OT - Karl Rove Named as CIA Agent Leak
 

We'll see if this proves to be the case, but after the Cooper documents were turned over, an analyst stated that Karl Rove was the source who revealed the name of the undercover CIA agent.

Link: MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Documents Reveal Karl Rove as Source in Plame Case

Full Text:
MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Documents Reveal Karl Rove as Source in Plame Case
By E&P Staff

NEW YORK Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Tonight, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.

Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's remarks:

"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury, the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.

"And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."

Other panelists then joined in discussing whether, if true, this would suggest a perjury rap for Rove, if he told the grand jury he did not leak to Cooper.

Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller, held in contempt for refusing to name sources, tried Friday to stay out of jail by arguing for home detention instead after Time Inc. surrendered its reporter's notes to a prosecutor.

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said Friday that several unidentified Senate Republicans had placed a hold on a proposed resolution declaring support for Miller and Cooper.

``Cowards!'' Lautenberg said of the Republicans. ``Under the rules, they have a right to refuse to reveal who they are. Sound familiar?''

Lautenberg's resolution is co-sponsored by Sens. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) It says no purpose is served by imprisoning Miller and Cooper and that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press.

I'm quite depressed that they turned over their source. That is just bad for journalism in general.

Would be interesting, though, if Rove really was the leak. Nobody else seems to have that story, yet, I'll be keeping an eye on things...

/tk

On the one hand, I wish they had stood their ground. On the other hand, seeing Karl Rove and Bob Novak in prison jump suits would be very, very satisfying.

Couldn't the big boss pardon them?

He could, of course. Would he? Who knows? An action like that might spiral rather quickly into a Watergate-style scandal. My guess is that if does, he'll do it on the last day of his presidency.

whoa. shit. that'd be huge. and ya know, that's just the kinda thing that could start some kinda spiraling scandel

I don't really see how Bush could pardon them without looking really bad.

if this comes out to be true, I hope Rove gets jail time for it. IMO, He risked that agent's life, it is an Federal Crime and he should be punished. If it's not him that did it than I continue to hope that they look for who did, and they get equal punishment.

I admit to not knowing all of the details of this story, but if true (and if it can be proven), this has the makings of a huge scandal.

But so far, this is just one guy who is stating that he knows what the documents say, so we'll see what happens.

If I know someone who is linked to a crime, couldn't the police force me to tell who it is?

Why should the press be different?

If true (and I'd say, given all the other lies and half-truths told in connection with this whole affair, that's not a foregone conclusion), this would be very big.

Given the number of agents who were compromised by this leak (through their association with Plame, and her being outed), whoever did leak this information should be punished highly. I also think Bob Novak should serve some time, given that it was his article that put all of those agents in hot water. I mean really, he's supposed to know a lot about Washington, did he not know what the consequences of his actions would be?

I disagree...Novak should not be punished outside of the not revealing his source if/when a court forced him to. Rove (or whoever leaked it), as I said when this first came out months/years ago, should be punished to the highest extent of the law. If he/she is not the example set would be terrible.

The idea is that if somebody who has information relating to a story with potentially criminal implications cannot trust that what they say to the press will be held in confidence, then they simply won't say it. It's what's called a "chilling effect."

Let's say something like this had happened 35 years ago - do you think Mark Felt would have gone to Woodward and Bernstein about Watergate, knowing that they could have been forced to reveal the source, allowing the government to basically prosecute a whistle-blower?

I'll be curious to see if this turns out to be true and not just net rumor...

SI

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/003...NlYwMlJVRPUCUl



/tk

I disagree. I think the political climate is such that this will dissolve into the partisan ether like anything else someone says critical of a political figure. "It's just mean-spiritied talk from the [insert liberal left/religious right as appropriate] and is not to bee taken seriously." I think this is essentially where we are now with politics.

People believe what they want to believe about the politicians they support. Anything bad about those politicians -- and they can surely find some news channel that will reaffirm their suspicions that it's all trumped-up stuff generated by "the other media" who have an axe to grind.

I hope I'm wrong... but I don't feel too uncomfortable making this prediction. Minor tremor, move along.

Is this to say that you personally are unbothered to discover that one of the key members of the President's braintrust is responsible for compromising one of our CIA agent's identities out of spite, if the allegations are proven true?

Not at all. I personally thinkg this is a big deal.

My observation is just that I think the country, on balance (excluding the people who shreik on things political for a living) will basically shrug it off. The left will add this to the reasons they hate Bush, the right will find numerous ways to defend or explain it away, and the many who don't follow this stuff will see it just another political mudslinging event, the sort of thing they generally don't care about since they basically believe that nobody has any credibility (and therefore, you can't trust anything you hear or read).

Again, I hope I'm wrong. But I doubt I am.

Really scary to think about when it comes right down to it. Unless you're in a tabloid-esque scandal that morons and degenerates from both sides can decry (what's the saying about getting caught having sex with a dead woman or a live boy?), having a little R or D next to your name protects you from criticism from half the country.

SI

And by the way -- is there anyone who has followed this story at all who is actually surprised that Rove was the leak? (Assuming this turns out to be true) I thought this was the prevailing opinion all along.

I doubt you are, too.

Actually, in a manner of speaking, even more than that. If you are a D, and you do something shitty and get caught... the entire country that follows this stuff closely can be expected to line up predictably into two camps. The D people will say "it's not such a big deal, it happens all the time, lots of R people are guilty too... or whatever." And the R people will all scream bloody murder that this indicts all D people, that this is representative of the party or of liberals in general... and will make absurd claims that essentially invalidate the proper criticism of the guilty individual. Reverse every bit of that if it's an R person who gets into trouble.

In effect -- when someone involved in partisan politics deserves criticism, he receives none from his side, double from the other side, and in the end it washes out as just another mud-slinging exercise from that criminal class of politicians (whom we all generally say we hate, and then re-elect to office by landslide margins).

Quik, I believe you're dead on target here.

And rightfully so IMO -- the woman worked at a Langley desk, she wasn't "covert" by any stretch of the imagination at that point.

This will be largely resigned to the dustbin of "partisan politics" because that's exactly what it is.

Actually, I am really surprised. I always figured he had minions to do this type of stuff. I never figured him to be one to dirty his hands with it personally. Uncharacteristically sloppy for him.

SI

I don't guess I followed it all that well, but color me surprised anyway. I had heard the Rove bit all along, but I figured it was just about as likely that he did this that it was that he orchestrated all of the absurd machinations that the left has accused him of doing.

I'm personally hoping that the one thing this accomplishes is to bring out the facts in this case. Just how outed was she? What was her actual job at the CIA? I know on the TV show, "The Agency"(which sucked, I know) all of the people working there had cover "jobs". I got the idea that one just didn't casually say "I work at the CIA" over dinner. That was how I originally pictured her role, and the degree of her "covertness". Later there was at least one ex-CIA guy who said she was an active player, and significantly covert. Was it a common knowledge thing that Plame worked at the CIA? I don't know. I'm hoping that we do find out.

If Rove or someone else, actually maliciously outed her, then I expect them to be punished for it. If this was an incidental type thing, then I will find it a bit more acceptable.

Sigh.

Well, I had Dutch in the "this is really all partisan politics" pool. Dang.

Glen:

I dont think that a "leaker" lets call him or her should be able to determine, "Well....they're not really under cover so its no biggie." I mean shouldnt htat be decided by perhaps HR. Im just saying, I dont think that you should allow that 'out'. almost, bipartisanly everyone has said whomever leaked it should be punished mightily. I hope when it comes out you and all the others stand behind what you stated before and dont start cracking a window to let out the stink.

That sounds nice, but there are several things wrong with that. She was a covert agent; she may have been working a Langley at the time, but she was a covert agent and had a cover as an employee for a CIA front. By revealing Plame's identity, the source not only blew the cover of a CIA agent but perhaps other agents as well. Oh yeah, and it's against the law. Oh, and if it was Rove then he committed perjury by lying to a grand jury.

Sound familiar? Republicans wanted to run Clinton out on a rail for getting a blow job (legal) and lying about it to a grand jury (illegal), but think nothing should happen to someone who who outted a cover officer (illegal) and lied to a grand jury about it (illegal). If that's the case, something is clearly wrong with 51 percent of the country.

If Rove is revealed as the source, I think it's fascinating on multiple levels. First, it has generally been liberals who have opposed forcing the reporters to reveal their source. Ironic that liberals were inadvertently supporting Rove. Second, it's a Republican appointed special prosecutor who has been pushing to reveal the source, thus outing the architect of the Republican agenda.

Fitzgerald has already said he probably won't pursue the charge of outing a covert officer, but will pursue the perjury charge. The on thing Rove will have going for him is that Fitzgerald is not a Bush-hating special prosecutor looking to win at all costs. Regardless, you Democrats in Congress will apply pressure for hearings and an expanded investigation.

Quik, I think you're right that it will be small deal but only if it's dealt with correctly, which is that Rover resigns, pleads guilty to perjury and disappears from politics for a few years. If he tries to ride this out -- during a SC confirmation fight -- it will be another anchor around Bush and his approval ratings. You'll hear about this right through the midterms because Democrats won't stop screaming about it.

I was agreeing with what you said right up until you tried to sneak a blatant partisan quip in there. ;)

To be honest with you, I'm not up to speed on this whole story. I haven't been following it. But yes, it looks like the squeaky clean Democrats have busted the slimy Republicans red-handed at something. Like always. :)

There's only illegal activity under fairly specific circumstances ... circumstances that do not appear, based on what has been revealed so far, to have existed.

No one ... repeat ... no one who is engaged in a covert operation is hanging out at a Langley desk job -- that simply flies in the face of logic, reason, and most of all, reality.

She has no "cover" to blow at that point -- she's going to work there for crying out loud, how is she supposed to be "undercover"? That's just asinine.

It's just allegations for now. Im sure all will be clear in a matter of days.

The number of times I have read that something will be "as big or bigger than Watergate" in the past 25 years have been extraordinary. It will only accelerate because that's the game that has been and will always be played inside the Beltway.

What Rove did is tantamount to treason and should be considered as such. Not to mention a direct threat to national security. This man needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

For fuck's sake, Clinton gets a blow-job in the Oval Office and we get investigations upon investigations, million dollar hearings. And if Quiksand is right, which I sadly feel he will be, it's mindboggling and the United States will take one more step to becoming nothing more than a banana republic.

HBlue, you mean this has never happened before??? And this is "one more step"? I take it that you don't believe that much of what the Executive and Legislative branches have done in the past decades have been illegal? Many "one more steps" are taken every day, one just have to find that magic silver bullet and hope that it hits its target.

JON:

Rove or anyone else at the White House should not be able to pick and choose who they expose or not.

Why was she exposed in the first place? As revenge against her husband? You defend that, Jon?

I repeat, whether she is behind a desk or working with Al Qaeda in the field, Rove nor anyone outside of anyone should be able to decide, on the fly, "well she's game too." and expose her.

Jon, you are completely partisan on this....I dont care who it is Dem. Rep. Indy. NO ONE has the right to expose someone, who is officially designated as "covert", because they feel it serves their political gain, especially.

And someone called me unpatriotic and railed me? HA, whomever that was back then I hope sends equal opportunity blasting at Jon...but somehow I doubt it.

Unless I've misunderstood, I think it's worth pointing out that the journalists never revealed their source, even when it appeared they would be going to jail as a result. Their employer handed over their notes, so in some sense you could say the reporters allowed the source to be named, but they never did so themselves. I'd argue that they held up their end of the deal.

from Glengoyne on 9/30/2003:



this should tell you how you stood.

and Grantdawg had this to say:

My understanding is that the CIA requested the initial investigation which led to the special prosecutor. As I remember they requested an investigation into the leaking of the identity of a covert agent.

When it comes to knowing who is covert and who isn't are you going to believe the CIA or JIMG?

I'd personally like to see Bubba Wheels weigh in on this.... Ok not really.

if he shows up now, I'm blaming you.

Lemme see here ... considering her husband ... yeah, I don't have much problem with it.


Again, what "exposure"? She worked in the freakin' building Flasch, anybody that cared to know already knew.


We'll quibble that to some degree too I guess ... there are methods I would have preferred to this one, but if it neutralizes someone doing harm to a greater cause ... well, we'll just disagree there as usual too I guess.

I've said it before & this is probably a situation where it bears repeating --
I resolutely believe that this nation faces greater threats from within than from without, and you aren't likely to see me losing much sleep nor expending much energy worrying about what happens to those who damage our best interests regardless of where they happen to call have been born.

I am glad that you exposed yourself long ago and you hang way over on the right edge just left of BW. No one agrees with you :) I hope it's not too lonely over there...but perhaps you'll see the err of your ways. You should try to be a bit more open minded. Its ok to disagree with your own side once in a while...if it's the right thing to do.

I am unable to find proof that Valerie Plame worked at Langley. Do you have proof?

Even with all this partisan back and forth, it's going to be ultra hard to deny Rove didn't lie to the grand jury if he was the source of the leak.

i'm pretty sure my head just exploded.

Here's a good recap on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame

I have no problem with the leaker (if it is Rove or whomever) being investigated - seems like a reasonable course of action. But, I think when you look at the fact that many people in the beltway knew about Plame long before Novak outted her, the fact that she was not involved in any covert action and working in Washington, and the fact that the "leaker" asked Novak twice not to use her name in the story (advice he completely disregarded), this story loses a little steam.

In the end, there wasn't any real damage done unless I am missing something. I agree with what James Taranto said a year ago in the WSJ:

But, like I said, if people want to investigate the leaker and potentially file charges, I say have at it. But I would warn those outraged over all this not to be surprised if the charges fell apart like a cheap suit upon closer examination.

I don't know if she was working in Langley, but she had been living in DC since 1997 (from Vanity Fair):
So, in essence, the CIA felt her cover had already been blown back in 1997 and gave her a desk job. She had "private cover" in Boston, but even the Globe mentioned it was pretty weak and involved an address without the physical company having a presence in the office building:

http://www.boston.com/business/globe...er_much_cover/

This certainly doesn't sound like an agent actively involved in covert activities. I would think the CIA would give an actual legitimate business address as a cover to a covert agent who could be in danger. Even Inspector Clueso could figure out something was up when the address for the agent didn't even exist. If that's "deep cover", I think all of our agents are in big trouble.