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

[ginshun]

The President said he would fire anyone involved in the leak.

When did he say this? I have only heard him quoted recently as saying that he will fire anyone who broke the law. Did he say that a long time ago? Is one of us hearing the president being misquoted or did he actually say both at different times?

I agree, that if Rove intentionally expoosed a covert operative, that he should be throuwn out on his tail. At this point though, that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[michaeledward]

Look at the Q &A's from June '04. The President was asked, directly,if he would fire anyone involved in leaking Valerie Plame's name. He answered very quickly "Yes".







From the Washington Post:

"I want to know the truth," Bush told reporters in September 2003 after news of the investigation had burst into headlines. "If anybody has got any information, inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business."




​

Apparently, Mr. Rove didn't feel like coming forward and informing the President of what information he was in possession of after this statement. That didn't stop his promotion in term 2, though.



This from the same article:

Bush replied "yes" when asked in June 2004 if he would fire anyone who leaked the agent's name.





​

This from a different report:

Previously, McClellan had told reporters that the president expected everyone in his administration to "adhere to the highest standards of conduct," adding, "If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031006-5.html#


​

Here is the wording of the law.



50 USC 421(b)

Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identity 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.

 

[Phoenix44]

So what's the argument, that Karl Rove UNintentionally exposed Plame to a reporter? The Clueless Defense? A White House insider for years somehow was able to find out that Valerie Plame was CIA, but didn't know she was covert? For me, that requires a real suspense of disbelief. Plus, it's EXACTLY Rove's modus operandi.

What in the world was he doing talking to a reporter about Wilson's wife, a CIA agent, anyway?

Time for Rove to go. The president assured us that he'd fire anyone involved in this, and Rove admitted he was involved. The charges can be sorted out later.

 

[Tgace]

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45266

Democrat leaders and editorialists accusing Karl Rove of treason for referring to CIA agent Valerie Plame in an off-the-record interview are ignorant of the law, according to the Washington attorney who spearheaded the legislation at the center of the controversy.

Plame's circumstances don't meet several of the criteria spelled out in a 1982 statute designed not only to protect the identity of intelligence agents but to maintain the media's ability to hold government accountable, Victoria Toensing told WorldNetDaily.

I believe the defense is that she was not "covert" any longer and simply an office agent like many others. Even if thats true, this was "dirty politics", but "he without sin"..yadda yadda..on that one.

 

[michaeledward]

A simple test to determine if Ms. Wilson-Plame was still functioning as a covert agent .... Did her neighbors know she was employed at the CIA? .... this question has been answered; they did not.


Further, Mr. Novak has, in the past, been very, very clear about the use of the term 'operative'. This term is used strictly for clandestine and covert agents.

 

[Tgace]

Not sure of the validity of that test, I dont know what some of my neighbors do for a living....

What did the CIA say about her status? I havent been able to find any info on that...
Again, if he did "burn" a covert agent, punishment is in order. The blatant partisanship and politics around this though seem more like gamesmanship than a search for justice.

 

[michaeledward]

Not sure of the validity of that test, I dont know what some of my neighbors do for a living....

What did the CIA say about her status? I havent been able to find any info on that...
Again, if he did "burn" a covert agent, punishment is in order. The blatant partisanship and politics around this though seem more like gamesmanship than a search for justice.

Let the Games Begin! ...

After the crap the 42nd President had to deal with, this is nothing. Except, that it is quite possibly the beginning of the unraveling of the most secretive, and, quite possibly, criminal adminstration in history.

And incidently, if he did 'burn' a covert agent, we need to be clear that the action was undertaken for political revenge against someone who spoke out against the war in Iraq.

And who cares about the security of the united states while we are in the midst of a so called war on terror? Especially, when you can show that someone was supporting Kerry.

and .. this article, located beneath a wikipedia link, suggests what the CIA might actually think of her....

http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340

 

[MisterMike]

This about sums it up.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=108&e=1&u=/ucac/20050714/cm_ucac/missionimplausible

Democrats believe that because Wilson's wife worked at the CIA, the White House should not have been allowed to mention that it was she who sent him to Niger. But meanwhile, Clown Wilson was free to puff up his apocryphal credentials by implying he had been sent to Niger on an important mission for the vice president by the CIA.

Despite the colloquialism being used on TV to describe the relevant criminal offense, the law does not criminalize "revealing the name" of a covert operative. If it did, every introduction of an operative at a cocktail party or a neighborhood picnic would constitute a felony. "Revealing the name of" is shorthand to describe what the law does criminalize: Intentionally revealing a covert operative as a covert operative, knowing it will blow the operative's cover.

Rove had simply said Wilson went to Niger because of his wife, not his skill, expertise or common sense. It was the clown himself who outed his wife as an alleged "covert" agent by saying he was not recommended by his wife, and thus the White House must have been retaliating against him by mentioning his wife.

Wilson intentionally blew his wife's "cover" in order to lie about how he ended up going to Niger. Far from a serious fact-finding mission, it was a "Take Your Daughters to Work Day" gone bad. Maybe liberals shouldn't have been so insistent about that special prosecutor.

 

[Tgace]

http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/7/14/134416/939

7. Is Wilson a partisan? (SOLID) Yes. I'll leave out the dispute over the campaign contributions and the position on Gore's foreign policy team, and just note that he's using the Kossacks to carry his water. Sorry, Joe, you shot your own self in the foot on that one.

8. Did Karl Rove intend to out Valerie Plame? (SHAKY) As best as I can tell from the Cooper email, the answer is no. It seems clear that he instructed Cooper to keep this as a "super secret", and the focus of the conversation was clearly not on Plame, but rather to steer Cooper away from a bogus story. I'm leaving this one open-ended, because it may come out in the future, if Rove talked with either Novak or Miller (or both), he may have done something more deliberate. So, from the basis of the evidence we have thus far, I give it a SOLID no, but I'm willing to credit that there may be more evidence out there.

9. Was Valerie Plame's identity a secret? (SHAKY). Much has been made of the fact that Andrea Mitchell says, "No," to this question. I'm waiting to hear more evidence before making a solid conclusion on this one, however. The biggest question for me is, if her identity was a secret, how in the world did Rove come by this information, given the post he held in 2003? We'll address this more thoroughly in a bit.

10. Where did Rove learn of Plame's identity? (BURNING QUESTION) This, of course, is the million dollar question that no one seems to know the answer to, and is one of the central points upon which the question of Rove's criminal guilt rests. One of the provisions of the IIPA specifically states that for a person to be criminally culpable, they must have come by their knowledge of the covert agent's status through their own access to classified information. Given that Rove's position in 2003 was significantly diminished from what it is now, it seems highly unlikely that he had access to Plame's status, if it was truly a secret. My gut feeling is that Rove had some general and vague knowledge of Plame's work with the CIA through the general Washington grapevine (this jibes with Andrea Mitchell's statement), and didn't even know he was outing an undercover agent. However, this is admittedly rank speculation, and something that will come out during the course of the investigation - or perhaps not, if Judith Miller was his source and is content to sit in jail for 18 months.

11. Did Karl Rove break the law? (SOLID) No. The stories are coming out at a faster pace that Rove is almost certainly not guilty of criminal wrongdoing, if for no other reason than that Plame did not qualify as a "covert agent" under the statute, as she had been stateside for over five years when the story was leaked. This is an open and shut case. If Rove is guilty, it will be of perjury or obstruction of justice, if he happened to lie to investigators during the early stages of the investigation. If this is true, I will be greatly amused at watching the Democrats suddenly realize that perjury is a big deal, after all.

12. Did Karl Rove release Miller and Cooper in Jan/Dec? (SOLID) Both Rove and his lawyer say yes. It further seems, from the article, that Cooper and Miller acknowledged the release, but were only concerned that it was coerced. Given Rove's recent public clarification, it throws a very interesting spotlight on Judith Miller and the NYT on this story - what and who are they hiding? I have a sneaky feeling that the Democrats are not going to like the answer to that question.

13. Did President Bush promise to fire anyone involved in the leak? (SOLID) No. As we have discussed ad nauseam here, the President said no such thing, but only that anyone who was found to have "violated the law" would be taken care of. Captain Ed has further slain the contention that Bush's remarks during the G8 questionaire were even directed to the firing question, and even if they were, his "pledge" to fire anyone involved still specifically was predicated on lawbreaking. Expect Reid and Wilson to studiously ignore this during their press conference this afternoon. It is true, however, that Scott McClellan did promise that the leaker would be fired, but it is also the perogative of the President to overrule or correct the statements of his press secretary, who has one of the most difficult jobs in the world.

 

[michaeledward]

MisterMike and Tgace, you are both apparently are getting news from the Republican National Party's talking points (which can be seen at a link I posted earlier (Rawstory, I think).

As example, Point 13 from Tgace, has been disputed from this link to Scott McClellan.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031006-5.html#6

Q Scott, the President just expressed his desire to get to the bottom of this CIA leak issue. And he said he wanted to hold accountable whoever was responsible --

MR. McCLELLAN: Absolutely.

Q -- responsible for this. But can you confirm that the President would fire anyone on his staff found to have leaked classified information? MR. McCLELLAN: I think I made that very clear last week. The topic came up, and I said that if anyone in this administration was responsible for the leaking of classified information, they would no longer work in this administration. This is a very serious matter. The President made it very clear just a short time ago in the East Room, and he has always said that leaking of classified information is a serious matter. And that's why he wants to get to the bottom of this. And the sooner we get to the bottom of it, the better.


​

I also referenced a direct question posed to the President, at which he answered 'YES'.

 

[ginshun]

The more this gets discussed, the more it seems to be purely political.

 

[michaeledward]

The more this gets discussed, the more it seems to be purely political.

Please feel free to defend the actions of Karl Rove. Take it out of the 'purely political' realm.

Joseph Wilson is a life-long public servant, who was attacked because he disagreed publicly with the President's rational for war. And he was correct in his disagreement.

In this 'purely political' move by "two senior White House officials", national security was compromised. A covert CIA agent was exposed; destroying a National security asset, possibly placing her life, and the lives of her family members in jeapordy, as well as potentially exposing foreign and domestic covert contacts overseas, with expertise in Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Please - defend Karl Rove.

 

[Ray]

Please feel free to defend the actions of Karl Rove.

Take it out of the 'purely political' realm.

Joseph Wilson is a life-long public servant, who was attacked because he disagreed publicly with the President's rational for war...


In this 'purely political' move by "two senior White House officials", national security was compromised....

Please - defend Karl Rove.

It would appear more legit if we finish the investigation before we find a tree to hang him from.

 

[michaeledward]

Why?

The president stated, through his words and those of his spokesperson, Scott McClellan, that anyone invovled in leaking covert information would no longer be part of the administration.

Karl Rove has been shown to have been involved in the leak of covert information to the press.

President Bush is a man of his word, or he isn't.

His words mean things, or they don't.

 

[ginshun]

It would appear more legit if we finish the investigation before we find a tree to hang him from.

Why indeed.

Since when do conservatives deserve investigation? Just go along with the media and hang the guy. Screw the investigation.

I am not defending Rove, and I don't intend to, but Michael, don't sit there and tell me that you are worried about this case because of national security. You and the rest of the libs are all fired up about it because it might be a chance to take down a prominent Republican and make the president look bad in the process, nothing less, nothing more. The national security conserns that it brings up are secondary if anything.

If the person accused of the same things as Rove was unknown person that was not a member of either party, we would never have even heard about it, and nobody would care. There is nothing that anybody is going to tell me that will make me believe different.

This issue is purely political.

 

[DngrRuss]

Karl Rove said he was not involved in this situation...
Now he says he is involved...

Doesn't that make him a "flip-flopper"?

 

[Ray]

Karl Rove has been shown to have been involved in the leak of covert information to the press.

If the investigation isn't done, and all we know is what the newspapers are saying about it then it's not enough for me to throw the guy in jail.

 

[michaeledward]

It is not about jail. It is not about a crime.

It is about the cover-up. It is about the integrity of the White House.

And ginshun, it is not just us 'liberals' who are fired up about this. If you look at the polls, you will find approximately 75% of Americans think that Karl Rove should be out of the adminstration. Even given the unscientific nature of instant polls, that's saying something. Also, for the first time, more Americans are saying that President Bush is not Honest and Trustworthy (45% to 38% - I think the numbers were).

And, ginshun, why can't I be fired up about National Security? That assumption on your part speaks volumes about how much you buy into the talk-radio chatter.

And, by the way, Karl Rove was never elected to any position. There is no way for the majority of Americans, who are displeased with his traitorous actions, to vote him out of office. For that, we must depend on our elected officials, and, as I am sure you have heard, this sneak works for the President of the united States.


Ray --- you can claim to want to wait until the investigation is complete (or like most in the Administration - hope that a bigger news story comes along) -- but you will notice that no one in the Adminstration is disputing the fact that Karl Rove passed information about 'Wilson's Wife' to Mr. Cooper. They are saying he learned it from someone else. Yet, he is still involved.

The President set the bar: "anyone involved" would no longer be in the administration.

As I see it, he can fire Rove, or ask for his resignation. But, Nooooo, the President promoted Karl Rove, after, we must assume, learning that he was involved in the leak.

Anything else, and the President is not living up to the standard he set for himself. So much for restoring honor and dignity to the White House.

 

[ginshun]

Political.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050715/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_rove_10

Republicans say Rove didn't do anything wrong, Democrats say that it is all a big cover up and that Rove should be removed. Niether side can prove anything.

Political.

And I still never said that I think Rove shouldn't be taken out of his position if it is proved that he did something worng. I just haven't had that proven to me yet.

 

[Tgace]

The President set the bar: "anyone involved" would no longer be in the administration.

13. Did President Bush promise to fire anyone involved in the leak? (SOLID) No. As we have discussed ad nauseam here, the President said no such thing, but only that anyone who was found to have "violated the law" would be taken care of. Captain Ed has further slain the contention that Bush's remarks during the G8 questionaire were even directed to the firing question, and even if they were, his "pledge" to fire anyone involved still specifically was predicated on lawbreaking. Expect Reid and Wilson to studiously ignore this during their press conference this afternoon. It is true, however, that Scott McClellan did promise that the leaker would be fired, but it is also the perogative of the President to overrule or correct the statements of his press secretary, who has one of the most difficult jobs in the world.

:idunno: