OT - Karl Rove Named as CIA Agent Leak

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

Even when I am not posting in a political thread I am still a participant. I feel like Al in the Godfather "[e]very time I try to get out, they keep pulling me back in!"

In all seriousness (and without reading to this point), it seems Libby has forgotten the Cardinal rule in politics - never lie during the investigation. Atleast Rove had enough sense to go back to the Grand Jury and "clear up" his comments before he could be indicted. Either way, I won't shed a tear if Libby goes down. He should have been smarter than that given what he witnessed with Clinton.

i still love ya....glad to see you somewhat admit that Rove did something immoral by putting quotes around "clear up".

[Arles]

Essentially - Rove just had a better attorney. Once they went through his first three Grand Jury comments - they realized he had some "inaccurate statements" (again quoted for effect ) regarding Cooper. So, his attornies sent him in a fourth time to clear up the loose ends and basically ensure he would not be indicted for lying or misleading prosecuters. Libby's attny should have done the same thing had he been smart.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Arles

Essentially - Rove just had a better attorney. Once they went through his first three Grand Jury comments - they realized he had some "inaccurate statements" (again quoted for effect ) regarding Cooper. So, his attornies sent him in a fourth time to clear up the loose ends and basically ensure he would not be indicted for lying or misleading prosecuters. Libby's attny should have done the same thing had he been smart.

My guess is that Rove not only had better attorneys but a better position from the start. You never know exactly what is going on, but based on what I've read, Libby seems to be in real trouble (not just the charges, but charges that may well lead to a conviction). Rove seemed to have been slicker about this all the way through, not just at the end. I am thinking Libby put his foot too far into his mouth for his attorney to extract it. I said all along we had to wait and see what developed, and that this would take some twists and turns.

A couple of things that apparently aren't going to happen:

1. The left won't get to see Rove burned at the stake on the Capitol steps. He's a bad guy, but he wasn't going to go down for this. Which is really too bad in som respects, because, as I've said, Rove is just a bad guy.

2. They won't get to see Cheney resign and then commit ritual suicide, which seems (at least the first option) to be the new fantasy that has some on the left foaming at the mouth.

And, btw, I would also like to know the whole story about Miller's sourceS, and some other details. There is still a lot untold here.

[GrantDawg]

My guess....Libby pleads and never goes to trial. He gets a nice pardon as Presidential thank you on the last day Bush is in office.

[sterlingice]

It's still fairly clear this is the guy thrown under the bus. Nothing's going to stick to Rove, Cheney, or anyone else. So, congrats, after all this, it's going to be "Scooter" Libby taken down for outing a CIA agent that a lot of others were in on. *sigh* And Grantdawg hit the nail right on the head as he won't even actually get taken down.

SI

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

In all seriousness (and without reading to this point), it seems Libby has forgotten the Cardinal rule in politics - never lie during the investigation.

The thing is, if he hadn't of lied in the first place, he would be going away for a longer time for a more serious penalty.

[yabanci]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The thing is, if he hadn't of lied in the first place, he would be going away for a longer time for a more serious penalty.

He and others. He took one for the team.

[Flasch186]

I think it is too early to say its over. There is one source so high up that they will only call him by a letter (A). When Fitzgerals said that he had been 'sidetracked' by getting "sand thrown in his eyes" that leads me to believe that he now thinks he can get back on track to what he was mandated to look at in the first place.

[JW]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I think it is too early to say its over. There is one source so high up that they will only call him by a letter (A). When Fitzgerals said that he had been 'sidetracked' by getting "sand thrown in his eyes" that leads me to believe that he now thinks he can get back on track to what he was mandated to look at in the first place.

Fitzgerald was mad about the lies. The original 'crime' was no crime. Plame had already been outed in so many ways by so many people that it is almost funny. And her hubby's feigned indignation is humorous to watch. But I am sure the left would love to have such an investigation simmering for the rest of Bush's term.

Let's get to the real bottom of this. Let's get all Miller's sources revealed, for example. She still has not had to reveal any of her sources except Libby.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JW

Fitzgerald was mad about the lies. The original 'crime' was no crime. Plame had already been outed in so many ways by so many people that it is almost funny.

Fitzgerald vehemently disagreed with this assertion during his press conference. He emphaticly stated and repeated that this was NOT true and that her identity was not exposed until the Novak piece. I'll believe him, considering the right and the left both say he has been professional and more importantly impartial. (HOWEVER, the law, as it is written, that applies to this, is very difficult to prove as was debated earlier in this thread.)

This is also outlined in his statement that prior to July 14th, her status was "classified" and "not common knowledge outside the intelligence community".

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/10/28/statement.pdf

[flere-imsaho]

It's intriguing, because on one hand Fitzgerald definitely thinks something was criminally wrong with what happened. If you listened to the press conference, two things would have stood out. One, he repeatedly said the leaking of the name was "critically damaging." Two, he said that the journalists were "eyewitnesses to a crime".

On the other hand, though, he hasn't brought those charges against Libby, instead nailing him for lying to the FBI and in his testimony to the grand jury.

So it seems to me that it's one of two things:

1. Fitzgerald decided the leak=crime case would be too hard to prosecute (not enough evidence, not enough clarity in the law, etc...)

or

2. That comes later.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I think it is too early to say its over. There is one source so high up that they will only call him by a letter (A). When Fitzgerals said that he had been 'sidetracked' by getting "sand thrown in his eyes" that leads me to believe that he now thinks he can get back on track to what he was mandated to look at in the first place.

Official A is Rove, which isn't really a surprise.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...fficial_A.html

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

Fitzgerald was mad about the lies. The original 'crime' was no crime. Plame had already been outed in so many ways by so many people that it is almost funny. And her hubby's feigned indignation is humorous to watch. But I am sure the left would love to have such an investigation simmering for the rest of Bush's term.

Let's get to the real bottom of this. Let's get all Miller's sources revealed, for example. She still has not had to reveal any of her sources except Libby.

Like Flasch said, it's more than probable that a crime was committed, but most of the evidence is circumstancial and not enough to go to court with. It's fact that they outted her for political gain, what is murky is if they knew she was undercover. According to the indictment:

Originally Posted by Pg 5, Item 9

On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Divison. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.

Libby and Cheney both worked in intelligence for a long, long time. They know that the Counterproliferation Division is the operations part of CIA and not the analytical side of CIA.

Fitzgerald may have been able to get proof beyond a reasonable doubt if Libby et al had actually cooperated, but that's why he is currently facing perjury and obstruction of justice charges, isn't it?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

During Fitzgerald's press conference he made it clear, almost going overboard, that not only was her identity classified but that it was also NOT widely known who she worked for. Id say, if were taking his word with some weight, instead of waiting for the trial...then we should be leaning towards what Ive been saying all along, that she was "outed".

I hadn't heard/seen/read Fitzgerald's statement. Well still haven't, I've apparently become a news turtle lately...my wife hates it, and I've been too busy to keep up at work. I'm still not sure there is anything to the notion that the admin outted her in retribution. It does seem entirely possible that someone there did consciously reveal her name and involvement as some sort of damage control regarding her husband's revealations to the media. If that is what happened, then they should really go down for it. Whoever it was.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

It does seem entirely possible that someone there did consciously reveal her name and involvement as some sort of damage control regarding her husband's revealations to the media. If that is what happened, then they should really go down for it. Whoever it was.

I believe this is one of the points Fitzgerald makes.

[flere-imsaho]

Just when it couldn't get any more convoluted, reporter Bob Woodward enters the fray with news that he got Plame's name from the Administration at least a month before Libby "leaked" it:

An unnamed Bush administration official told the Washington Post's Bob Woodward the identity of a CIA analyst almost a month before it was publicly revealed, the reporter said in a statement published Wednesday.

Woodward said his source was not I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff who was indicted in the CIA leak investigation last month.

Libby's lawyer said Woodward's disclosures undermine the case against his client, the only person indicted so far in an investigation led by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald.

Libby was indicted October 28 on charges of obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements. At that time, Fitzgerald said he was keeping the investigation open but that "the substantial bulk of the work" had concluded.

Woodward, an assistant managing editor at the Post, said he provided a sworn deposition to Fitzgerald on Monday about conversations with three administration officials after being contacted by the prosecutor on November 3, almost a week after Libby was indicted.

In a first-person statement published by the Post, Woodward made no mention of having spoken to White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who has also been at the heart of the investigation. (Woodward's statement)

Still, Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Rove's legal team, said, "Rove did not have any discussions with Woodward on this matter."

The CIA asked for the investigation after Plame's identity was published by syndicated columnist by Robert Novak in July 2003. Plame is the wife of career diplomat Joseph Wilson, who had publicly challenged the Bush administration on a key element in its case for war against Iraq.

Woodward's disclosure raises questions regarding when Plame's name was first leaked to the press.

Because Libby is charged not with leaking Plame's name but with lying about his conversations with three other journalists -- NBC's Tim Russert, Time's Matt Cooper and former New York Times reporter Judith Miller -- the relevance of Woodward's testimony on Libby's case is uncertain.

However, Libby's lawyer, Ted Wells, said in a statement that Woodward's disclosure contradicts Fitzgerald's statement that Libby was the first government official to discuss Plame's identity.

"Hopefully, as more information is obtained from reporters like Bob Woodward, the real facts will come out," Wells said.

Woodward said he was contacted to testify after his source went to Fitzgerald to discuss his contact with Woodward related to the leak investigation.

In his statement, Woodward did not disclose the name of his source, citing the official's refusal to waive that aspect of their confidentiality pact. All three sources cleared the Pulitzer Prize-winner to testify, he said.

"It was the first time in 35 years as a reporter that I have been asked to provide information to a grand jury," Woodward said.

Woodward: 'I hunkered down'
Woodward did not disclose his involvement in the case to the Post's executive editor, Leonard Downie Jr., until late last month because he feared being subpoenaed by Fitzgerald, according to Washington Post media reporter and CNN contributor Howard Kurtz.

"I explained in detail that I was trying to protect my sources. That's job No. 1 in a case like this," Woodward told the paper. "I hunkered down. I'm in the habit of keeping secrets. I didn't want to do anything out there that was going to get me subpoenaed."

In an interview with CNN, Downie said Woodward had apologized to him for withholding information. (CNN Access)

Downie said Woodward should have disclosed the conversation with him at the time, but "we didn't have something we can report at that time."

"It's a conversation we should have had so that we can make a decision together," Downie said.

Downie said he was not angry at Woodward and said his reporter's pledge of confidentiality was "sacrosanct."

"He made a mistake and he apologized for it," Downie said. "We're going to move ahead now."

Miller resigned from the Times last week after coming under criticism from others at the paper, but Downie said the two cases are not "analogous."

Earlier this year, Miller spent 85 days in jail for refusing to testify in the case, before finally agreeing with Libby on a confidentiality waiver.

Testimony surrounds book research
In his deposition, Woodward said an administration official told him during a mid-June interview that Plame worked at the CIA's weapons of mass destruction program as an analyst. The interview was conducted as part of Woodward's research for his 2004 book on the run-up to the Iraq war, "Plan of Attack."

Woodward said he testified that the official's reference to Plame, referred to as "Joe Wilson's wife," was "casual and offhand, and that it did not appear to me to be either classified or sensitive." Woodward said he believed that CIA analysts usually were not undercover.

Woodward said he told Walter Pincus, a fellow Post reporter, of the conversation, but Pincus does not remember the conversation, Woodward's statement said. Woodward said he did not discuss the conversation with other government officials.

On June 20, 2003, Woodward interviewed a second Bush administration official -- whom Downie identified as White House Chief of Staff Andy Card -- in which references to "Joe Wilson's wife" were part of a prepared list of questions.

Woodward said his notes and tape recordings of the conservation suggest that Plame's identity did not come up.

Woodward said he had a phone conversation with Libby on June 23, 2003, regarding an 18-page questionnaire that he intended to give to Cheney. The questionnaire included questions about "Joe Wilson's wife," but Woodward does not recall discussing Plame with Libby during that call.

That was the day that Fitzgerald said Libby discussed Wilson's wife with Miller, his first contact with the press on the matter.

Woodward also does not remember discussing Plame with Libby during a June 27 interview.

Woodward asked Libby about the accusations that Iraq attempted to obtain "yellowcake," a source of nuclear material, from Niger, a charge Wilson traveled to Africa to investigate in 2002.

Administration accused of smear campaign
The identity of Wilson's wife was revealed by Novak eight days after Wilson disputed the administration's case in a New York Times opinion piece. Wilson has accused the Bush administration of retaliating against his criticism by leaking his wife's identity to discredit him.

Woodward said it was possible that he could have asked Libby about Wilson's wife, according to his statement, but no references to her appear in his interview notes. References to Plame would have appeared in his notes if she had been discussed, Woodward said.

Woodward's description of his conversations with Libby discredits the charge that Libby was involved in a "scheme" to discredit Wilson, said Wells, Libby's lawyer.

Woodward became famous for his reporting, along with Carl Bernstein, of the Watergate scandal during the the 1970s. Woodward kept secret the identity of his key source, known as "Deep Throat," for more than three decades. (Full story)

Woodward was a guest on CNN's "Larry King Live" the night before Libby's indictment was announced, making no mention of his own involvement.

He said the disclosure of Plame's identity had caused "quite minimal damage" at the CIA and called Fitzgerald "a junkyard dog prosecutor."

"He goes everywhere and asks every question," Woodward said.

So, will Woodward testify for Fitzgerald, or will he too go to jail?

Link to above story

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Just when it couldn't get any more convoluted, reporter Bob Woodward enters the fray with news that he got Plame's name from the Administration at least a month before Libby "leaked" it:



So, will Woodward testify for Fitzgerald, or will he too go to jail?

Link to above story

Is there a possibility that Woodward is lying to get some attention?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Is there a possibility that Woodward is lying to get some attention?

I wondered this too, but I guess he'll be forced to testify or sit in Jail since precedence has already been set. Then we'll find out.

Now it makes Libby look even stupider since had he not committed all these smaller crimes during the investigation, today, he'd be smiling like a Cheshire Cat.

"It aint the crime that gets you....its the cover-up."

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Is there a possibility that Woodward is lying to get some attention?

No offense, but Bob Woodward doesn't need attention. He's a legendary reporter who gets top access to politicians. He's also a best selling author to boot, so I'm not sure how much attention someone needs.

I don't know him obviously, but by reputation he is apparently very accurate (in terms of reporting) and trustworth FWIW.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by moriarty

No offense, but Bob Woodward doesn't need attention. He's a legendary reporter who gets top access to politicians. He's also a best selling author to boot, so I'm not sure how much attention someone needs.

I don't know him obviously, but by reputation he is apparently very accurate (in terms of reporting) and trustworth FWIW.

From the people who know him, he is also an attention whore. That's pretty well known. I know I've heard on more than one occasion.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

From the people who know him, he is also an attention whore. That's pretty well known.

True, but in this case, I'm having a tough time picturing him telling this particular lie, if only for the simple matter that it appears to help Libby. I mean, Woodward ain't exactly Bill O'Reilly with regard to his politics.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

True, but in this case, I'm having a tough time picturing him telling this particular lie, if only for the simple matter that it appears to help Libby. I mean, Woodward ain't exactly Bill O'Reilly with regard to his politics.

Woodward is currenly writing his third Bush book. The first two were pretty, not O'Reilly-esque, but Hannity-esque. What hurts his credibility more is that he has been a vocal opponent of the investigation, and the only person that can confirmed or denied his story so far, Walter Pincus, has denied it.

True or not, it doesn't effect the charges against Libby. Fitzgerald may not have a clear picture of what happened, but Libby was indicted because he was actively trying to keep Fitzgerald from having a clear picture of what happened. But who is this other administration official now??

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

From the people who know him, he is also an attention whore. That's pretty well known. I know I've heard on more than one occasion.

Possibly, but lying to get attention doesn't seem to fit his MO. At least AFAIK.

[MrBigglesworth]

This generation's 18.5 minute gap?

Fitzgerald, who is fighting Libby's request, said in a letter to Libby's lawyers that many e-mails from Cheney's office at the time of the Plame leak in 2003 have been deleted contrary to White House policy.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_r...p-328749c.html

Seriously, is there anyone that in their heart doesn't know that the administration knew they were guilty from the outset?

[sterlingice]

*sigh*

I can't even keep track of what scandal we're on nowadays.

SI

[MrBigglesworth]

Word on the street is that Karl Rove was indicted on Friday on charges of perjury and lying to investigators, with Fitzgerald spending 15 hours at the offices of his lawyer, possibly working on a plea. Information has yet to be verified.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/051306W.shtml

[SirFozzie]

let's wait and see// I'll believe it when I see it.

But yeah, Maybe we should limit Prez's to one four year term, it seems like there's so much resentment on the other side of the political fence (both ways, first with Clinton now with Bush), that the 2nd term gets blown away

[Easy Mac]

I'm sure the NSA will say they don't have clearance to indict Rove.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

let's wait and see// I'll believe it when I see it.

But yeah, Maybe we should limit Prez's to one four year term, it seems like there's so much resentment on the other side of the political fence (both ways, first with Clinton now with Bush), that the 2nd term gets blown away

I don't think you can really equate the two. Clinton was hampered by a GOP congress that was investigating every little thing regardless of merit and/or effect on the country. Throughout all of that, Clinton had an impressive approval rating of over 60% in the second term. Bush doesn't have to deal with any of those investigations. In fact, he has (had?) a congress ready to rubber stamp anything he gave them. Bush is being brought down by his own failed policies, not from the resentment of the other side. It's a different dynamic.

Also, a lot of it could be contributed to the lame duck effect. Everyone is positioning themselves for their own presidential bid. If you are a lame duck in your first term, the gridlock could occur in the first term instead of the second.

[Flasch186]

New court filing focuses on Cheney
Prosecutor: Cheney made handwritten references to Plame

Saturday, May 13, 2006; Posted: 9:03 p.m. EDT (01:03 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- In a new court filing, the prosecutor in the CIA leak case revealed that Vice President Dick Cheney made handwritten references to CIA officer Valerie Plame -- albeit not by name -- before her identity was publicly exposed.

The new court filing is the second in little more than a month by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald mentioning Cheney as being closely focused with his then-chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, on Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, who is married to Plame.

With the two court filings, Fitzgerald has pointed to an important role for the vice president in the weeks leading up to the leaking of Plame's identity.

In the latest court filing late Friday, Fitzgerald said he intends to introduce at Libby's trial in January a copy of Wilson's op-ed article in The New York Times "bearing handwritten notations by the vice president." The article was published on July 6, 2003, eight days before Plame's identity was exposed by conservative columnist Bob Novak.

The notations "support the proposition that publication of the Wilson Op Ed acutely focused the attention of the vice president and the defendant -- his chief of staff -- on Mr. Wilson, on the assertions made in the article and on responding to those assertions."

The article containing Cheney's notes "reflects the contemporaneous reaction of the vice president to Mr. Wilson's Op Ed article," the prosecutor said. "This is relevant to establishing some of the facts that were viewed as important by the defendant's immediate superior, including whether Mr. Wilson's wife had 'sent him on a junket,'" the filing states.

The reference is to the fact that the CIA sent Wilson on a trip to Africa in 2002 to check out a report that Iraq had made attempts to acquire uranium yellowcake from Niger.

Wilson concluded that it was highly doubtful an agreement to purchase uranium had been made.

The Bush administration used the intelligence on supposed efforts by Iraq to acquire uranium from Africa to bolster its case for going to war.

After the invasion, with the Bush White House under pressure because no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, Wilson wrote the op ed piece for The Times. In it, he accused the Bush administration of exaggerating prewar intelligence to exaggerate an Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction.

Defending the administration against Wilson's accusations, Libby and presidential adviser Karl Rove promoted the idea that Wilson's wife, Plame, had sent him on the trip to Africa. Administration critics have said such a move was an attempt to undercut Wilson's credibility.

The prosecution's court papers also stated that Cheney told Libby around June 12, 2003, that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, a month before her identity was outed.

[sterlingice]

At least they've stopped referring to him as "Scooter" in this latest article

SI

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

let's wait and see// I'll believe it when I see it.

But yeah, Maybe we should limit Prez's to one four year term, it seems like there's so much resentment on the other side of the political fence (both ways, first with Clinton now with Bush), that the 2nd term gets blown away

Yeah, I'll wait to see on this as well. If he really did it, I want to see him charged. But I am definitely NOT believing this story until I hear Fitgergald himself saying it.

[flere-imsaho]

Fitzgerald better watch out, or Cheney might shoot him in the face.

[NoMyths]

Link: Lawyer: Rove Won't Be Charged in CIA Leak Case

Full Text:
Lawyer: Rove Won't Be Charged in CIA Leak Case

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- White House senior adviser Karl Rove has been told by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald that he will not be charged in the CIA leak case, according to Robert Luskin, Rove's lawyer.

"In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation," Luskin said in a written statement Tuesday. "We believe that the special counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."

A grand jury has heard testimony from Rove in five appearances, most recently April 26.

After that appearance, Luskin issued a statement saying, "In connection with this appearance, the special counsel has advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target of the investigation."

At issue in the case has been how covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's name was disclosed to the media.

On Monday, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a former aide to Vice President Cheney, appeared in court to update a judge on preparations for his trial in the case.

Libby, who resigned in October as chief of staff to Cheney, is fighting charges he lied to investigators and a grand jury about his knowledge of Plame.

Plame's husband, U.S. diplomat Joe Wilson, had openly challenged part of the Bush administration's pre-war rationale for waging war on Iraq. But Libby's defense counsel has asserted there was no sinister effort to punish the Wilsons by revealing the identity of his wife to several reporters.

[Flasch186]

so he is innocent of this. Well, Libby got the info from somewhere....who could it have been? Who told him to "get the message out."? I guess we're waiting to find out now. Good for Karl.

[JW]

Drudge is having fun with the story this morning. Dean's reaction. The lack of reaction from the bloggers and web sites that were calling for Rove's head on a stake. I imagine the disappointment on the left is considerable.

And of course the real story of how Plame was 'outed', if that word can even be used at all in relation to her status, has not really come out. One source is her husband.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

so he is innocent of this. Well, Libby got the info from somewhere....who could it have been? Who told him to "get the message out."? I guess we're waiting to find out now. Good for Karl.

Is that sarcasm?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Is that sarcasm?

no, if he isnt indicted and proven guilty...then he is innocent. Like I said, doesnt mean that they or people dont do stuff that is wrong even if theyre not proven guilt of a crime, but in this case he is by definition, as of now, "innocent." I emant the second part too, about who guided Libby? Cheney? anyways, I dont like Rove but as of now, he is innocent, maybe not free of doing something wrong but "innocent".

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

Drudge is having fun with the story this morning. Dean's reaction. The lack of reaction from the bloggers and web sites that were calling for Rove's head on a stake. I imagine the disappointment on the left is considerable.

And of course the real story of how Plame was 'outed', if that word can even be used at all in relation to her status, has not really come out. One source is her husband.

Strange times where people are declaring it a victory because they weren't sent to jail by their own Justice Department.

Anyway, all the info we have so far is from the lawyer, so it's tough to know exactly what is going on. There were reports in the last couple of weeks that Rove had turned and was cooperating, so who knows.

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Strange times where people are declaring it a victory because they weren't sent to jail by their own Justice Department.

Anyway, all the info we have so far is from the lawyer, so it's tough to know exactly what is going on. There were reports in the last couple of weeks that Rove had turned and was cooperating, so who knows.

Victory? Who's declaring victory? Not me. I've said several times that I have a low opinion of Rove and think he has hurt the country. But it seemed pretty clear from the start that Rove was not the source, and all the foaming-at-the-mouth hatred from the left wasn't going to change that.

Of course the left is not better than the right in the "It is true because I want it to be true" game.

And I'll just repeat what I've said. Let's really, really get to the bottom of this. Let's find out who the original source really was. But I think even that will be disappointing to the left because the likely source was probably Joe Wilson, if there was an original source, because technically there was probably no crime committed at all in the supposed 'outing', and because the supposed secret about Valerie Plame's supposed covert status was an open secret all along.

This has been one of the great media-created stories of the century thusfar.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

Victory? Who's declaring victory? Not me. I've said several times that I have a low opinion of Rove and think he has hurt the country.

I was talking about the sources that you were citing, Drudge et al.

Originally Posted by JW

But it seemed pretty clear from the start that Rove was not the source, and all the foaming-at-the-mouth hatred from the left wasn't going to change that...

And I'll just repeat what I've said. Let's really, really get to the bottom of this. Let's find out who the original source really was. But I think even that will be disappointing to the left because the likely source was probably Joe Wilson, if there was an original source, because technically there was probably no crime committed at all in the supposed 'outing', and because the supposed secret about Valerie Plame's supposed covert status was an open secret all along.

This has been one of the great media-created stories of the century thusfar.

Joe Wilson outed his wife to discredit himself and end her career? That's more credible than the biggest dirty trickster of our time doing something that is his MO? I don't follow your logic here.

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I was talking about the sources that you were citing, Drudge et al.


Joe Wilson outed his wife to discredit himself and end her career? That's more credible than the biggest dirty trickster of our time doing something that is his MO? I don't follow your logic here.

First you have to understand that 'outed' should be used very loosely here, since there was likely no technical violation of the law based on her status, and since her status seemed to be common knowledge among a lot of DC insiders and media. This is imho a media-created controversy.

Second, one theory is that Wilson was the original source in talking to one or more reporters not of course for the purpose of discrediting his wife but for the purpose of furthering his own career and anti-administration agenda. I could give you some citations on this, but it is just a theory and you likely would not believe it, so it is not worth the trouble. I may have even cited it in this thread at some point, but it is not worth going back to it. I do recall that a National Review columnist laid the case out in detail. If you read enough about Wilson, he is pretty low guy, too, just like Rove, and not simply the husband coming to the aid of his wife.

Back to Rove, the failure of the left here was in its over-eagerness to attack Rove. They took a bad case to heart.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

First you have to understand that 'outed' should be used very loosely here, since there was likely no technical violation of the law based on her status, and since her status seemed to be common knowledge among a lot of DC insiders and media. This is imho a media-created controversy.

Second, one theory is that Wilson was the original source in talking to one or more reporters not of course for the purpose of discrediting his wife but for the purpose of furthering his own career and anti-administration agenda. I could give you some citations on this, but it is just a theory and you likely would not believe it, so it is not worth the trouble. I may have even cited it in this thread at some point, but it is not worth going back to it. I do recall that a National Review columnist laid the case out in detail. If you read enough about Wilson, he is pretty low guy, too, just like Rove, and not simply the husband coming to the aid of his wife.

Back to Rove, the failure of the left here was in its over-eagerness to attack Rove. They took a bad case to heart.

If you ignore reality, all kinds of things are possible I guess. Not an outing? We've had a special investigator leading an investigation into it for over a year. Wilson was the original source? Libby was indicted for obstruction of justice and perjury...to protect Wilson? Furthermore, Newsweek has published emails by Matt Cooper that say that Rove told him about Wilson's wife (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/15/dean.rove/index.html). Furthermore even more, Judith Miller has TESTIFIED that her source was Libby. The NY Times reported that notes in the hands of federal prosecutors say that Libby heard from Cheney, a month before the Novak column.

But the RNC says that Wilson is a bad guy, and it's not like them to go after someone's character, so he has to be the guilty one here. I'd love to see this piece of NR work that explains this all away and blames it on Wilson. Let me guess, Mark Levin?

[Glengoyne]

There are some things about this whole thing that I've never really been comfortable with the answers to. The first of which is Just how covert was Valerie Plame? I'm not certain if this is just the standard "I can't say I work at the CIA, not because I'm an honest to goodness covert spy, but just because I work at the CIA, and policy requires that I keep up this charade." If that is the case, I can certainly believe that many people in the DC community would actually know of her actual status. I think this is a possibility because it makes sense to me. In response to the question of "Why have an investigation if she wasn't really covert?" I believe that the CIA takes this kind of thing very seriously, and requests investigations whenever identities are made public. I've heard both that her employment was a open secret and that she was an actual covert spy that no one knew about. I haven't been definitively convinced of either.

I've also read enough about this to know that Joe Wilson is more than a little bit of an opportunist. Enough so that I find it hard to buy him as an innocent protector of his wife.

I'm also not sure that the revelation of Plame as a CIA employee was done in retaliation for Wilson's anti administration comments. It seems quite reasonable that it was mentioned not to "out" Plame, but to paint a more complete picture or accounting of Wilson's role. I think this motive is more likely, than retribution.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

There are some things about this whole thing that I've never really been comfortable with the answers to. The first of which is Just how covert was Valerie Plame?

Knight-Ridder reported in October of 2003:

Compounding the damage, the front company, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, the name of which has been reported previously, apparently also was used by other CIA officers whose work now could be at risk, according to Vince Cannistraro, former CIA chief of counterterrorism operations and analysis. Now, Plame's career as a covert operations officer in the CIA's Directorate of Operations is over. Those she dealt with -- on business or not -- may be in danger. The directorate is conducting an extensive damage assessment.

At the October 2005 Fitzgerald press conference:

Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community. Valerie Wilson's friends, neighbors, college classmates had no idea she had another life. The fact that she was a CIA officer was not well-known, for her protection or for the benefit of all us. It's important that a CIA officer's identity be protected, that it be protected not just for the officer, but for the nation's security. Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003.

That should put to rest the question about whether or not she was covert.

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I'm also not sure that the revelation of Plame as a CIA employee was done in retaliation for Wilson's anti administration comments. It seems quite reasonable that it was mentioned not to "out" Plame, but to paint a more complete picture or accounting of Wilson's role. I think this motive is more likely, than retribution.

This might be possible, I'm not really sure because I can't follow the logic. How does it clarify Joe Wilson's role by saying that his wife is an undercover CIA operative?

[JW]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

If you ignore reality, all kinds of things are possible I guess. Not an outing? We've had a special investigator leading an investigation into it for over a year. Wilson was the original source? Libby was indicted for obstruction of justice and perjury...to protect Wilson? Furthermore, Newsweek has published emails by Matt Cooper that say that Rove told him about Wilson's wife (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/15/dean.rove/index.html). Furthermore even more, Judith Miller has TESTIFIED that her source was Libby. The NY Times reported that notes in the hands of federal prosecutors say that Libby heard from Cheney, a month before the Novak column.

But the RNC says that Wilson is a bad guy, and it's not like them to go after someone's character, so he has to be the guilty one here. I'd love to see this piece of NR work that explains this all away and blames it on Wilson. Let me guess, Mark Levin?

If I ignore reality, I might believe that Valerie Plame was a real covert agent doing real 007 spy things. In the real world, however, that just isn't so. Not even Fitzgerald is ready to defend the alternate reality that Plame was a genuine covert operative.

Here are a few links on the subject of Plame and Wilson etc.

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/expo...rk/051106.html

Perhaps the key moment in the descent happened last February in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton. Fitzgerald was there, along with the Libby defense team.

Libby’s lawyers had asked Fitzgerald to produce evidence that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert agent at the CIA. They had also asked for an assessment of the damage, if any, caused by the exposure of her identity.

In papers filed with the court, Fitzgerald refused both requests. Now, in the courtroom, Judge Walton wanted to hear Fitzgerald’s reasons.

“Does the government intend to introduce any evidence that would relate to either damage or potential damage that the alleged revelations by Mr. Libby caused, or do you intend to introduce any evidence related to Ms. Wilson’s status and whether it was classified or she was in a covert status or anything of that nature?” Walton asked.

“We don’t intend to offer any proof of actual damage,” Fitzgerald said. “We’re not going to get into whether that would occur or not. It’s not part of the perjury statute.”

It was an astonishing statement, in the context of what Fitzgerald has said in the past.

Go back to the news conference he held last October in which he announced the Libby indictment. The case was very serious, Fitzgerald said, as he launched into the famous metaphor in which he compared the CIA-leak case to a baseball game in which the pitcher threw a fastball, hit the batter and “really, really hurt him.”

This case is kind of like that, Fitzgerald said, only “it’s a lot more serious than baseball. And the damage wasn’t to one person. It wasn’t just Valerie Wilson. It was done to all of us.”

There was no way one could listen to that and escape the conclusion that Fitzgerald was claiming the disclosure of Mrs. Wilson’s identity did serious damage. But that was then. Now Fitzgerald doesn’t want to talk about it.

But what about Mrs. Wilson’s job status? When that issue came up, the conversation went truly off track.

Wells was again pressing the judge to force Fitzgerald to turn over evidence of the damage done. The reason he needed it, Wells said, is that Fitzgerald will likely — and understandably — tell the jurors that the case began with the outing of a CIA agent.

“What [the jurors] are hearing is that, as Mr. Fitzgerald said in his press conference, Mr. Libby outed a CIA agent, and they are going to be sitting in the box thinking 007’s identity has been disclosed and that my client is a terrible person,” Wells said. “It’s going to be like we have turned over the crown jewels because we outed a classified CIA agent.”

The judge then turned to Fitzgerald. What did he have to say?

“We are trying a perjury case,” Fitzgerald said. “If she turned out to be a postal driver mistaken for a CIA employee, it’s not a defense if you lie in a grand jury under oath about what you said.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200507150827.asp

The first reference to Plame being a secret agent appears in The Nation, in an article by David Corn published July 16, 2003, just two days after Novak’s column appeared. It carried this lead: “Did Bush officials blow the cover of a U.S. intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security — and break the law — in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?”

Since Novak did not report that Plame was “working covertly” how did Corn know that’s what she had been doing?

Corn does not tell his readers and he has responded to a query from me only by pointing out that he was asking a question, not making a “statement of fact.” But in the article, he asserts that Novak “outed” Plame “as an undercover CIA officer.” Again, Novak did not do that. Rather, it is Corn who is, apparently for the first time, “outing” Plame’s “undercover” status.

Corn follows that assertion with a quote from Wilson saying, “I will not answer questions about my wife.” Any reporter worth his salt would immediately wonder: Did Wilson indeed answer Corn’s questions about his wife — after Corn agreed not to quote his answers but to use them only on background? Read the rest of Corn’s piece and it’s difficult to believe anything else. Corn names no other sources for the information he provides — and he provides much more information than Novak revealed.

Corn also claims that Wilson “will not confirm nor deny that his wife …works for the CIA.” Corn adds: “But let’s assume she does. That would seem to mean that the Bush administration has screwed one of its own top-secret operatives in order to punish Wilson …”

On what basis could Corn “assume” that Plame was not only working covertly but was actually a “top-secret” operative? And where did Corn get the idea that Plame had been “outed” in order to punish Wilson? That is not suggested by anything in the Novak column which, as I noted, is sympathetic to Wilson and Plame.

The likely answer: The allegation that someone in the administration leaked to Novak as a way to punish Wilson was made by Wilson — to Corn. But Corn, rather than quote Wilson, puts the idea forward as his own.



http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...510.shtml?s=ic

In a development that got no media play over the weekend, Lewis 'Scooter' Libby's defense lawyer announced on Friday that he has located five witnesses who will testify that Joe Wilson outed his wife Valerie Plame as a CIA employee before Robert Novak did so in his July 2003 column.

According to the NationalReviewOnline's Byron York, Libby's lawyer Ted Wells told the court that his witnesses "will say under oath that Mr. Wilson told them his wife worked for the CIA."

Once again, I hope we do get to the bottom of this. I hope Fitzgerald, somewhere along the line, does clarify whether or not a law was broken in the possible outing of Valerie Plame. And then I hope he does show exactly who did it. But at this point I doubt that will ever happen.

This messy little affair involving several small men -- including both Joe Wilson and Karl Rove -- should just be allowed to die. The left has lost its chance to burn Rove at the stake.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

If I ignore reality, I might believe that Valerie Plame was a real covert agent doing real 007 spy things. In the real world, however, that just isn't so. Not even Fitzgerald is ready to defend the alternate reality that Plame was a genuine covert operative.

I posted a quote from Fitzgerald that said that she was outed. He spent about a year interviewing everyone involved: Libby, Rove, Plame, Wilson, Plame's neighbors, everyone, and he said that she was outed. On the other hand, you have Byron York, conservative pundit not known to have interviewed a single relevant person, saying she wasn't because Fitzgerald wouldn't introduce evidence to that fact in a trial that has nothing to do with it. You find the latter at least as credible. Why?

Originally Posted by JW

http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200507150827.asp

[b]The first reference to Plame being a secret agent appears in The Nation, in an article by David Corn published July 16, 2003, just two days after Novak’s column appeared. It carried this lead: “Did Bush officials blow the cover of a U.S. intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security — and break the law — in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?”

Since Novak did not report that Plame was “working covertly” how did Corn know that’s what she had been doing?

Talk about a red herring. What does it matter if Corn read it from Novak or got it from outside sources? You think Novak could put that she was a CIA agent but nobody would ever figure out that she was covert if Corn didn't say something? Furthermore, Novak called her an 'operative', wording which makes her part of the resource gathering arm of the CIA and not the analyzation arm.

Originally Posted by JW

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...510.shtml?s=ic

In a development that got no media play over the weekend, Lewis 'Scooter' Libby's defense lawyer announced on Friday that he has located five witnesses who will testify that Joe Wilson outed his wife Valerie Plame as a CIA employee before Robert Novak did so in his July 2003 column.

According to the NationalReviewOnline's Byron York, Libby's lawyer Ted Wells told the court that his witnesses "will say under oath that Mr. Wilson told them his wife worked for the CIA."

I'd love to hear these sources and what they have to say, but we probably will never hear from them because it's probably not going to be in court because it isn't relevant to the case. Fitzgerald more than likely already talked to them, and didn't find them credible, and I'd take his opinion over the lawyer for the accused.

Byron York and Cliff May. I was very close with my Mark Levin guess.

Originally Posted by JW

Once again, I hope we do get to the bottom of this. I hope Fitzgerald, somewhere along the line, does clarify whether or not a law was broken in the possible outing of Valerie Plame. And then I hope he does show exactly who did it. But at this point I doubt that will ever happen.

I doubt it too, because the administration is stonewalling and perjuring themselves. To protect Joe Wilson, right?

[JW]

You should just give it up, Mr. B. It is over, and there will be no prosecution for 'outing' Plame. Rove is safe. I bet Libby will get off in the end, too, but perhaps not. I am hoping that the Libby case will help shed new light on what actually happened.

Interestingly, I heard Jim Warren of the Chicago Tribune on Hannity and Colmes tonight discussing the issue. He is no fan of the Bush administration. He said tonight that he thought Rove -- a master of the smear -- and company were definitely playing hardball and out to smear Wilson. But he said that in the end he believes that no underlying crime was committed.

I think Fitzgerald has come to the same conclusion, or else he has decided that it is such a stretch in this particular case that he would not be able to get a conviction. Still, I would like to know what he believes actually happened.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

But he said that in the end he believes that no underlying crime was committed.

We'll probably never know, because the Bush administration is stonewalling and perjuring themselves. But they did nothing wrong, they just enjoy stonewalling and perjury. Right?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JW

I think Fitzgerald has come to the same conclusion, or else he has decided that it is such a stretch in this particular case that he would not be able to get a conviction. Still, I would like to know what he believes actually happened.

Dola, I think it's more likely that based on Luskin's language, that Rove cut a deal.