that, by
federal common law privilege. The District Court held that
neither the First Amendment nor the federal common law
provides protection for journalists' confidential sources in the
context of a grand jury investigation. For the reasons set forth
below, we agree with the District Court that there is no First
Amendment privilege protecting the evidence sought. We
further conclude that if any such common law privilege exists,
it is not absolute, and in this case has been overcome by the
filings of the Special Counsel with the District Court. We
further conclude that other assignments of error raised by
appellants are without merit. We therefore affirm the decision
of the District Court.

The appellants have proceeded with common counsel and
common briefing in a consolidated proceeding before this court. They assert four theories for reversal. Their first claim is that the First
Amendment affords journalists a constitutional right to
conceal their confidential sources even against the subpoenas of
grand juries. Secondly, they claim that reporters enjoy an
evidentiary privilege under the common law to conceal
confidential sources. Adjunct to this claim, while denying that
the privilege is less than absolute, they argue that if the privilege
is in fact qualified, the United States has not overcome the
privilege. Thirdly, appellants argue that their due process rights
were violated by the Special Counsel's ex parte and in camera
submission of evidence to the court to establish that the United
States had overcome any qualified privilege. Finally, they argue
that the Special Counsel failed to comply with Department of
Justice guidelines for the issuance of subpoenas to journalists,
and that the failure to comply is an independent ground for
reversal of their contempt conviction. Finding no grounds for
relief under the First Amendment, due process clause, or
Department of Justice guidelines, and persuaded that any
common law privilege that exists would be overcome in this
case, we affirm the judgment of the District Court for the
reasons set out more fully below.

Special Counsel's compliance.
The guidelines in question are set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 50.10
and the United States Attorney's Manual, § 9-2.161. Those
guidelines provide that subpoenas for testimony by news media
must be approved by the Attorney General, a requirement not
pertinent in the present case as the Special Counsel had received
delegation of all the Attorney General's authority, and should
meet the following standards:

(a) "In criminal cases, there should be reasonable grounds
to believe, based on information obtained from
nonmedia sources, that a crime has occurred, and that
the information sought is essential to a successful
investigation-particularly with reference to
establishing guilt or innocence. The subpoena should
not be used to obtain peripheral, nonessential, or
speculative information." 28 C.F.R. § 50.10(f)(1).