View Full Version : Karl Rove reportedly Outed Valerie Plume as CIA Undercover
Melonie
08-02-2005, 01:28 PM
well Bob Novak finally disregarded the advice of his attorneys and responded to media allegations ...
... and some prominent liberals are even speculating in regard to Judith Miller's actual role ...
My crystal ball says that if the NY Times fails in delaying Fitzgerald's investigation so that NO charges or results are forthcoming, some very embarrassing stuff is likely to come forth for the NY Times and the liberal side of the aisle.
dlabtot
08-02-2005, 01:47 PM
^^^ lol, I'm guessing that Novak's lawyer warned him that the deal he cut for immunity was not broad enough... now he's running scared.... but all the spin in the world won't stop the indictments.
BTW, Melonie, I fully share your contempt for the NYTimes, employer and defender of the liar and propagandist Judith Miller, who will never manage to wash the blood off her hands, not matter how much prison soap she uses.
Destiny
08-02-2005, 08:13 PM
Of course, there's not proof....yet. But Huffington's theory is the most plausible explanation for Miller and the Times' actions I've seen yet. It explains Fitzgerald's dogged determination to force Miller to testify, despite the fact that she never wrote an article on Plume The irony of a New York Times reporter being indicted as a result of an investigation the Times itself called for is just to delicious. But then we'll just have to wait and see.
stant
08-03-2005, 05:19 AM
I've maintained all along that this was of little real importance and that only hard-core Bush-haters even care. I still think that. Frankly, I'm amazed we are still discussing it. That must mean Roberts is going to be easily confirmed since he hasn't pushed this issue aside on here. Patience.
I'm not using, "he did it too" as a justification for anything. What I'm saying is this. People keep talking about how "serious" this is, that it is "treasonous". Okay. How come I don't see anyone taking it seriously then?
Read the actual liberal media and you will. Village Voice, LA Weekly, etc. The story isn't nearly salacious enough for corporate mega-media.
Since it's too damn hot outside to do anything, I'll play along. For the sake of argument lets agree that anyone that divulges the identity of a covert CIA agent is guilty of treason.
OK. I see now. This is the problem. Your premise is incorrect. This is not what I've been saying. I'm saying that anyone authorized to have information about covert agent true identities or any other secret or higher sensitive classified material or information that knowingly and deliberately divulges it to an unauthorized person is guilty of a crime.
I'm not quoting a statute. I'm merely paraphrasing my understanding of the responsibility of being entrusted with classified information by the government. I emphasize the important distinction between authorized and unauthorized. Whether on is the first or fifth authorized person to divulge or confirm such information to an unauthorized party may to a slight degree mitigate a penalty, but this certainly does not preclude responsibility.
Rove was authorized to have this information, all non-USG players surrounding this story were not. This is how the government keeps secrets, such as how to build a nuclear bomb, the launch codes for nuclear missiles, and the identities of our spies. Those authorized to know such information must not reveal it to those not authorized. Ever. The NYT is not entrusted with this duty, and in fact is free to print damn near anything they want so long as it is not a malicious lie directed at a person or entity.
This is why we have security clearances. Ironically, this administration has been by far the most abusive in history for cloaking its misdeeds in "national security" bullshit. This is yet another of the fragile trusts that Americans have put in their government, only to be betrayed en masse by an unchecked zealous religious extremist leader, and the snickering puppeteers behind him in the shadows.
edit: on a side note....soccer Mom as super-spy? ---
http://www.nathanslunch.com/Nathans04%20079.JPG
Destiny
08-03-2005, 12:12 PM
...OK. I see now. This is the problem. Your premise is incorrect. This is not what I've been saying. I'm saying that anyone authorized to have information about covert agent true identities or any other secret or higher sensitive classified material or information that knowingly and deliberately divulges it to an unauthorized person is guilty of a crime... See, I think you are incorrect on this. It has always been my understanding that a person has to knowingly divulge the identity of a covert agent to be guilty of a crime. Now, I haven't look up the actual law, but that is what I have read from several sources. That's why from the beginning, there has always been an understanding that the burden of proof on Fitzgerald was pretty high. That is also why all those news organizations could file a brief with the judge arguing that it was highly unlikely a crime had even been committed. The action must be knowingly comitted. I could be wrong, but that has been how it has been reported.
I'm not quoting a statute. I'm merely paraphrasing my understanding of the responsibility of being entrusted with classified information by the government. I emphasize the important distinction between authorized and unauthorized. Whether on is the first or fifth authorized person to divulge or confirm such information to an unauthorized party may to a slight degree mitigate a penalty, but this certainly does not preclude responsibility.
Rove was authorized to have this information, all non-USG players surrounding this story were not. This is how the government keeps secrets, such as how to build a nuclear bomb, the launch codes for nuclear missiles, and the identities of our spies. Those authorized to know such information must not reveal it to those not authorized. Ever. The NYT is not entrusted with this duty, and in fact is free to print damn near anything they want so long as it is not a malicious lie directed at a person or entity. Agreed. But access to does not equal knowledge of. Let's expand upon the scenario Huffington posted. Say Rove is sitting in his office and Scooter Libby comes in and they are talking. Libby says to him, "hey, by the way, you know that guy Wilson, that wrote that Op-Ed piece dissing us on WMDs? Judy Miller told me that his wife works for the CIA". Now it very well may be improper for Rove to disclose this to Cooper without checking out what her exact status is at the agnecy first. Though if he believes the NYT is about to publish that fact, he may figure, why bother. But impropriety does not mean illegal. And the fact that someone had access to some information does not mean that they in fact, did access it. I tend to go with the Judith Miller as informant story myself.
I predict that there will be no indictments resulting from the Rove-Cooper discussion. Now, the Novak thing, I have no idea what will happen. However, you mark it down. When Rove is not indicted for speaking with Cooper, everyone that has been telling us what a dogged pursuer of the truth Fitzgerald is and how honest he is willl then switch modes and claim that Fitzgeral is part of a cover-up.
dlabtot
08-03-2005, 01:38 PM
LOL, it will be funny watching Rove/Bush try to spin the indictments away with bs arguments like 'what the meaning of is, is'
Jay Zeno
08-03-2005, 02:33 PM
This is yet another of the fragile trusts that Americans have put in their government, only to be betrayed en masse by an unchecked zealous religious extremist leader, and the snickering puppeteers behind him in the shadows.See, I guess this sounds nicely written and dramatic, but when I read stuff like this from either side, it just convinces me that I'm never going to get an objective view of the circumstances, which is what I'm looking for.
But sorry to interrupt - carry on. I'm just in the "undecided" crowd, so I'm not the target audience for the statement.
Destiny
08-03-2005, 08:23 PM
...But sorry to interrupt - carry on. I'm just in the "undecided" crowd, so I'm not the target audience for the statement. JZ: We're just killing time while we await another of your Supreme Court predictions. ;)
stant
08-04-2005, 12:38 AM
See, I guess this sounds nicely written and dramatic, but when I read stuff like this from either side, it just convinces me that I'm never going to get an objective view of the circumstances, which is what I'm looking for..C'mon Jay, I'm just havin fun. There's an element of truth in some of my over the top comments like that, but its mainly just for laughs. You gotta admit "the snickering puppeteers in the shadows" is a funny image.
I had this whole hypothetical ready for how Clinton unknowingly got a blowjob from Monica to counter Destiny's argument and now you're taking all the fun out of this.
Tigerlilly
08-04-2005, 09:25 PM
See, I think you are incorrect on this. It has always been my understanding that a person has to knowingly divulge the identity of a covert agent to be guilty of a crime. Now, I haven't look up the actual law, but that is what I have read from several sources. .
Take a look at Executive Order 12958 which states that
"Officers and employees of the United States Government ... shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently ... disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified."
Now I don't think for one mini second that Rove gave her id away by accident. I think it was retribution for PLame's husband leaking the truth about there being no yellow cake.
I also think it was done as a warning to anyone else"in the know" who might have been thinking about telling the truth. There are few other more effective ways to shut a wistleblower up than to put their family in danger of being harmed or killed.
This is the most secretive Administration in modern times and generally people who are secretive have something dishonorable to hide.
Destiny
08-06-2005, 10:18 AM
Take a look at Executive Order 12958 which states that...Tigerlilly: Fitzgerald's primary investigation is whether the Intelligence Identities Protection Act has been violated. About the only thing that can happen to someone who violates that Executive Order is that they get fired. Since the White House staff serves at the pleasure of the president, he can do that anytime he wants.
On another subject, It's interesting that someone that has been banned only to come back on here with at least a half dozen different screen names would complain about secrecy. I'm suprised to see you quoting me, didn't you put me on your ignore list during your last two personalities? I would have thought you would have kept those when you changed screen names.
Tigerlilly
08-06-2005, 12:25 PM
So now that you know that Rove did violate that order do you think he should be fired ?
And how do you feel about his actions being rewarded with a 4,000 raise instead ?
Do you deny that if it had been a Dem administration that you would want to try the Dem for a criminal offense ?
To me it wouldn't matter which party Rove belonged to, I'd still feel the same about what he did. Can you say the same ?