Redstate

The most stuning lie of all part.

This is from his NY Times article published July 6 2003.  Concerning the forged memo he says:

"(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors -- they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government -- and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)"

Isn't that consistent with what the Senate committee found?

from the same article that started this whole mess:

"Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure."

Did he make a claim elsewhere about whatthe administration had been told?

But...lets not forget that the CIA instigated this inquiry.

Assuming that neither Plame nor Wilson are the targets of this inquiry than everything you have written and quoted is totally and completely irrelevant.

The ironies keep piling up, huh?

He told the WaPo in June that the report was clearly forged since the "names and dates were wrong."

Now, in the July 6th article, he admits to having never actually seen the documents. Keep in mind that the report the WaPo article references was released July 9th, and so, while I'm not absolutely certain, I believe that Wilson had probably already been actually grilled by the Senate committe prior to July 6th, and had his memory "refreshed" by them.

Plame and Wilson's motivations here are certainly germane to the discussion, in that Rove's leak (still supposing it is Rove) was intending to debunk Wilson as a credible source, rather than out his wife in retaliation. Again, if you will check the Cooper memo in question, there is nothing that suggests that Rove actually named Plame, or even knew her name, but instead only referenced "his wife, who apparently works with the agency on wmd."

I think you don't like Mr. Rove, and believe Ms. Plame and Amb. Wilson, and I'll remain discrete and leave off there.

But, could you explain in detail the importance or relevance of the CIA originating the complaint? Did they originate it? What does that indicate? Why? Is there a link or story from 2003 about this, and what stated motives the CIA may have?

And what is ironic or irrelevant about Leon's story here, or in the related ones currently posted on RS?

The WaPo article you quoted makes reference to Wilson's conversation with reporters "last June" where he made the comments about the forged documents.

Except the WaPo article is from 04.  I sentence myself to pour out this beer and get to bed.

It was in fact the CIA who formally complained to the DOJ about the "leaking" of Plame's name, according to this USA Today article. I suppose Vivid thinks it relevant because presumably the CIA itself must have considered her a "covert" operative or else it wouldn't have filed the complaint. This argument, of course, assumes that the CIA itself has no improper motives and no political dog in the fight which influenced its decisions in this matter. This article from Newsweek back in 2003 makes it clear that this was from the beginning just a piece of a political battle between the CIA and the White House.

Thanks - the Fineman article is a great summary, and interesting how he summarizes Watergate.

It's getting pretty simple.  Plame authorized her inexperienced husband to go to Niger and come back with what she should have know, as a WMD expert, was an erroneous report.  She should have know his op-Ed piece was rittled with problems and wholes.  She should have known Andrea Mitchell and others knew of her employer...

So when all is said and done all we have is the Plame/Wilson faked report by a rogue CIA agent hell bent on undermining Bush's invasion of Iraq by falsifying his nuclear intentions...

I'd watch that trial.

Karl Rove and (presumably) Bob Novak have already gone before the Grand Jury.  The Time reporter has already given over his notes.  That communication is with Karl Rove.  So why is the US attorney dragging this out?  Unless this has devolved into a perjury investigation, why were there no indictments handed down yet on the question of outing the agent?  

One would think that if Novak and Rove both went before the Grand Jury and stated what seems to be the content of the Emails and notes, why was he not indicted for outing the Ms. Plame before now?  I mean if Novak says Karl is his source and Karl says he leaked her to the press, then that would be enough to secure potential indictments right there.  Unless the leak had nothing to do with Ms. Plame's status as a covert agent.  At which point the prosecutor is probably taking these emails in order to make sure the Rove's comments in the emails meshes with the story he gave in the GJ room.  I'm just a layman, but the US Attorney would have nailed Karl already if he could do so on the covert agent thing.  It's all perjury now, which says to me that the covert charge is probably all dead now.      

   

Remember that Novak referred to having 2 government sources. It is possible that Karl Rove committed no crime for a variety of reasons (e.g., he only found out Plame was a CIA employee from Andrea Mitchell or something) but that the other person to talk with Novak did break the law, because he knew she was a "covert operative". The investigation could still be looking at that other person, even if it has cleared Rove and was only after the reporters to verify what Rove told the grand jury.

Does anyone know what the legal implications are of Rove saying only that "Wilson's wife is in the CIA" vs. actually using her name? Legally, it doesn't seem that different to me, although I can see how it changes the tone of the statement from one of retribution to one of discredit.

My question speaks to intent. Does not speaking her name out loud and leaving Cooper to find it himself change Rove's legal culpability should it come out that he knew she was a covert opperative?

Hello Cad,

Your thoughtfull questions deserve a response but the hour is late and so I'll just respond to one part of your question.

It is true that the CIA itself originated the complaint that led to the DOJ investigation. Another reply to my post has provided a link so let me quote from that same article:

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice confirmed that the Justice Department was looking into a complaint from CIA Director George Tenet that White House officials had leaked the name and occupation of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame.

USA Today

This indicates that the CIA itself thought the matter serious enough to warrant a federal investigation. So all this talk of Plame's identity being a open secret or of her motives or of her husbands motives are all moot.

Unless of course the CIA wanted the DOJ to investigate Plame or Wilson. I suppose it's possible but remember that Plame is still employed by the CIA.

about the focus being solely perjury in the end.  But maybe the prosecution in this case is trying to get all its ducks in a row before pursuing multiple indictments at once.

Or at least wants to make sure there's mountains of supporting evidence before he takes the top advisor for a sitting president to a grand jury on serious charges.

The short answer - no.

The lawyerly answer, it adds perhaps a wee smidgen of a straw to the camel's back full of evidence needed to determine intent beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the huge burden under the statute, that and "knowledge".

If you read the past week's worth of statement's by Rove's attorney (Robert?) Luskin, you'll notice he is very carefully phrasing his replies. It's not as depressing as defining what "is" is, but he's clearly acting as counsel trying to both clarify and minimally disclose his client's position.

So far, he's impressively articulate, and it will be worth noting if and when he retreats into "no comment" phase. I suspect he won't since it seems he knows that the end is near, and he's freeing up Rove to resume a more vocal presence on his own behalf.  

As I replied to PatHMV - The fineman piece is very interesting, distinguishing the legal and political aspects.

I don't know if it's been linked to recently, but here is the actual Senate report. It details how and why Wilson was sent to Niger, and why his visit was a complete waste of time (as many analysts said it would be up front), starting about page 36 (pdf p. 46). Whether Plame "authorized" the trip or not, it is quite clear that she was the one pushing it, and just about the only one who thought it would be at all worthwhile.

two sources for the information.

Also, at least the thing with Rove from Cooper doesn't sound so much like an attempt to hurt Plame, but he sounded almost like he was telling Cooper to back off the story coming from Wilson, not to run out and put Plame's name in the paper.

Here is a take about yellowcake and Niger that I haven't seen yet. Let me begin by saying that this is another possibility on what the intelligence was about.

How many of you remember the Nigerian internet letter scam about the late dictator of Nigeria, General Sanni Abacha or help Princess Monooh get her $12 million out of the country or any number of we've got X millions and will share X % of it with you but we need your bank account information?

 http://www.quatloos.com/cm-niger/nigerian_scam_letter_museum.htm

Here is a story that was written by Jack Shafer on July 14, 2003.

 http://cshink.com/uranium.htm

I know many will question these 'sources' but it is just more information about possibilities.

But no one can deny that Niger is a source for many scams and criminal activity during the past number of years. Fraud seems to be one of their exports.

chose to go to jail, perhaps the source she is protecting isn't Rove but somebody else.

Personally I don't think that reporters should be able to sheild sources who are suspected of committing crimes, but apparantly she disagrees.

Novak says he had two sources, so maybe it is the other source they are after at this point.

fails to take into account an important point.

Plame is a CIA employee, apparently of some stature.  I would presume that means she has at least some friends of stature in high places at the CIA.

Once Joe Wilson went public, and people started disputing the veracity of his claims, the CIA undoubtedly knew there would be questions about what actually happened.  Some sort of investigation/probe would be unavoidable.

If so, how could CIA conduct such a probe without being accused of some pro-Plame bias?  How could it conduct a politically-charged investigation, whose central figures would be one of its own (Plame) and her hubby, and still maintain a perception of impartiality.

They couldn't.  So, best to ask for an impartial body, such as the DOJ.

This way, CIA keeps its hands clean. And, if evidence of a crime, any crime, were to appear, DOJ would be best positioned to respond.

In this and other comments of yours on Redstate, you seem to be insinuating that, because CIA asked DOJ to investigate at all, that proves that CIA felt that something amiss must have occurred.  

There is another alternative explanation--the one I've just laid out.  CIA might not have wanted to have this matter play out on their hands.  So, they punted to DOJ.

The CIA was complicit to some degree in funding and sending Wilson to Niger-maybe some of this is their own version of CYA.

I think this whole situation does beg the question why our government would waste money to send a wonk from the State Department to Niger to investigate WMD's, when the man is neither an investigator or an expert on WMD's.

That is like sending a City Councilman out to investigate a murder.

Once Joe Wilson went public, and people started disputing the veracity of his claims, the CIA undoubtedly knew there would be questions about what actually happened.  Some sort of investigation/probe would be unavoidable.

If so, how could CIA conduct such a probe without being accused of some pro-Plame bias?  How could it conduct a politically-charged investigation, whose central figures would be one of its own (Plame) and her hubby, and still maintain a perception of impartiality.

They couldn't.  So, best to ask for an impartial body, such as the DOJ.

This way, CIA keeps its hands clean. And, if evidence of a crime, any crime, were to appear, DOJ would be best positioned to respond.

In this and other comments of yours on Redstate, you seem to be insinuating that, because CIA asked DOJ to investigate at all, that proves that CIA felt that something amiss must have occurred.  

You weren't speaking to me but yes, I think it is proven that the CIA felt that something amiss must have occurred.  It wasn't simply a case of "someone needs to look into this, better them than us". Here's the piece that leads me to believe we have to take at least that much as fact. I direct your attention to the end of the article.

..and the C.I.A. referred the issue in late July to the Justice Department.

As is standard, the Justice Department asked the C.I.A. to complete an 11-question report addressing issues like who had access to the classified information and what harm was caused to national security.

The C.I.A. gave the Justice Department its response several weeks ago, a government official said. Mr. Ashcroft decided over the last several days to move ahead with a preliminary inquiry, and the Justice Department notified the F.B.I. late Monday that the bureau would lead the investigation.

"We'll start with the C.I.A.," said an F.B.I. official. "They're the ones that held the information, so we'll go from there to find out who had access to it."

Read that again. The CIA had to specify to Justice in it's referral "what harm was caused to national security".  Do you think that possibility that CIA felt nothing amiss occurred is compatible with that fact?

Why everyone is making such a big fuss of Joe Wilson now.  Isn't that story pretty much over?  While you guys see lies all over his comments most of his comments are either unprovable or simply wrong.  As I've been told repeatedly regarding George Bush and his claims just because he was wrong doesn't mean he's lying.

Regardless the only story right now is about the leaker who gave up Plame.  This investigation has NO BEARING on whether Joe Wilson was right or wrong or lied.  The criminal statute doesn't care about motive.

He claimed, first of all, that his wife had nothing to do with him being sent to Niger. When that turned out to be false, that's more than just being "wrong", that's the willful dissemination of false information, which we call a "lie." Unless you somehow believe that Plame went to all this effort to get Wilson to go, and then never bothered to tell her husband.

He then claimed to have authoritative knowledge about the contents of a CIA memo, which it was later learned he had never seen in the first place. Again, I don't call that being "wrong", I call it "lying", or at the very least being "misleading" (that's how the WaPo described it).

He then claimed that his own report destroyed the "yellowcake in Niger" claim, and that the President ignored both his report and the CIA report, which said the same thing. In fact, the CIA report said no such thing, and his own friggin report was filled with evidence that Iraq was, in fact, seeking to purchase yellowcake from Niger. Now, when you submit false information about what is contained in a report that you wrote, what in the world would you call that?

One would think that if it was known that Karl Rove deliberately outed Valerie Plame, we'd be doen by now. But I see this article in which it turns out Rove only ever alluded to Wilsons wife (not Plame by name) as an analyst at the CIA's WMDs division. The context was a discussion in  which Rove stated Wilson's trip to Nigera was not authorized by the Director of Central Intelligence, but rather was authorized by Wilson's wife.

It rather appears to me that Plame is not a 'cia agent' as in undercover operative, but is rather a pencil pushing beauracrat who swooped under the DCI's radar to send her husband to Nigeria in order to gather evidence to discredit the President. (Notwithstanding that the results of Wilson's investigation do not amount to anything other than an 'unable to verify')

So where's the story? What am I missing?

It appears that prior to 1997, Plame was an actual CIA agent with a secret decoder ring and stuff. She was stationed in Europe. They brought her back to Langley when they feared that her name was on a list that had been passed to the Russians by Aldrich Ames.

We don't know what he knew about his wife's involvement with him going to Niger.  We don't even know what his wife's ACTUAL INVOLVEMENT is.  But we do, apparently, know he was lying.  OK.

The claim about the CIA memo seems more gotcha stuff than anything.  Perhaps he got caught overstating his case but this is hardly proof of willful lying.

His comments after his official report are editorials that have very little importance.  Obviously he had a partisan agenda.  If you wish to excoriate the guy over them now, be my guest.  But they have little relevance other than to distract from the CURRENT investigation.

we would be done by now-apparantly Rove admitted to being a source in his GJ testimony.

At this point, having Cooper testify may have been about perjury (did Rove lie about what he actually said, and does Cooper indicate this or does his story agree with Roves-hence no actual perjury), also we know for a fact that Novak had more than one source (we don't really know if Rove was one of those two sources, but we can think it likely he was one)-so it may also be about who the other source was and what they said and how they got their information.

But from the revealed Cooper story, I think proving a case against Rove for outing Plame is going to be a hard one to prove, what he told Cooper doesn't really seem to meet the crimes defintion.

We will maybe know more, if/when Miller testifies.

We don't know what he knew about his wife's involvement with him going to Niger.  We don't even know what his wife's ACTUAL INVOLVEMENT is.  But we do, apparently, know he was lying.  OK.

The findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee were that Wilson was sent to Niger based solely on the actions of his wife. The report said:

The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.

When informed of this, Wilson idiotically remarked:

"I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."

In other words, the man is clearly a pathological liar, even to the point of denying facts that are directly in front of his face.

Further:

The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, "there's this crazy report" about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq. The committee found Wilson had made an earlier trip to Niger in 1999 for the CIA, also at his wife's suggestion.

How much more evidence do you need? I can try and see if there's a blue dress hanging around, if you'd like?

Honestly I don't care about Joe Wilson in anyway.  He took his 15 minutes and went after the Administration. His claims didn't stick.  He's only relevant now because of the DoJ investigation.

 What was Plame's authority or influence in this matter?  Just because she sent a memo means little.  Perhaps that memo sparked some DOO guy to look at Wilson.  Big deal.  Another whoopdeedoo about Wilson 'lying' about this.  So he tried to downplay his wife's influence.  Welcome to Beltway politics.  

I tend to steer away from the these political mudslinging events because they serve little purpose.  You want to smear Wilson, have a great time.  Yesterday you were saying that this was an inconsequential event.  Today is apparently a different day.  Whether you show that Wilson was a pathological liar or not serves absolutely NO PURPOSE.  His 15 minutes are over and no one is talking about Yellowcake and Niger.

the memo to acted on her recommendation, so while she didn't fund the trip or sign the paperwork, she certainly was involved in how he was chosen to be sent and advocated for him on at least two occassions.

Do you think Wilson would have gotten the nod, had she not provided his name (it also sounds like it was her idea to send somebody to investigate-but not positive on that one, maybe Leon can elaborate on that point, given he seems to have read more on this than I have).

That she had influence.  I just don't see the big deal about that.  

painted his trip as being at the request of Dick Cheney and Tenet.

A WMD analyst and a depute CIA guy do not Dick Cheney and Tenet make, and the nepotism smacks as a bit smelly.

Rove, at least in his comments to Cooper didn't seem to be saying "hey we don't like Wilson, shut him up by revealing his wife was is  CIA operative" he mostly seems to be saying "back off this story, because Wilson is lying, when he says Cheney and Tenet sent him, in reality it was his wife's idea."  Rove also indicated that other evidence in the CIA indicated the Wilson's story was also false in that the attempted purchase didn't happen at all.

That statement alone, paints Wilson to some degree as a liar.

At Langley and Foggy Bottom. As if we needed any more evidence.

A question--how could two obviously incompetent, narcissistic, morally challenged buffoons get to positions of responsibility at CIA and State? Only partly rhetorical.

What I want to know is whether Wilson knew, before he left for Niger, that when he got back he would be on Meet the Press, in the New York Times, and in the Washington Post, all on the same day, to reveal his "findings."

When did terms like "Niger" and "Yellowcake" (with perhaps Wilson's name attached) first appear in the internal communications of the Meet the Press producers? When were Richard Leiby and Walter Pincus of the Washington Post first told they would be interviewing someone about the Niger-yellowcake story? How was this story pitched to these people, by whom, and when?

What I want to know is whether this whole trip was planned not as a fact-finding mission for internal CIA purposes, but to be precisely the media stunt it became, by Democratic Party types.

but I am not sure we are going to get those answers.

But I do think it would be ironic if the MSM and liberals pushed to have this investigated so they could bring down Rove and in the end it brings down those who would accuse him.

Is that bias is a clear factor, but that general sloppiness and incompetence is probably at the heart of the matter.

The MSM likes scoops above truth, especially if they support a bias--Mary Mapes, anyone.

It does give one pause, though. Our major media outlets gave full throated voice to an obviously biased and incompetent liar. It happens all the time, especially in the Senate, but it does give one pause.

how could two obviously incompetent, narcissistic, morally challenged buffoons get to positions of responsibility at CIA and State?

I believe they have some sort of competetive process.

Leon, you just don't get it. The lies by Wilson and the press are justified in service of a 'higher goal', that of ridding America of the scourge of conservatives and war-mongers like George Bush.

When someone like Bill Clinton and the Democrats are 'restored to their rightful place' in control then, and only then, will things return to 'normal.' For example, we will be able to pursue a more rational terrorism policy of lobbing million dollar cruise missiles at empty tents. Only in this way can we prove how serious we are about this problem, And we can do it without actually hurting anyone too.

Long Live the UN Resolution. Without it the world might actually be forced do something about problems.

--------------------

Sometimes, I get all caught up in "facts" and forget the relevant Known Facts. How embarrassing.

You are quite welcome, but please try not to let it happen again. And I had such high hopes for you too. :-)

How do Republicans show that they're "serious" about a problem?  By breaking the law.

Breaking into an office and spying on the opposition.

Illegally selling arms to other countries.

Passing off the names of CIA agents.

Is there a high road in there somewhere that trumps the "wimpiness" of the Democrats?  Because of course it's clear from the above examples that Republicans would never lie like Wilson or commit criminal acts to achieve the higher goal of ridding America of the scourge of Democrats, rights?

Your first post on this site does not bode well for your continued existence.

Please read this and this and try again.

My point, Leon H., is that the post above by jsteele, in its smug sarcasm, misses a key point.  GWB set himself up as a right righteous politician from Texas, different from those scoundrel-ridden Democrats.  But here is what Election 2006/8 looks like once GWB allows Rove's mouth to get him in trouble...

As an election slogan:

Richard Nixon.

Oliver North.

Karl Rove.

Can YOU trust the Republicans with your country?

Perhaps one of the things you missed in Nick Danger's post that really irritates Republicans is the usage of Known Facts.

One of those is that "Rove broke the law! Rove committed treason!"

We have spent quite a bit of time here and here, and this is definitely worth your read as to why that is a dubious conclusion at best, rather than an ACTUAL Known Fact.

But, let's set all that aside for just a moment, and just observe that this sentence:

How do Republicans show that they're "serious" about a problem?  By breaking the law.

Is considered trolling by every definition of the word, when you are on a Republican site.

Pretty strong words for something you haven't established. You offer this:

The findings of the Senate Intelligence Committee were that Wilson was sent to Niger based solely on the actions of his wife. The report said:

    The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.

When informed of this, Wilson idiotically remarked:

    "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."

But you fail to note that the claims in this Senate Report that Wilson lied weren't exactly ignored last year when they came out.  Just to give one example, a July 15 LA Times (now behind a paywall, hence no link) stated:

"A senior intelligence official said the CIA supports Wilson's version: "Her bosses say she did not initiate the idea of her husband going.... They asked her if he'd be willing to go, and she said yes," the official said."

giving it one more shot. :-)

Read the original post again. There was also this:

The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, "there's this crazy report" about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.

Again, indicating that she personally recommended her husband for this job. This further jibes with the statements of virtually everyone else involved in this affair (with the exclusion of Wilson himself) that Cheney didn't authorize the trip, the DCI didn't authorize the trip, the State Department didn't want Wilson goign, the only reason he went was because Plame pushed so hard for it.

Now, if a person who lies about the conclusions of their own report, knowing full well that they will eventually be made public, isn't a pathological liar, who is?

  Namely, that so far as I can tell at a quick glance all of your claims of "liar" come down to some unverified claims made by Republican Senators during a campaign year. Claims that themselves have been disputed by not only Wilson & Plame, but also by intelligence and CIA sources.  "Pathological liar" seems pretty strong for such iffy evidence.

  I don't think there's enough evidence in the public sphere right now for anyone to determine just how honest or dishonest Wilson has been.

But I will remind you that on the most important point - Nigerian yellowcake - we know Wilson was correct in March 2002 and Bush was wrong in the SoTU  ten months later.  So if I were on the right I'd be a little more careful with that word.

But I will remind you that on the most important point - Nigerian yellowcake - we know Wilson was correct in March 2002 and Bush was wrong in the SoTU  ten months later.  So if I were on the right I'd be a little more careful with that word.

Factually, this is dead false, for at least two reasons.

First, Bush did not claim that Iraq had tried to purchase yellowcake from Niger. He specifically said, British intelligence has told us that Iraq tried to purchase yellowcake from Niger. That was a statement that was undisputably true.

Second, the question of the attempted purchase of yellowcake is all but settled, especially in the minds of the British, who are to this day sticking by their statement. Wilson's own information was actually pretty damning on this.

Does this mean I don't have to waste my time responding to him :-)

Is certainly a matter of personal discretion, but if you're expecting any kind of response from the original poster, I'm certain you will be disappointed.

There is always the problem that saying that Wilon's  generic wife was a generic CIA employee is not criminal. I'd think that would slow the prosecutor down a bit but then again I'm a  bit of a literalist when it comes to criminal statutes.

  Hello all. I'm new here, so this may have come up before, but I didn't see it on this thread at least.

   Listening to the radio today, I heard a lawyer give a theory to try to tie up some of the loose ends in this whole ruckus that don't quite add up, like....

-Why Cooper was let out of his "confidentiality agreement" by his source, but Miller wasn't.

-Who the second source Novak used is (assuming, of course, the first is Rove).

-If the whole investigation is simply to get Rove, why not just end it now?

And on and on.

So, the guy's theory is......

Rove didn't break the law by leaking Plame's name, because (and I don't know this, hopefully someone here can confirm/contradict this) it's only illegal if Rove himself has the right level security clearance to be the source of the leak, which this lawyer presumed Rove did not have.

Soooooo, this lawyer's theory is that the prosecution isn't after Rove, but rather someone higher up the ladder who DID have the security clearance.(the lawyer didn't infer, but I would assume he meant Bush/Cheney/Rummy/etc.)

  This would explain why the investigation is being described as a "national security", who Novak's second source might be, who Miller is still protecting, and why Rove hasn't been charged yet.

  I want to make clear two things.

1.I'm not saying that I believe this theory (that Bush/Cheney are the actual leak) if for no other reason I don't think Bush/Cheney/the rest are that stupid. I DO however, think that this may be what the prosecutor is hoping/gunning for.

2. Even if the theory were completely true, I don't think there's any way in H-E-Double Hockey Sticks that Rove would EVER roll over on anyone in the administration, which is what I think the prosecutor is going for.

Thank you for your time.

How many wives does Joe Wilson have?  I don't know about you guys, but I'd hate to go to court with my entire defense hanging on the distinction between saying "Joe Wilson's wife" and "Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame."  It's the same information, even if the name wasn't used in that conversation.

the statue only makes it a crime to knowingly reveal the name of an operative, not just an employee.

Rove didn't appear to be outing her from her cover.  And the prosecution would also have to show that Rove had knowledge of her position as an operative, and at least from what is out there right now, that doesn't seem to be the case with him.

that would be enough under this particular law to prevent conviction as Plame does not trade as Ms. Joseph Wilson and the law requires the divulgence of a name as one of several tests that must be passed before a law is broken.

It would be equally humorous to the CIA explain how they had taken active measures to keep her identity and covert status secret by the subtle ruse of employing her as a CIA analyst and assigning her to an interagency task force.

The law was passed to target one specific individual, Philip Agee, and one particular publication, the Covert Action Bulletin.

Too bad. I had a real barn burner. Well I'll save it for later.

There is nothing to say that a barn-burning response is not a valuable use of time, in and of itself.

His response would have been mostly worthless anyway.

If I'd known I would've chewed...   ;)

not to get all cynical and political, but would a NY Times reporter go to jail (or any important conservative Republican) to protect Karl Rove, who is already outed?  It seems there might be something a little more fishy in the state of Denmark here.

 

Here's a good article on Karl Rove's predicament at FindLaw -

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050715.html