OT - Karl Rove Named as CIA Agent Leak

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

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.

Lighten up. It's not like the life of a communist left wing radical agent is worth anything anyway. If Rove is the source he should get a medal. Hell, maybe he should expose a few more pinkos!

[ThunderingHERD]

I hate America as much as the next guy*, but I simply don't see the logic** of "informant is heinous for informing and should be hanged" while "reporter of information (who gave potency to information in the first place) is a saint and should be granted immunity.)"

Which is not to say that Karl Rove shouldn't be hanged*** for other reasons... or this reason, for that matter.

*I am very liberal
**but also logical
***sentenced to life in prison

[sterlingice]

Doesn't it bother anyone that the whole thing that started this, whether she was covert or not, was that to get back at a diplomat they disagreed with was to go screw over his wife? Not go after the guy and god forbid just go after his position, but go after his wife. That was what always scared me about this case. And now, it turns out it was Rove, and not even his minions, the man himself.

SI

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Doesn't it bother anyone that the whole thing that started this, whether she was covert or not, was that to get back at a diplomat they disagreed with was to go screw over his wife? Not go after the guy and god forbid just go after his position, but go after his wife. That was what always scared me about this case. And now, it turns out it was Rove, and not even his minions, the man himself.

SI

But she was the wife of a leftist! I do agree that they should have gone after him directly and left a few dead prostitutes in his tool shed or something, but by marrying one of those obnoxious, bloated, disgusting anti-american socialists she has opend herself up for any red-blooded, god-fearing american to expose her for what she is.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Doesn't it bother anyone that the whole thing that started this, whether she was covert or not, was that to get back at a diplomat they disagreed with was to go screw over his wife? Not go after the guy and god forbid just go after his position, but go after his wife. That was what always scared me about this case. And now, it turns out it was Rove, and not even his minions, the man himself.

SI

Yeah it bothers me. Here's the thing I've been trying to figure out: Is this how they were restoring the honor of the white house? Or are they trying to change the tone in Washington with this one?

[SirFozzie]

My thoughts are that while Plame's "outing" may or may not be a major issue, as said earlier (it's really unknown if it was anything more then a curosry "Never heard of her from the CIA), the part that bothers me more is about him (if true) lying to a grand jury on the issue. That part I have more problems with.

That's what they hung on Clinton, and it led a bit down the road on the way to impeachment. If he did lie to the grand jury and said he had nothing to do with it, I predict that he will resign.. Rove gives the Demos a nice big fat juicy target to ram down everyone's throat in the midterm elections, or for SJC fights.. especially since the liberal 9/11 comment he made.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Doesn't it bother anyone that the whole thing that started this, whether she was covert or not, was that to get back at a diplomat they disagreed with was to go screw over his wife? Not go after the guy and god forbid just go after his position, but go after his wife. That was what always scared me about this case. And now, it turns out it was Rove, and not even his minions, the man himself.

SI

It bothers me immensely. It was part of my earlier "banana republic" remark. This is the way we play politics in the US now? Someone disagrees with the party in charge so we go after their family? It's shameful. If this comes out as being true, the White House has lost all dignity. Lying about getting a hummer is one thing, lying about stuff that actually matters? Wow. Yet, some people seem to have no problem with this. Of course, if things were reversed, ie a democrat president outing a right-wing CIA agent (covert or not), they would be HOWLING bloody murder. Howling.

Such things make me sad and unhappy.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Arles

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 chief suit upon closer examination.

even if the outting a CIA agent charges are hard to get, it should be pretty easy to nail Rove on perjury charges if it's him... you know... those charges "you" tried to impeach Clinton on.

[MalcPow]

Most of what is coming out now (from Rove's lawyer) is that he spoke with the reporters the week before the story broke, but that he did not reveal any secrets and that he did not name Plame. Within this context I doubt he perjured himself.

[Flasch186]

what;s his lawyer going to say LOL

[MalcPow]

The article from the LA Times...

Originally Posted by Richard B. Schmitt, Los Angeles Times
Sunday, July 3, 2005

Rove spoke to Time but didn't name CIA agent, lawyer says
Karl Rove, one of President Bush's closest advisers, spoke with a Time magazine reporter days before the name of a CIA operative surfaced in the media, but did not leak the confidential information, a lawyer for Rove said Saturday in a new admission in the case.

Rove spoke to Time reporter Matthew Cooper in July 2003, during the week before published reports revealed the identity of operative Valerie Plame, the wife of Bush administration critic and former U.S. envoy Joseph Wilson.

Cooper is one of two reporters who have been held in contempt of court for not cooperating with a federal investigation into who revealed Plame's identity. Although Wilson once said he suspected Rove played a role in destroying his wife's CIA cover, the White House has dismissed questions about Rove's actions as "totally ridiculous."

In confirming the conversation between Rove and Cooper, Rove attorney Robert Luskin stressed that the presidential adviser did not reveal any secrets.

But the disclosure raised new questions about Rove and the precise role of the White House in the apparent national security breach as Cooper and another reporter, Judith Miller of the New York Times, face imminent jail terms.

Time Inc., under pressure from a federal judge and over Cooper's objections, turned over e-mail records and other internal documents to a special prosecutor Friday, identifying sources Cooper used to report and write on the politically charged case. A Time spokeswoman on Saturday declined to say whether Rove was among the sources that were revealed.

Cooper and Miller could be jailed as soon as Wednesday for refusing to cooperate in the investigation. Time, which was separately held in contempt in the case, has said that it hopes its cooperation will mean Cooper will not be incarcerated. Miller and the New York Times have refused to disclose her sources; she conducted interviews, but never wrote a story on the Plame matter.

Rove, Bush's deputy chief of staff and longtime political strategist, has testified before a grand jury investigating the Plame case on three occasions. His latest appearance was in October 2004, which is about the same time the prosecutor investigating the case has said his investigation was complete with the exception of the testimony of Cooper and Miller.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is investigating the alleged outing of Plame by syndicated columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. Some suspect that the White House leaked her name in retaliation for a July 6, 2003, article in the New York Times written by Wilson, her husband, accusing the administration of using bogus intelligence to justify the war in Iraq.

[clintl]

We'll see when the Time documents are made public. A statement from Rove's lawyer is completely meaningless. Lawyers almost always deny publicly that their clients had any culpability at this stage of an investigation.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by MalcPow

Most of what is coming out now (from Rove's lawyer) is that he spoke with the reporters the week before the story broke, but that he did not reveal any secrets and that he did not name Plame. Within this context I doubt he perjured himself.

no, the lawyer was going to say he did it

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

Here's a good recap on this:

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

Finally! You post a link with which I don't have to quibble!

But I would warn those outraged over all this not to be surprised if the charges fell apart like a chief suit upon closer examination.

Cheap suit, surely.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Chubby

even if the outting a CIA agent charges are hard to get, it should be pretty easy to nail Rove on perjury charges if it's him... you know... those charges "you" tried to impeach Clinton on.

Like I said, I have no problem with going after Rove for perjury - but since he's simply an advisor I don't know of the political impact for this type of an investigation. As to the Clinton comment, I was one of Clinton's biggest defenders while it was going on in the mid-90s. You can check out some of my editorials on the Arizona Daily Wildcat for evidence of that.

Cheap suit, surely.

That's what I get for writing replies at 1 AM

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

I don't know if she was working in Langley, but she had been living in DC since 1997....

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....

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.

I think you, and others here, need to step back for a second and take a hard look at all the assumptions you're making about CIA standard operating procedures.

A lot of you seem to be operating from assumptions based in the world of Alias or James Bond, where every criminal & terrorist is a mastermind who can sift through webs of associations to make direct links between people. Is this really realistic?

Given that she's mentioned as potentially compromised due to Aldrich Ames in 1994, maybe the state of her "cover" in the beginning of this decade was deemed acceptable for the remaining former associations she had. The Vanity Fair article also notes that at the time of her outing she was getting ready to go back to a State Department cover which indicates to me, at least, that there was more going on here than meets the eye.

Bottom Line: The basis for the attacks on Plame's "cover" or lack thereof seems to rest on the idea that if she had direct and current contacts with undercover field agents her "cover" was clearly insufficient, thus we must conclude from her "lack of cover" that she in fact had no such connections to jeopardize.

I think that's far too simplistic and full of weak assumptions.

[Arles]

Flere,

I was responding from a legal standpoint. If people are going to file charges against "the leak" then his comments need to have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. And that act is pretty specific on the items needed to have an agent's identity qualify. So, given she was not working abroad at the time (one potential qualifier) and that the CIA did not appear to be "taking affirmative measures to conceal" her identity given the fact she was stationed in Washington and had a very weak alias in Boston makes the case for these type of charges very weak.

Now, I will certainly agree that the leaker and Novak should have used a little more sense and not released her name to the public if there was even a question about her status. But, that does not mean that their actions equate a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

A lot of you seem to be operating from assumptions based in the world of Alias or James Bond, where every criminal & terrorist is a mastermind who can sift through webs of associations to make direct links between people. Is this really realistic?

No matter how often nor how dramatically we disagree, sometimes you say something that actually makes at least a tiny bit of sense

What I'd answer on that point is that, minus any Bond contrivances, that there's still a long history of thorough tracking of those who go in & out of places such as Langley. Now, I'd say that the level of surveillance is lower now than during the Cold War, but that shouldn't be confused with it being non-existent either.

I like seeing that you're thinking about this aspect of the whole situation though, seriously. I just strongly believe that you're underestimating what is/isn't common knowledge inside the global intelligence community (basically the opposite of what you wondered if some others are doing, i.e. overestimating it). It's actually a relatively small universe in some ways.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Arles

I was responding from a legal standpoint.

Ah, gotcha. I wasn't, really. I'm more concerned with the lack of circumspection shown by Novak & "the leaker", as well as the political goal of the action than trying to prove the technicalities of the case either way. By and large this is because I think Peter Fitzgerald will do what he can do vis-a-vis the law which, as you point out, may not be a lot.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

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.

I think something is wrong with people who draw generalities from assumptions based on frustration and anger. An attitude like yours makes it difficult to keep an open mind and have a dialogue. Of course something is obviously wrong with me, so take it all with a grain of salt.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

What I'd answer on that point is that, minus any Bond contrivances, that there's still a long history of thorough tracking of those who go in & out of places such as Langley. Now, I'd say that the level of surveillance is lower now than during the Cold War, but that shouldn't be confused with it being non-existent either.

A valid point. However, I think you're still neglecting two (at least) things:

1. I can't find any actual evidence that she was physically at Langley outside of what amounts to Washington gossip columns.

2. We have no idea what Plame did for the CIA. I see a lot of people suggesting that, given her "lack of cover" (a subjective measure at best, see above), she couldn't have been tied to anything very important. That's a silly assumption. We have no idea what she did. We have no idea to whom she was connected (if at all). We have no idea to what extent she needed cover. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that her level of cover was deemed sufficient to not arouse suspicion amongst those who may come across her name & her associates.

I like seeing that you're thinking about this aspect of the whole situation though, seriously. I just strongly believe that you're underestimating what is/isn't common knowledge inside the global intelligence community (basically the opposite of what you wondered if some others are doing, i.e. overestimating it). It's actually a relatively small universe in some ways.

You're assuming that the significant actors in her CIA realm were all states and thus members of the global intelligence community. What if her work involved non-state actors? What if her work involved predominantly regional or even local actors?

There are a lot of assumptions floating around, but the bottom line is that Novak & "the leaker" had the opportunity to err on the side of circumspection in an area where the intelligence community was involved, and they decided instead to forgo circumspection in the pursuit of political and, in Novak's case, career expediency.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

1. I can't find any actual evidence that she was physically at Langley outside of what amounts to Washington gossip columns.

I'd have to dig around for something beyond that, but it seems to have been a generally accepted stipulation AFAIK. If not, I'll withdraw it.

We have no idea what Plame did for the CIA.

Agreed. But in order for any crime to exist here, it's a must that a need for cover to have existed. And that's the very core of any defense of the mention of her association with the CIA. And as I understand it, the burden of proof of that need lies within the government, not with Novak, Rove, or either of us.

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by timmynausea

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

Well, since you insist: Pure partisan politics. How many even remember when Bill and Hillary had all those FBI files on the congressmen? Illegally? And then they 'suddenly' turned up on Hillary's nightstand after a few months of 'looking' for them? And how much did we then hear about that? I think only the 'partisan' news network Fox was even talking about it. Same old, same old. If a Liberal commits a felony they let him or her walk with a slap on the wrist, if its a Conservative committing a misdemenor its suddenly a federal case and all hell breaks loose.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, since you insist: Pure partisan politics. How many even remember when Bill and Hillary had all those FBI files on the congressmen? Illegally? And then they 'suddenly' turned up on Hillary's nightstand after a few months of 'looking' for them? And how much did we then hear about that? I think only the 'partisan' news network Fox was even talking about it. Same old, same old. If a Liberal commits a felony they let him or her walk with a slap on the wrist, if its a Conservative committing a misdemenor its suddenly a federal case and all hell breaks loose.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, since you insist: Pure partisan politics. How many even remember when Bill and Hillary had all those FBI files on the congressmen? Illegally? And then they 'suddenly' turned up on Hillary's nightstand after a few months of 'looking' for them? And how much did we then hear about that? I think only the 'partisan' news network Fox was even talking about it. Same old, same old. If a Liberal commits a felony they let him or her walk with a slap on the wrist, if its a Conservative committing a misdemenor its suddenly a federal case and all hell breaks loose.

hahaha uh huh. so impeachment proceedings is a slap on the wrist?

[Bubba Wheels]

Originally Posted by Chubby

hahaha uh huh. so impeachment proceedings is a slap on the wrist?

Yeah, the Senate made sure it was. They could have called witnesses to testify and that would have made it less the sham than it turned out to be. Clinton got lucky by the 'Gentlemen's Club' not wanting to deal with voter fallout and the Senate wanting to sweep the whole thing under the rug.

[Flasch186]

again I stand my point that no one at the White House ahs the right to simply decide someone isn't "under cover" enough thus we can release her name, which only served a political purpose of retaliation AND NOTHING ELSE!! It was not their right and it is a crime, hence the special investigation. If it is Rove that was responsible OR whomever else they deserve to pay the piper for this crime.

"OH, she wasn't THAT under cover." It's not their right to determine that and not under the designation of powers...it cannot be argued.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Originally Posted by Bubba Wheels

Well, since you insist: Pure partisan politics. How many even remember when Bill and Hillary had all those FBI files on the congressmen? Illegally? And then they 'suddenly' turned up on Hillary's nightstand after a few months of 'looking' for them? And how much did we then hear about that? I think only the 'partisan' news network Fox was even talking about it. Same old, same old. If a Liberal commits a felony they let him or her walk with a slap on the wrist, if its a Conservative committing a misdemenor its suddenly a federal case and all hell breaks loose.

I'd point out Hillary and Bill were cleared of any wrongdoing in that case, along with the other 5,436 things right wingers think Clinton should be in jail for, but the truth doesn't seem to mean much to ole' Bubba.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

again I stand my point that no one at the White House ahs the right to simply decide someone isn't "under cover" enough thus we can release her name, which only served a political purpose of retaliation AND NOTHING ELSE!! It was not their right and it is a crime, hence the special investigation. If it is Rove that was responsible OR whomever else they deserve to pay the piper for this crime.

"OH, she wasn't THAT under cover." It's not their right to determine that and not under the designation of powers...it cannot be argued.

What you're missing here, it appears at least, is that the degree of "cover" is a neccessary component of any "crime" -- no cover, or no cover that was subject to "affirmative measures to conceal" then there's no crime at all.

[Flasch186]

every single report EVER that came form any independent news source as that she was Covert. It doesnt have to be today, it would in essence mean FOREVER since now she could never be covert again. Its not the White house's right to just decide this on a whim because they dont like her husband. Cover was already stated, and has been impressed upon at every corner of this entire story. Rove cannot decide today, since she is writing a report behind a desk, to "out" her. It is treasonous and Im surprised since you're so militant at heart, in regards to intelligence and armed forces that all of a sudden you're ok with this.

Perhaps it falls under your war against the left in this country...that you yourself have outlined as your heart and soul...so I guess IN THAT WAR its ok....but not in real life, there Jon.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

... but not in real life, there Jon.

A) That's about as "real" as anything in the world gets Flasch.
and
B) You really need to go read the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

You really seem to be drifting into "how you wish things were" instead of "how things really are".

I'll stipulate that if Rove or anybody else violated it, then they should be prosecuted persuant to the terms of the Act.

What I think is far more likely to occur, however, is that it will be clear to those who are paying attention that no law was violated ... but that the left will once again attempt to rely on volume rather than substance to create a prosecution (or persecution) where none is justified nor can one be sustained.

[Flasch186]

I think most people except those on the fringe would be appalled and shocked, LAW OR NO LAW, that our administration and its "advisors" would "out/blow cover" on ANYONE that works for the government based SOLELY on retaliation. THAT IS SLIMY AS HELL!!

The fact that there is a law wirtten to protect these people is bonus, BUT if you need that law to have some ethics than that is your weakness to begin with.

[ScottVib]

Newsweek's released it and CNN.com has picked it up.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/03/co...ove/index.html

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

I think most people except those on the fringe would be appalled and shocked, LAW OR NO LAW, that our administration and its "advisors" would "out/blow cover" on ANYONE that works for the government based SOLELY on retaliation. THAT IS SLIMY AS HELL!!

The fact that there is a law wirtten to protect these people is bonus, BUT if you need that law to have some ethics than that is your weakness to begin with.

That's funny, not only do you need to read the Act but also read several books on how the federal govt really works (p.s., I think you would be appalled in reading a book like ""Master of the Senate" - LBJ years). You may want things were different but you would be wishing for something that never have been, nor will ever be. I would venture to say that we don't know (or more accurately, don't care to know) 90% of what goes on inside the Beltway and the numerous laws that are broken, gross ethical lapses and the blackmail/back-biting/extortion that goes on every single day. It's no different now than it was 10 years ago, or 40 years ago (and actually a lot better now than it was 100-140 yrs ago) - nor will it be any different 10 or 40 yrs from now. One can always chose to prosecute or censure or something- it's just a matter of blindly throwing a dart and see who it hits.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

That's funny, not only do you need to read the Act but also read several books on how the federal govt really works (p.s., I think you would be appalled in reading a book like ""Master of the Senate" - LBJ years). You may want things were different but you would be wishing for something that never have been, nor will ever be. I would venture to say that we don't know (or more accurately, don't care to know) 90% of what goes on inside the Beltway and the numerous laws that are broken, gross ethical lapses and the blackmail/back-biting/extortion that goes on every single day. It's no different now than it was 10 years ago, or 40 years ago (and actually a lot better now than it was 100-140 yrs ago) - nor will it be any different 10 or 40 yrs from now. One can always chose to prosecute or censure or something- it's just a matter of blindly throwing a dart and see who it hits.

Along those same lines is what I find funny also. People talk about how Clinton's blowjob and Bush's speaking skills have ruined the great history of the White House, the political parties are divided worse than they ever have been in the history of the country, Dick Chaney should be charged with murder...
Our fucking first vice president murdered a political opponenet in a duel! Our country was involved in a civil war! (The Republican/Democrat name calling is the worst point in history? Worse than a civil war?) Slaves.

Face it, the past is not nearly as pretty as any of us ever remember. So everyone needs to quit talking about a return to those values. They aren't really there.

[Dutch]

I agree. Senators/Politicians/Beltway Boys are basically proffessional cock-blockers nowadays, but at least they aren't talking about civil war every 15-minutes like they did in the 1850's and 1860's (and finally had to have one to get everybody to shut up about it).

[Arles]

Originally Posted by ScottVib

Newsweek's released it and CNN.com has picked it up.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/03/co...ove/index.html

Originally Posted by Newsweek

Newsweek magazine is reporting that e-mails between Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and his editors show that Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, spoke to Cooper in the days before a CIA operative's identity was revealed in the media, but it wasn't clear what Cooper and Rove discussed.

Wondering what exactly the story is here? So, Rove talked with a Time reporter before the Plame identity was revealed... but it wasn't clear what they discussed.

This is looking more and more like "much ado about nothing". Not it only is it extremely doubtful that leaker violated any CIA identity laws, but now it seems that we are no closer in finding the source of the leak.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

What I think is far more likely to occur, however, is that it will be clear to those who are paying attention that no law was violated ... but that the left will once again attempt to rely on volume rather than substance to create a prosecution (or persecution) where none is justified nor can one be sustained.

This is easily the best post in the thread. Sums up my opinions on this issue to a tee.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I agree. Senators/Politicians/Beltway Boys are basically proffessional cock-blockers nowadays, but at least they aren't talking about civil war every 15-minutes like they did in the 1850's and 1860's (and finally had to have one to get everybody to shut up about it).

Is this really a good standard to hold ourselves to? "Well, we aren't starting a civil war so things must be good"

SI

[MrBigglesworth]

This thread begs the question: what will the Bush apologists get outraged by? Karl Rove and others in the White House exposed an undercover CIA agent in order to cover up their lies about Iraq. 'It's just politics!' 'Just those crazy liberals blowing up charges!' 'He's only an advisor.' Whatever. At least the American people are finally paying attention.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

What I think is far more likely to occur, however, is that it will be clear to those who are paying attention that no law was violated ... but that the left will once again attempt to rely on volume rather than substance to create a prosecution (or persecution) where none is justified nor can one be sustained.

Originally Posted by 9th Commandment

Thou shall not bear false witness.

Jon, shouldn't you be outraged? Does politics trump religion?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

This is looking more and more like "much ado about nothing". Not it only is it extremely doubtful that leaker violated any CIA identity laws, but now it seems that we are no closer in finding the source of the leak.

hxxp://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/featuredposts.html#a003556

Originally Posted by Lawrence O'Donnell

Rove Blew CIA Agent's Cover

I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.

McLaughlin is seen in some markets on Friday night, so some websites have picked it up, including Drudge, but I don't expect it to have much impact because McLaughlin is not considered a news show and it will be pre-empted in the big markets on Sunday because of tennis.

Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow.

[Arles]

Lawrence O'Donnell isn't exactly the best source given his numerous partisan meltdowns over the past 2 years. Plus, it appears the newsweek story does NOT say "It's Rove!" based on the CNN story posted by Scott above.

But, let's say Looney Lawrence is right and the article names Rove. Then, if the information provided the Grand Jury shows that Rove was the leak, his actions will need to be investigated.

But, again, I still fail to see how the facts as they have been presented to this point show a violation of the "Intelligence Identities Protection Act" - which is what counts here. The issue has been skirted around by everyone from CNN to the NY Times to the Washington Post to even Fox News. Now, I don't necessarily agree with Novak and the leaker making this type of a statement about a CIA agent, but that doesn't make it illegal.

[Barkeep49]

While I am not a fan generally of Arles analysis, I happen to agree here. I know that DOJ guidelines say that reporters aren't supposed to be pressured to compromise sources unless there is a good case to be made, but frankly I think this is much ado about nothing.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Arles

But, again, I still fail to see how the facts as they have been presented to this point show a violation of the "Intelligence Identities Protection Act" - which is what counts here. The issue has been skirted around by everyone from CNN to the NY Times to the Washington Post to even Fox News...

You also don't see CNN, the NYT, Fox News, or the Washington Post discussing how the Earth is round. Maybe the issue is so obvious that it doesn't merit discussion?

[SelzShoes]

Originally Posted by Mickey Klaus, slate.com

He Could Be Right! On election night, when Democrats started to worry that the exit polls indicating a Kerry victory might not hold up, someone at a party I attended called up Lawrence O'Donnell for reassurance. Don't worry, we were told--O'Donnell says it's all under control because Kerry will win the key swing states! That's when I knew Bush had been reelected. ... O'Donnell is a brilliant pundit because he picks a clear, intriguing, contrarian position and sticks to it. But he's almost always wrong. Which is why I'll believe his report that "Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source"--headlined "Rove Blew CIA Agent's Cover"--when it's confirmed elsewhere. ... Which it pointedly isn't, quite, in Newsweek. ... 5:00 P.M.

While I'd love Karl Rove to be implicated in this, I think what we have is some wishful thinking.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

You also don't see CNN, the NYT, Fox News, or the Washington Post discussing how the Earth is round. Maybe the issue is so obvious that it doesn't merit discussion?

I would think if people were going to cover a story on the seriousness of the leaker's actions, atleast one would bother to mention how it clearly violated Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Yet, to this point, no one has.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Arles

Wondering what exactly the story is here? So, Rove talked with a Time reporter before the Plame identity was revealed... but it wasn't clear what they discussed.

This is looking more and more like "much ado about nothing". Not it only is it extremely doubtful that leaker violated any CIA identity laws, but now it seems that we are no closer in finding the source of the leak.


This is easily the best post in the thread. Sums up my opinions on this issue to a tee.

and once again Arles falls on the "If Rove doesn't write something admitting to it, it isn't true?" camp. Unreal, what the ehll do you think they were talking about Arles? Where to go get sushi!! Unreal, you do this on EVERY single topic. If you add them all up you still get nothing!? Unbelievable, how much stuff do you have to have!! Ill tell you what...since it's the way you think anyways, 6 years from now when everything comes out, WRITTEN by people other than the horse themself, and the entire world believes its true....you can still go on thinking we didnt walk on the moon.


Arles, for our gov't. to retaliate against a dissenter is undemocratic. doncha think? That is the reason she was outed....sounds a lot like Castro to me. Whoeever released her name commited a crime, obviously, but I love how you are digging for a loophole...for shame.



and to respond back to the people speaking on lack of morals...I say:

That is not okay. Just because people have been slimy in the past should not give carte blanche so that we accept it now. Every 4 years while voting people always say, "It doesnt matter who I vote for, theyre all crooks anyways." Inferring that things should be different....but now youre saying thats just the way it is, so it's ok.

[Flasch186]

Act:

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to
classified information that identifies covert agent

Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any
information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert
agents as result of having access to classified information

Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified
information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally
discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any
individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing
that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that
the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of
activities intended to identify and expose covert agents

Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to
identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such
activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of
the United States, discloses any information that identifies an
individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive
classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so
identifies such individual and that the United States is taking
affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified
intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more
than $15,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

[Flasch186]

welp, seems pretty easy to me, pick one, she had the access, the CIA said she was covert, and someone "disclosed any info. id'ing her"....

even on (c) whomever spoke to the reporter couldve worked the old fumblerooski and been guilty, "There's a girl, she works 8-430 on the 5th floor at cubicle 19. She also happens to be involved in communications with Al Qaeda operatives in the wabash region. Perhaps it would be interesting if you did some research to find out who she is." thats a illegal action too but, Arles, that horse didn't say much either so I guess it didnt happen....maybe I should use the your daughter example again, since you wont believe something until it Comes from the actual person who did it....so many criminals running around free in your world, Id venture to guess. A child molester denies it and only the child is there to accuse, welp, sorry son guy is going free eventhough 13 other children claim something too....darn now if only one of you kids would video tape it while it were happening (didnt work with arles when Rumsfeld got caught lying on mett the press).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Jon, shouldn't you be outraged? Does politics trump religion?

Umm ... I'm confused with your post, for several reasons.
1) I'm not a big politics & religion guy. That's more BW's gig than mine.

2) The most obvious bit of "false witness" I've seen related to this case are those who insist that a law has been broken when it seems pretty clear to this point that none has been.

3) What have you got right now? A story from some member of the Loony Left claiming Rove said x,y, and/or z? And I'm supposed to get bent about that? Sorry Biggles, but it's going to take more than that for me to get even perturbed, much less "outraged". So far, this doesn't even merit a sneeze, much less an explosion.