Karl Rove - Valerie Plame - Joseph Wilson - Exposing a CIA covert operative

[michaeledward]

Outing her was in poor judgement, imo. Regardless, even if she was covert, the law as written was not violated.

Libby was a scapegoat and will be pardoned in due time as repayment. However, this type of issue is a political reality that infects the full range of the political/ideological spectrum.

To which law are you referring?

And what of the oaths all persons sign, when they receive security clearances?

And what of the Administrations statement that any person involved would no longer work in the Adminstration?

And ... what do you think the obstruction of justice conviction is all about? Irve Lewis Libby lied to the FBI and to the Grand Jury, which prevented the special prosecutor from determining if the "law as written" was violated? The very term defines the issue --- Obstruction of Justice.

You're blanket statement that the law was not violated has not been proved ... or disproved.

 

[Ray]

To which law are you referring?

And what of the oaths all persons sign, when they receive security clearances?

And what of the Administrations statement that any person involved would no longer work in the Adminstration?

And ... what do you think the obstruction of justice conviction is all about? Irve Lewis Libby lied to the FBI and to the Grand Jury, which prevented the special prosecutor from determining if the "law as written" was violated? The very term defines the issue --- Obstruction of Justice.

You're blanket statement that the law was not violated has not been proved ... or disproved.

No one was charged with spilling the beans. No one has been convicted of spilling the beans. Spilling the beans was what the whole thing was about...of course the Pres has the authority to spill the beans, it looks like he may not have commissioned Rove to spill the beans.

Big deal... Val was on NPR today talking about Congress's duty for National Security. Doesn't she know that the legislative branch's job is to author non-binding resolutions and whine...everybody knows that the Pres is the command-in-chief and that the legislative branch has the power of funding or not funding the military.

 

[michaeledward]

Ray, the Chief of Staff to the Vice President of the United States, who was simultaneously held the job title Special Assistant to the President, was accused and convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice.

These charges were the reason why no one was "charged with spilling the beans". The special prosecutor said that when senior government officials do not tell the truth under oath, it is impossible to determine if the other laws were broken. He analogized it to 'kicking sand in the umpire's eyes'.


An interesting fact that came out of today's hearing.


Even until today, the White House has not started any investigation into who on staff leaked Ms. Plame's name. There has been no internal review or report. There has been no official sanction against anyone in the White House.

Didn't I hear somebody say nobody wants to get to the bottom of the leak more than the President? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/11/AR2005071101568.html

Today we learn, nothing was done inside the White House.

 

[jdinca]

And how do you square your point of view with the fact that Armitage, the self confessed man who DID initiate the leak is still walking free and has not been charged with anything?

 

[michaeledward]

And how do you square your point of view with the fact that Armitage, the self confessed man who DID initiate the leak is still walking free and has not been charged with anything?

I see you haven't answered, or even addressed my question.

I will point out that Mr. Armitage is subject to a civil suit currently filed by Ambassador Wilson and his wife.

Are you arguing that because Mr. Armitage revealed Ms. Plame's identity first, that Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rove, Mr. Libby, Ms. Martin and Mr. Fleischer are free to reveal classified information with impunity?

The argument you seem to be proposing is that "because Armitage was not part of the White House, there could be no White House conspiracy to discredit Josepeh Wilson." To which, my response is ... why not?

It seems that talking point is especially weak. Because Armitage started it ... Libby is innocent --- Please.

• Mr. Armitage did not lie to the FBI.
• Mr. Armitage did not lie to the Grand Jury.
• Mr. Armitage did not, almost miraculously, find an email before his fifth Grand Jury appearance that prompted his memory that he did speak to Matthew Cooper and reveal Ms. Plame's employment status (see Rove).
• Mr. Armitage did not mark up Ambassador Wilson's Op-Ed.
• Mr. Armitage did not give direction to his Chief of Staff as to whom the leak should be given (see Cheney).

Mr. Armitage, because he disclosed classified information should be penalized, whether that disclosure was intentional or unintentional. According to today's testimony, such penalizations vary from verbal warnings, to written warnings, to loss of security clearances, and more. I believe at this point, Mr. Armitage no longer has access to classified information (I am making this assumption based on his retirement from the State Department - with retirement the security clearance is revoked). If you have other information on this matter, I'm listening.

 

[crushing]

Something I don't grok about this is: What is it about being married to someone in the CIA that automatically brings discredit, and why doesn't this seem to matter to anyone?

 

[michaeledward]

I agree, Crushing, it is a lousy argument.

But, Ambassador Wilson essentially called the President a liar in the New York Times. And the Vice President (and the WHIG - White House Iraq Group) were at the root of the President's statements and policies. If Ambassador Wilson was seen to be credible, it would be a horrible strike against President Bush and Vice President Cheney; especially as those Weapons of Mass Destruction that they said they knew were in Iraq weren't showing up.

Therefore, Ambassador Wilson could not allowed to be seen as a credible voice. So, the Vice President, using every tool in his tool kit, got the vibe that if the Ambassador travelled to Africa because of his wife, that would kind of make him a girly-man.

And one thing is true in Republican politics; a girly-man is not to be taken seriously; not with tough-guys like Cheney, Rove and Libby on the job.

Because it is such a lousy argument, it is almost sad that Mr. Libby is going to go to jail because he made this argument. Almost sad. Almost, that is.

 

[crushing]

Thank you Michael,

I've only heard the media make the 'to discredit Ambassador Wilson' arguement.

I guess I can start to see how a spouse being able to send their other half around the world at taxpayers expense can give the appearance of a conflict of interest. Unfortunately, the media doesn't bother at all with exploring that. And I don't say unfortunately because that's the way I think it went down, or that they should only report that angle; but, because I think the media missed an opportunity to really get deeper into the issues around this case.

 

[michaeledward]

It may be a question of what source is referenced when we say 'The Media'.

Television has some real constraints on it that make a thorough explaination difficult, especially with a story as convoluted as the Plame leak, or the current U.S. Attorney firings. For proper foundation and examination of the story, it would probably take 10 to 12 minutes. Television - outside of the news magazine shows - doesn't afford that amount of time to a topic.

Newspapers are pretty good about including more than just a sound-bite, but even then, how foundation facts are presented is sometimes more confusing than helpful. A newspaper report will usually have 'new' information along with 'previously known and discussed' information. Often the line between the two is difficult to discern ... and sometimes assumptions about what is previously known, take in too much.

At this point, the Valerie Plame leak case has three and a half years of reporting. There is alot of information about this case that is known. And sometimes, I assume everybody knows all of it.

Honestly, I almost got snarky with you ... because for me, as I have followed this case ... so much is so obvious.

The five bullet points I mentioned a few posts back, are all accurate questions about real, known facts in the case. But, some of those are a bit obscure to anyone who is not as familiar with the case as I am. I post them to drive the unfamiliar to research further those questions.

If you are interested in this story, a great source is the book Hubris by Isikoff and Corn. They cover the story in detail. David Corn has been following it closely since mid-July of '03.

 

[jazkiljok]

I agree, Crushing, it is a lousy argument.

But, Ambassador Wilson essentially called the President a liar in the New York Times. And the Vice President (and the WHIG - White House Iraq Group) were at the root of the President's statements and policies. If Ambassador Wilson was seen to be credible, it would be a horrible strike against President Bush and Vice President Cheney; especially as those Weapons of Mass Destruction that they said they knew were in Iraq weren't showing up.

Therefore, Ambassador Wilson could not allowed to be seen as a credible voice. So, the Vice President, using every tool in his tool kit, got the vibe that if the Ambassador travelled to Africa because of his wife, that would kind of make him a girly-man.

And one thing is true in Republican politics; a girly-man is not to be taken seriously; not with tough-guys like Cheney, Rove and Libby on the job.

Because it is such a lousy argument, it is almost sad that Mr. Libby is going to go to jail because he made this argument. Almost sad. Almost, that is.

actually the more you think about it the more you wonder what the heck the discredit campaign was based on-- wilson was a nonpartisan career diplomat who won praise during his career from George W. Sr. no less, and that was for being a tough sob with Saddam while he was stationed in Baghdad. now his wife was a spy... for the CIA. the type of folks who join the agency aren't known for their liberal leanings.

but for the discredit to have some power the implication is not the Wilson was a girly man (i mean the doughboy team of rove and cheney isn't much to contend with)-- but that his spy wife was some liberal lover who wanted to undermine the president for who knows what reason. the fact is that Wilson came back with same view that other intel agencies concluded about the whole uranium buying hokem. in his report he had to present real evidence that he was drawing that conclusion from. so even if Plame was a liberal loving democrat who hated bush-- who cared who sent him?-- don't shoot the messenger-sender.

that this blew up in their faces goes to show how desperate and stupid their discredit campaign was. all it did was remind people of the article that most american's probably never read and kept the focus on Bush's big lie during his infamous SOTU speech.

And this isn't over with Libby. Not with Democrats controlling both houses.

 

[jdinca]

I see you haven't answered, or even addressed my question.

I will point out that Mr. Armitage is subject to a civil suit currently filed by Ambassador Wilson and his wife.

Are you arguing that because Mr. Armitage revealed Ms. Plame's identity first, that Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rove, Mr. Libby, Ms. Martin and Mr. Fleischer are free to reveal classified information with impunity?

The argument you seem to be proposing is that "because Armitage was not part of the White House, there could be no White House conspiracy to discredit Josepeh Wilson." To which, my response is ... why not?

It seems that talking point is especially weak. Because Armitage started it ... Libby is innocent --- Please.

• Mr. Armitage did not lie to the FBI.
• Mr. Armitage did not lie to the Grand Jury.
• Mr. Armitage did not, almost miraculously, find an email before his fifth Grand Jury appearance that prompted his memory that he did speak to Matthew Cooper and reveal Ms. Plame's employment status (see Rove).
• Mr. Armitage did not mark up Ambassador Wilson's Op-Ed.
• Mr. Armitage did not give direction to his Chief of Staff as to whom the leak should be given (see Cheney).

Mr. Armitage, because he disclosed classified information should be penalized, whether that disclosure was intentional or unintentional. According to today's testimony, such penalizations vary from verbal warnings, to written warnings, to loss of security clearances, and more. I believe at this point, Mr. Armitage no longer has access to classified information (I am making this assumption based on his retirement from the State Department - with retirement the security clearance is revoked). If you have other information on this matter, I'm listening.

Sigh. Please quit twisting my words. This investigation was about who leaked her name and whether or not it violated the law. Libby got nailed for lying, a seperate law after the fact that was broken that he was convicted for. You said that that obstruction has prevented Fitzgerald from completing his investigation into the initial leak and whether or not it was an illegal act. My response is that when the person who actually did the leak fully admits it, he would/should be charged almost immediately if a law was broken. We're not talking reprimands here, we're talking a violation of federal law, criminal charges filed, trial, conviction, jail time. As for civil suits, anybody can sue anybody for anything.

I never said Libby was innocent of lying, nor am I exonerating anyone else who may have been involved. I was making the point that person who leaked has yet to be charged with breaking the law, hence my question about the whether the disclosure was truly against the law, or just poor judgement on the administrations part. Period.

If Armitage is charged, tried and convicted, then we'll have that answer. At that point, I'll be more than happy to agree that a law was broken. What I'm wondering is if he is never charged, or is charged and found innocent, if you're willing to admit that the law was not violated? Somehow, I don't think so.

 

[michaeledward]

Sigh. Please quit twisting my words. This investigation was about who leaked her name and whether or not it violated the law. Libby got nailed for lying, a seperate law after the fact that was broken that he was convicted for. You said that that obstruction has prevented Fitzgerald from completing his investigation into the initial leak and whether or not it was an illegal act. My response is that when the person who actually did the leak fully admits it, he would/should be charged almost immediately if a law was broken. We're not talking reprimands here, we're talking a violation of federal law, criminal charges filed, trial, conviction, jail time. As for civil suits, anybody can sue anybody for anything.

I never said Libby was innocent of lying, nor am I exonerating anyone else who may have been involved. I was making the point that person who leaked has yet to be charged with breaking the law, hence my question about the whether the disclosure was truly against the law, or just poor judgement on the administrations part. Period.

If Armitage is charged, tried and convicted, then we'll have that answer. At that point, I'll be more than happy to agree that a law was broken. What I'm wondering is if he is never charged, or is charged and found innocent, if you're willing to admit that the law was not violated? Somehow, I don't think so.

I have not twisted your words. I have responded to your assertions.

As for why, or why not Armitage has not been criminally charged. This is directly connected to which law you were referring. If you were referring to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, then there are possibilities as to why he was not charged.

The most basic is that in order for the IIPA to have been violated, the person must have knowledge that the agent was covert, and this must be able to be proven. The Special Prosecutor may have concluded that a) Mr. Armitage did not have that knowledge, or b) that he would not be able to prove foreknowledge of the fact in a court of law.

Incidently it was the Special Prosecutor who said Libby's lies and deceptions prevented him from determining if the IIPA was broken or not, not me as you assert. That is why there was an Obstruction of Justice charge against Mr. Libby.

Mr. Armitage did violate an Executive Order 12958 and the penalties I referred to were based on that Executive Order. Those penalties can be applied regardless of whether a criminal law was broken or not.

People who receive clearance to receive classified information have obligations under that Executive Order. Some people have violated the rules of that Executive Order and continue to serve, undisciplined inside the White House.

When I asked what law you were referring to earlier, it was because I am working under the assumption that everyone here knows the laws and rules in question.

 

[jdinca]

Okay, Mike. Does violation of said Executive Order constitute a criminal act with criminal penalties? Will Dick Armitage have a criminal record?

I like how you've found a way to "have your cake and eat it too" regardless of the outcome of the investigation. "Well, he didn't violate the law, but he did violate an EO."

 

[michaeledward]

Okay, Mike. Does violation of said Executive Order constitute a criminal act with criminal penalties? Will Dick Armitage have a criminal record?

I like how you've found a way to "have your cake and eat it too" regardless of the outcome of the investigation. "Well, he didn't violate the law, but he did violate an EO."

jdinca, why are you making this about me? This is not about me. It is not about me finding a way to have my cake and eat it too.

At the very top of this page, I asked which law are you referring to? It was not a wise-*** question. If you don't understand that there is a difference - not because I say so, but because of the way our government makes laws - then you may have a mis-understanding of the events and consequences.

As I understand it, an unauthorized release of classified information, whether intentional or unintentional is not necessarily a criminal violation. The penalties and remedies have been applied in various ways across agencies in the United States Government. There is little uniformity in application.

If you are interested in hearing professionals who know discuss the wheres, and whyfores, I suggest the complete House Committee meeting in which Ms. Plame spoke yesterday. You can probably catch it on CSPAN this weekend. After Ms. Plame was interviewed (under oath), a representative from the Office of Security in the White House was interviewed - Mr. Knodell, I believe. His testimony was criminal, I think and may lead to the unravelling of the Bush Adminstration. After Mr. Knodell's interview, the committee interviewed a Mr. Azaid and a Ms, Toensing. The second and third boards before the committee were especially enlightening.

Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald has said that his investigation is complete. He expects to file no more charges against any of the others who had leaked information. So:

Mr. Armitage will not have a criminal record from this matter.
Mr. Rove will not have a criminal record from this matter.
Mr. Fleischer will not have a criminal record from this matter.
Ms. Martin will not have a criminal record from this matter.
Mr. Cheney will not have a criminal record from this matter.

If you were not aware, each of these individuals, except for Cheney, shared Ms. Plames name and employment with reporters. Cheney, however, directed Ms. Martin and Mr. Libby on specifics of what should be leaked and to whom.

 

[jazkiljok]

If you are interested in hearing professionals who know discuss the wheres, and whyfores, I suggest the complete House Committee meeting in which Ms. Plame spoke yesterday. You can probably catch it on CSPAN this weekend. After Ms. Plame was interviewed (under oath), a representative from the Office of Security in the White House was interviewed - Mr. Knodell, I believe. His testimony was criminal, I think and may lead to the unravelling of the Bush Adminstration. After Mr. Knodell's interview, the committee interviewed a Mr. Azaid and a Ms, Toensing. The second and third boards before the committee were especially enlightening.

Bush & Co. unravelled years ago-- but i doubt they will leave until the next election shows them the door. Very "WTF?" testimony from Knodell..


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/3/17/13535/5644

 

[michaeledward]

This comes from today's Washington Post ....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/25/AR2007032500934_pf.html

"When a person is about to be sentenced in federal court it is proper and very common for the judge to receive letters from friends of the accused attesting to his character, integrity, and service to his country, community and family."
"Many friends and admirers of Scooter Libby have asked how they may submit letters of this kind.
"So address but do not send your letter" ... {instructions to foward the letter to Mr. Libby's attorneys}
"Identify yourself in the . . . opening paragraph," give "your personal background." For example, "president," "vice president" and so on. "This is essential if the judge is to give your observations the weight they deserve." So add "former governor of Texas," "Decider," "Uniter," "former secretary of defense" and so on.
"Describe how long, and in what context, you have known Scooter," talk of things "that relate to his public and private service and his qualities as a person, such as personal and professional integrity, helpfulness, generosity, commitment to his family . . . good deeds, dedication to our country or the welfare of others."
"Specific detailed examples of your experiences with Scooter are the most important aspect of any letter."
"It is acceptable . . . to express a view that Scooter's conviction for perjury and obstruction of justice is inconsistent with your knowledge of his character and integrity. It is not acceptable, however, to criticize the jury, the prosecutors, or the court, or to denigrate any person involved in the process including the witnesses."

Italics represent language not exactly as included in Mr. Jeffries letter.

Were I to send a letter along, I would be certain to point out that Mr. Libby is an attorney and should understand more clearly than most the importance of truthfullness under oath. As such, his penalty should be harsher than most.

As others have pointed out (Bill Maher did a wonderful job Friday evening), revealing the identity of a covert agent is an act of treason; and while this is not the crime which was charged, it is now an indisputable fact that Mr. Libby did reveal the identity of a covert agent.

 

[michaeledward]

I just watched last evening's 60 Minutes report.

The most interesting question for me was the choice to edit the interview to include the second asking of a question ....

COURIC: You never for a moment thought this could potentially jeopardize my career?
PLAME: It’s called ‘living your cover.’ This had nothing to do with what I was doing. He was part of the debate.
COURIC: But admit it, it comes awfully close to what you were doing, even covertly. I mean, you were trying to ascertain if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He’s writing an article saying ‘it’s really not valid, this one assertion.’ I mean, can’t you see how those two things might collide and in a very dangerous way?

Ms. Couric presses the question here, with a second iteration. I would have preferred to see a more in depth analysis of the phrase 'living your cover'.

To me ~ an obvious partisan on this issue (to which there is a right and wrong, not a left and right, by the way) ~ understanding that Mr. Wilson's article should have no bearing on Ms. Plame's career, the second round of this question is a political talking point.

This idea gets revisited in the interview when Ms. Couric tells us that Mr. Rove's wife and Mr. Libby's wife do not work for the CIA. Mr. Wilson correctly counters "how do you know"?

That is the idea of being covert ... that people don't know.

Until they do.

 

[michaeledward]

Mr. Libby was convicted of Obstruction of Justice.

We learn now for whom Mr. Libby was obstructing justice. An excerpt from an upcoming book was displayed on the publishing company's web site.

http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/publicaffairsbooks-cgi-bin/display?book=9781586485566&view=excerpt

The most powerful leader in the world had called upon me to speak on his behalf and help restore credibility he lost amid the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the senior-most aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby.


There was one problem. It was not true.
I had unknowingly passed along false information. And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, the vice President, the President's chief of staff, and the President himself.

So, Mr. McClellan may be a rat ... but at least the rat's self-preservation instinct has kicked in enough to realize the ship, if not already sunk, is sinking.

Now, we will see if the new Attorney General, Mr. Mukasey, will be as independent as he claimed to be in his Senate Confirmation hearings.

 

[Ray]

So, Mr. McClellan may be a rat ... but at least the rat's self-preservation instinct has kicked in enough to realize the ship, if not already sunk, is sinking.

We can't believe everything we read, only the things that agree with our preconceived notions.

He [McClellan] claims to have no motive to writing what he has other than to record his insights and experiences for the benefit of history.

 

[michaeledward]

Ray,

are you saying that a citizen that has a preconcieved notion, that President Bush could not possibly be involved in the deliberate exposition of an United States spy, nor in the intentional cover up of that exposition with lies to the from the White House Press Briefing room, will not be able to find Mr. McClellan credible?

Why then, do you suppose, does Scott McClellan hate America?