Redstate

Don't agree with everything, but this is a very useful summary of where the facts stand today.

I would first like to commend you for a well thought out and detailed analysis.  I don't have any major issues with your contentions but I do have a few quibbles.

8.  As I said yesterday the most reasonable reading of the events would suggest that Karl Rove was trying to discredit Wilson.  While he may have indeed thought that all of Wilson's report was bogus it seems more plausible that his main reasoning for implying Wilson was sent by his wife was to attack Wilson's credibility.  This is standard Betlway politics. I do agree that Rove had no intention and probably no knowledge that he may be breaking the law.
   
11.  I think it is still up in the air whether the law was broken, by Rove or anyone else.  While it does appear to be true that Plame returned state-side in 97 it is uncertain whether she was still acting in a covert manner.  If she continued to operate as a covert agent(ie go on trips under a NOC) then the law would still apply.

The point that you didn't address that I think is relevant is that the DoJ certainly thought that a crime had been committed.  The perjury and obstruction charges could only have occurred if a grand jury was appointed to investigate who committed a crime.  This is not to say that a crime DID occur.  I am simply pointing out that the DoJ believed there was enough evidence to warrant a grand jury.  

This is an excellent, "take a deep breath, add qualifiers, and see where we are", post. I would only add an item or two about what have Mr. and Mrs. Wilson said (i.e. for public consumption vs. under oath). This week has been a Rove feeding frenzy, and while the GOP talking points both defend and refocus generally, I wonder if the spotlight will swing to the other side of the "he said/he said/she said" equation.

Has anyone point blank asked Miller, the NYT, or Wilson/Plame what they have said, who they spoke with, have they been to the GJ, etc....? Most of Wilson's self incriminating revisions have been in friendly or unprompted settings. What happens if he's grilled by hostile press or counsel?

The direct evidence of Rove seems about 1/2 disclosed, but all else seems inference so far.

Ain't this fun!

"What is more in dispute is whether the British intelligence was factually correct."

Well, what is most in dispute is whether or not the Bush administration or the CIA thought or knew if the intelligence was factually correct or not.

I'd also say the Rove lawbreaking thing is certainly not "SOLID."

(a) We don't know if Plame may've gone overseas for a short period of time --let's say a week -- in the five years before the leak, so it seems premature to assume she wouldn't qualify as "covert." I haven't heard squeaks out of Wilson or anyone implying that she was a covert agent, so I have my doubts, but that could be for legal or CIA reasons I guess.

(b) More importantly: as with Bill Clinton's fiasco Rove may've committed a crime in the Grand Jury proceedings, or there may be a criminal obstruction of justice conspiracy. The blanket statement that Rove committed no crime and didn't "break the law," when what you mean to say is that it's doubtful he violated the IIPA, is a bit overreaching.

Sorry if any of those are talking points, I think they steer clear of that and are specific to your post. It's good to have some of the main points of contention laid out like this though, so thanks for that.

From flyerhawks post above I'm guessing the usage of "quibbles" was a talking point I didn't know about!

These are the words of Fitzgerald that put a stake through the moonbat arguments of law-breaking by Rove.

Further, would Rove be releasing anyone if he was a target of the investigation?

Further, if Rove had been fingered as a target by Fitzgerald, I have little doubt he would have resigned his post because that mere fact would have been in every debate adnauseum by the Kerry team.

As one of the token non-conservatives here, you frame it well, even if I take issue with parts of it.

One in particular -- when you claim that "[Rove] instructed Cooper to keep this as a "super secret", I don't believe that's what the email suggests.  "Double secret background", from my understanding of journalism, means "seriously, don't quote me on this, but you can use the information in guiding your reporting".

I've thought from the beginning that Cooper was just joking around with that line, that he was employing fake playful spy "lingo" to kid around with his editor about how secretive Rove was being. Could be wrong. Probably am.

That's in the main post.

Check it again.

(a) Fitzgerald told Rove that he wasn't a target a long time ago, right? I mean, there hasn't been  statement like that made by Fitz in the last few months or so, has there?

(b) Rove signed that waivers a long time ago at the general coercion of the White House. Cooper's lawyer only sought the specific waiver when he heard Luskin say that "if Cooper is protecting someone it isn't Karl." And so Cooper's lawyer went on the offensive using that statement as proof enough to "negotiate" a specific waiver -- really just a clarification of the old waiver -- with Rove's lawyer.

(c) I don't think he'd have resigned until it came out. Until that point, the man loves political campaigns and there wasn't much of a hint that this sort of thing was going to happen pre-11/04.

obstruction of justice could have resulted during the initial investigatory stage not neccessarily the grand jury phase.

Also, if it is established that Plame was a covert operative, the prosecution has to establish that the person who outed the operative was aware of it through access to classified documents, and that element may be difficult to prove, not to mention that the CIA has to prove that they went to lengths to conceal her identity, and the defense may be able to shoot holes all through this aspect of the crime given her employment with the CIA was well known.

Last, part of this investigation may have been as much about the politics of appearance as the initial crime, and the elements of the initial crime may have become moot from the begining, but evidence of other crime may have become the focus.  Hard to say, and Fitzgerald doesn't have to explain publically what he is doing at this point.

I honestly don't expect there to be any indictments handed down for the outing of Plame when all is said and done, I expect the indictments to in the end up being things like obstruction of justice, maybe perjury, lying to investigators etc.

I didn't say that Rove did or did not break the law.  I really have no idea and I suspect that few people other than the players themselves know.

Right, ok, I guess I didn't give that point enough weight. I'll just say that there's going to be justifiable accusations of hypocrisy for BOTH parties and I don't think it's going to be "amusing" for serious members of either.

The pundits will have their ad nauseaum say: Democrats are hypocrites for suddenly being outraged about perjury and Republicans are hypocrites for suddenly downplaying it.

Blech. Not looking forward to that back and forth...

And clearly Rove was trying to take Wilson's legs out. I'd add that Wilson deserved to be discredited.

Plame's role needs more evaluation. Hind sight is 20/20, but I don't think Rove should have even obliquely referenced her. On the other hand, the odor of nepotism is pretty apparent.

Burning Questions: How is it that a lying partisan hack--that would be Wilson--was sent on a matter of urgent national interest by the CIA at the behest of his wife, a CIA employee?

Can we taxpayers get a refund given that his work product was crap?

There are formalized levels of prosecutorial interest: Not a subject, a person of interest, or a target of the investigation.

Rove's lawyer says Rove is not target of Fitzgerald's investigation, and the lawyer has no reason to dissemble on that point. So, the prosecutor affirmatively believes that Rove did not break the law. He's not investigating further in order to get Rove (although if further evidence warranted, he might.)

Political reporters know these distinctions but have not let that knowledge get in the way of a "good" story.

1. Why did the CIA request a DOJ investigation? What  was their concern?
   
2. What damage to national security, if any, was done by Novaks exposure of V. Plame?

3. Did Wilson violate the law by leaking to Pincus and Kristof? (SHAKY) This is actually a question that is very seldom asked, because it is not seen as relevant to the investigation at hand. However, Matthew Continetti takes a long, hard look at the dubious activity of the "truth telling" Mr. Wilson, in leaking information that he had no truthful access to to Pincus and Kristof.

I hadn't much thought about it, but in the end Fitzgerald could also be looking into this for the CIA, and we just assume that the investigation is all about Plame and her outing.

Hard to know for sure, but it is definitely a burning question and worth looking into.

The DOJ has a statutory requirement to investigate referrals of alleged breaches of secrecy laws from the CIA. The CIA makes dozens of referrals every month. Once the CIA made the referral, DOJ had an obligation to launch a preliminary inquiry.

This case was elevated beyond the "inquiry" status because of the profile of the case.

Only one thing to add:

Did Karl Rove break the law? (SOLID) No

Aside from perjury charges (and the like), there's one other ground on which Rove could be prosecuted.  Mark Kleiman (a lefty law professor, but one who knows his stuff) makes a very credible case that the real problem for Rove may be the espionage act, not the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. (see http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/valerie_plame_/2005/07/the_plame_game
_no_its_not_all_about_the_intelligence_identities_protection_act.php).

Worth noodling about, though it, too, qualifies as pure speculation.

intentional leaking of Plame as an agent.

It is very plausible that her employer was well known, and that her status as a covert operator was not, and that in all this leaking and information sharing that nobody fully realized her status.

So this is mine:

Somewhere between 6 and 8 I would really like to know how the leaker/leakers learned that Plame suggested Wilson for the trip.  We haven't got a clue, but this is the step that is interesting.  This aspect probably wasn't classified, after all is Wilson's trip wasn't classified and he was free to share the information about with the world through the press, then how he got sent shouldn't have been either.

So somewhere in the CIA had to be somebody with the know who told somebody who told the press (or maybe they were actually the original press source, and all the admin folks were there to confirm, and help spread the love), somebody who knew Plame, and knew Wilson's trip was recommended to some degree by her.  It is very possible that it is really this leaker who blew Plames cover.

So my burning question is "who was this leaker?"

Now where are you going to put it?

Wilson's already been caught in some lies...

there are targets, subjects, and witnesses.

The targets should be sweating bullets.

The subjects more than likely don't need to sweat too many bullets, but they can't sit to comfortably.

The witnesses can get comfy and not worry.

Luskin said that Fitzgerald had defined the subjects pretty broadly, which makes me think that there are a lot of charges they are looking into, and not just the leaking one (in that case the subjects would be pretty limited in number more than likely)-they may be perjury, obstruction of justice, lying to investigators-all sorts of things.

I actually sort of suspect though from the way the WH is behaving on this that they are pretty confident that Rove and other WH people are going to come out of this okay, but am willing to leave about a 30% chance that they are just clueless and ignoring the facts.

#7  - Irrelevant tense.  Whether he is a partisan is irrelevant - anyone who wasn't after what was done to him (assuming only arguendo that it was, of course) would be a fool.  The slighly more relevant question is was he a partisan.  But at bottom even that is mostly irrelevant.

#11 - You seem to be only considering the one statute (and I think you overstate the case against that, but putting that aside)....what's your SOLID evidence that, say, he didn't violate the Espionage Act's looser standards?  But like I said last night I think it's more likely an investigation into later dissemination of classified information in the campaign to discredit Wilson now rather than the Plame leak itself. We'll see. This one should be in the BURNING QUESTION category.

#12. Solid "no".  Rove and his lawyer have known for many months - through two court battles and a Supreme Court appeal - that Cooper did not consider the general waiver to be valid.  They could've granted a specific one at any time. They didn't. Until the lawyer screwed up and ran his mouth too much on a TV interview and Cooper's grabbed a perceived loophole.

Although I don't think Rove is the only person that may get his, and he may not get hit at all, and it may be some other witness.  Maybe even Wilson or Plame.

Hard to say, but I strongly suspect that there is more being looked into than just the outing of Plame.

... who and what are Judith Miller and her bosses at the New York Times hiding?

I find it impossible to believe that any reporter at the New York Times (or the editorial board for that matter) would hesitate for a single second to burn a source, if the revelation of the source's identity would damage a Republican Administration. The source, quite frankly, is not Rove (or any other high-ranking Republican), else they would have burned him/her no matter how solemnly Miller had sworn to him/her to not reveal his/her identity.

It is extremely suspicious considering the current shrieking of the New York Times for Rove to be hung, drawn and quartered even while acknowledging that he broke no law, nor outed Valerie Plame and that the full facts are yet to be known. And this is all while they know precisely what it is that will put this story to rest.

I am beginning to lean in the somewhat tinfoil-hatted direction of the idea that the New York Times knows that this would all soon come out and it would damage both them and their precious Democrat Party. And so, it is taking advantage of the smoke and confusion in the brouhaha to at least try to take out a top Democrat target before the full story is out and the chickens come home to roost.

C'mon von, how can you take that crap as anything but crap. And dishonest crap to boot.

How can any sentient being say that Karl Rove, or even Dick Durbin, would be indicted under the Espionage Act. The element of proof information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, is virtually impossible to meet under any circumstance than committing actually espionage.

It would be easier to indict under IIPA.

Wilson's partisanship, or lack there of, is entirely relevant.

If he was a lying partisan hack at the time of his appointment to go to Niger, one has to wonder about the CIA.

Moreover, at the time of Rove's unfortunate leak, Wilson clearly was a lying partisan hack out to undermine the President of the United Sates during an election. I find that relevant, too.

Does he feel justified in his lying partisan hackery? That I find irrelevant.

7  - Irrelevant tense.  Whether he is a partisan is irrelevant - anyone who wasn't after what was done to him (assuming only arguendo that it was, of course) would be a fool.  The slighly more relevant question is was he a partisan.  But at bottom even that is mostly irrelevant.

Wilson was an advisor to the Kerry Campaign as of May '03.

The article he wrote came out after that.  He did act as an anonymous source for Kristof and I think another reporter on the issue before May, but everything else happened after he was hired by the Kerry campaign.

#12. Solid "no".  Rove and his lawyer have known for many months - through two court battles and a Supreme Court appeal - that Cooper did not consider the general waiver to be valid.  They could've granted a specific one at any time. They didn't. Until the lawyer screwed up and ran his mouth too much on a TV interview and Cooper's grabbed a perceived loophole.

I have said this multiple times, but here goes again.

There were multiple sources at work here-we know for a fact that Novak had two admin sources, an intelligience source and a CIA one-that is four guys, and unless Rove is in reality a clone, he can only be one of them.  There are 5 other reporters involved, Cooper is the only one who is a confirmed contact of Rove's we do not know who else Rove contacted, but by the time the investigation came around, Rove would have been aware that he wasn't the only guy who had discussed this with reporters.

It is possible and plausible that Rove assumed Cooper was protecting a second source, therefore Cooper was going to go to jail for that source, not Rove.  Rove's lawyer seems to confirm this when he said "If Cooper is going to jail to protect somebody, it isn't Karl Rove."  It was that statement that prompted COoper's lawyer to contact Luskin to make arrangements for Cooper to testify.

also if the Miller thing was similar to the Cooper thing, she already would be talking.

I think Miller is protecting somebody else, and the "who" is very important, because we know that Rove and Libby have both signed waivers permitting the reporters to speak.

deep background.

"Double super secret background" is an intentionally humorous phrase, but it is jovial reporter lingo, not spy lingo. Most senior administration officials speak on "background" as a matter of routine, because there is a very elaborate procedure for getting clearance to speak on the record, for attribution. The procedure for getting permission to speak for attribution to "a senior administration official" is less rigorous, and at a certain level goes with the permission, with no further clearance of particular remarks necessary.

As the earlier poster pointed out, I think any reporter or public official would easily recognize this phrase to mean no fooling, don't attribute this, don't cite this, certainly don't quote this, but you can use it to dig for further leads as you develop your story. It's used for precisely the purposes Rove used it here... to try to get reporters to go in a particular direction when the official does not want to become part of that story himself. It's not exactly an uncommon practice in D.C., and there's nothing particularly wrong with it.

you've laid off the talking points for a day or so, why the relapse.

1-- actually he was a partisan before hand. He signed onto the Kerry campaign as an advisor in May '03.

2-- Wilson's op-ed ran in the July 6, '03 NYT

3-- Novak wrote his column in October '03

Read the Espionage Act. It is much more stringent than IIPA. You have to prove the individual knew the release of information would hurt national security.

So the New York Times is bad.  The administration is good.  Outing CIA agents is (sort of) bad.  Therefore, The New York Times is somehow at fault, because bad does bad.  

It makes perfect sense.  When Novak cited two administration officials, he was actually talking about the New York Times administration, because like many businesses the New York Times has some sort of administration.  Q.E.D.

I'll give you this much: at least, implicit in your 'argument,' outing CIA agents is still wrong.  That's not the case with a lot of folks these days.  According to the WSJ, Karl Rove is a hero for, uh, weakening the CIA.  Which he totally didn't do anyway.  Or something.  I'm a little behind on the latest talking points.  

I may be confused though.

you decide

but the NYTimes outed CIA business front that were doing work in the war on terror.

But I guess they were justified.

I don't know that it is so much the NYTimes is bad, but more what is the NYTimes hiding.  Why would Miller go to jail for a source that said she could talk?

May be the target...

etc etc.

The column ran on July 14, '03. But it doesn't change the point.

Wilson was a known and declared partisan and had made his attack on the Administration before the Novak column, so his partisanship could not have been in response to "what was done to him."

For being a snarky twit.

Let the countdown begin.

his next comment will put him on The Pile™

it can get confusing, and Novak posted a follow up in October.

Also, I think the employment of Wilson by the Kerry campaign is germaine in that it is probably through those contacts that he pulled off his trifecta-getting the column in both major papers and an appearance on Meet the PRess the same day.

seems very distorted.

In particular, I think Fox news is about as biased as we've seen in this country for a major media company, and even I wouldn't go as far as to credit Fox with the magnitude of partisanship you seem to attribute to the NYT.  Do you realize that about 12,000 people work at the NYT?  Do you really think they all fit one ideological agenda?

The espionage act is the best explanation I've seen so far for this statement by Judge Hogan re: Miller's (not Rove's) potential liability in this case:

"This is not a case of a whistle-blower" revealing secret information to Miller about "dangers at a nuclear power plant," Hogan said. "It's a case in which the information she was given and her potential use of it was a crime. . . . This is very different than a whistle-blower outing government misconduct."

SFAIK, there's no reasonable claim that Miller's use of Plame's name violated the IIPA.  Nor is this statement suggestive of a perjury or obstruction of justice charge.  It is, however, suggestive of an espionage act change.  If Miller's in jeopardy under the espoionage act, I have a hard time believe that Rove isn't.

As for meeting this element:

information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation

If Plame was running foreign agents (as has been asserted), it's possible to argue that her exposure put those agents at risk and thereby injured the United States and/or could be used "to the advantage of any foreign nation."

Finally:  I'm not endorsing Kleiman's reasoning or conclusion.  But he (1) knows more about this stuff than I do and (2) his assertions are at least consistent with the known facts and seem to explain at least one known fact (Hogan's statement) that is not explained by any other theory.  As I said, if we're going to noodle this case (something that, in general, I'm opposed to), Kleiman's assertion is worth noodling over.

you get a different version of the NYT than I get in DC.

against an argument that claims on average the NYT leans 'left/dem'.  There's even factual evidence that it does.  But to boldly claim that no ONE SINGLE REPORTER exists at the NYT who would put ethics above (hypothetical democratic) partisanship is a bit extreme, especially for redstate.  I might expect such a claim at Freerepublic and not even bat an eye, but this isn't Freerepublic.

I mean come on:

I find it impossible to believe that any reporter at the New York Times (or the editorial board for that matter) would hesitate for a single second to burn a source, if the revelation of the source's identity would damage a Republican Administration.

Not even 'strange' or 'unlikely' or 'improbable', but IMPOSSIBLE.

I realize I'm not a moderator here, so what I say has essentially no power, but does this kind of distorted belief really reflect a pro-republican agenda?

Rove would have to have known she was running foreign agents and disclosed her identity. Her simply running them unbeknownst to Rove is not sufficient under the Espionage Act.

And "seems to know" are the operative words. I'd be willing to bet we both have tried as many cases under the Espionage Act as he has.

But you lawyers are as entitled to your own conspiracy theories as anyone else.

And what Hogan says is consistent with the IIPA, IMO. You have to read a lot of tea leaves otherwise.

but I'd say the same about the WaPo, the Boston Globe, the LA Times, or the Chron, among major papers.

It's not our "official" position but it is mine.

". . .but the NYTimes outed CIA business front that were doing work in the war on terror."

"But I guess they were justified."

I'm not saying it was justified.  Yes, that article was bad.  Now what does that article have to do with the 'theory' under discussion?

What I'm saying is that I don't think it's appropriate to start throwing out nebulous, unsuported accusations despite a total dearth of evidence of any wrongdoing.  I don't think that's right, ethically or factually.

here's what's missing:

Your summary pretends that the potential issues end on the day Novak find out the info.  That is like saying the Monica Lewinski affair ended with the cigar was smoked, or that watergate ended when the burglary occurred.

Things have happened since then that could also be important and possibly also crimes regardless of whether or not the underlying event was a crime.

Lying to grand juries, lying to the American public, etc.

The coverup is always worse than the crime.  Always.

See point 11.

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.

Do I think that all 12,000 NYT employees hold the same policital belief- no.  I would say no more than 11,123 would love to hand the President his hat and say "bye-bye."

Do I think Judith Miller, her editor, and the managing staff have it out for the President- that's a no-brainer.

Someone in classified adds may be a republican, there were if a few in NY in the last election, but there is no doubt that the vast majority of the relevant news staff are partisan.

looks beyond partisanship on this issue.  The one comment that I would make is about whether Karl Rove broke the law.  I don't think that this is something that we know for sure yet.  We may be able to say with some degree of certainty that a case against him under the secret identity statute will be difficult to make, the greater threat to him and others involved is a perjury, obstruction or conspiracy charge.  Given the fact that McLellan stated that Rove (or rather the three individuals) were not involved in disclosed her identity, it seems that at some level these players attempted to downplay or cover-up their role in the leak.  If that continued once the special prosecutor got involved, they could win one argument only to lose on another.

department might have one or two closeted Republicans.

I already addressed that, under point 11. But thanks for your input.

at his height of relevancy during 2003, well before the election.

He signed on the with the Kerry campaign in May '03.

mistake.  Sorry, I didn't read that far...too tired and too much left to do.

I doubt that it will drain the fever swamp, very much. However it gives us some good guide posts, and unlike the dem/msm/kos koolaid kids/wilson whining is based on actual events, actual evidence and standards that may actually be based on reality.

I realize that it's received wisdom that the New York Times is no more than 527 for the Democratic Party.  But you guys are now taking it to the absurd extreme.

Judith Miller has been a staunch advocate for the War in Iraq.  She was the official "leak" for stories about Iraq.  She is apparently a confidential journalist for Karl Rove.  Yet she is, apparently, dedicated to bringing down the President.  

You claim is incongruous with reality.

Fitzgerald will find what he finds. In the meantime, why don't we do like the old guys who've hung out together so long they know each other's jokes by heart & call them out by number. We could save a lot of time if we number our arguments & just write Number 6! Or number 8!?

Not meaning to be snarky; it's a controversial topic, but isn't this wearing everyone out?

up in arms over the "outing" of Plame who sat in an office somewhere near an airfield used by actual CIA operatives who fly into no-man's land who were also outed by the...NYT.  Rove defenders are saying he only did it to persuade a reporter into a more correct position.  NYT claims it nuked years of CIA work because it thought extraordinary rendition was a topic worth that price.  You can't say one is acceptable and the other contemptible.  Now my eyes glaze over and roll into the back of my head every time I see Rove/Plame/Novak and I don't particularly care who gets frogmarched but personally I'd take a single CIA pilot over a 100 CIA-WMD "experts"* any freaking day of the week.  

* I use scare quotes only because they've proven themselves extraordinarily inept in that area over the years.

Wilson should have postponed his attacks until after Labor Day 04, but then his masters on the Kerry campaign might not have liked that.

5/03 and 7/03 weren't the height of the campaign season by any stretch.  Besides, Wilson's partisanship really doesn't make a difference in the context of the revelation of his wife's identity.  

... and relax.  I'm not claiming special "lawyer knowledge"; I'm not endorsing Kleiman's work; and I'm not being snarky with you in the least.  I have said that Kleiman seems to have taken a more careful look at this than I'm willing to,* and that Judge Hogan's language certainly implies to me that more than the IIPA is in play.  (Without getting into perjury et al.)

With that, I'm ending.

von

*Though you don't mention it, let's get this out on the table:  For some reason, I had thought that Kleiman was a law professor.  He ain't.  This makes it more likely that you're reaction is the correct one.

You've got more experience and you can read.

I'm actually surprised. I was laboring under the same impression.

Wilson was a declared, anti-Bush partisan in May 03.

The allegation is that her name was revealed to discredit Wilson, so of course his partisanship makes a difference otherwise the underlying motive goes away.

What a great example of "noise" this thread is.

Allow me to boil it down to a nutshell:

This administration has potentially comprimised the nation's security for the sake of partisan gain.

has a link titled Curriculum Vitae.  And on CNN during the blog review they said he was a UCLA law prof.  

First of all, I think you've come up with a good way to try and frame the issue.

These would be my opinions on the topic based upon what I know (which as you say - learning a bunch in 2 days isn't easy, although I've been weakly following the general Plame name leak issue for years):

1. ok
   
   
2. solid no the way you phrased the title.  If you want to phrase it as "did the administration truly BELIEVE that blah blah" then I would put it as shaky.  Two years ago it would have been "burning question".
   
   
3. who cares? Its not relevant to the particular investigation.  It would only be relevant to a completely different investigation.  I realize from a public interest story its interesting.  But it means nothing in terms of the investigation.
   
   
4. What do you mean by 'truthful'?  If 95 percent of what he said was truthful and 5 percent was not, does that make it a 'solid no'?  Once again, its irrelevant to the particular investigation but related to the public story.
   
   
5. Once again irrelevant.  I don't disagree with what you wrote, its just not relevant to the investigation.
   
   
6.  ok, except Wilson says she acted as a 'conduit' to have him sent.  Maybe he didn't acknowledge this at some earlier point.  What Wilson claimed is irrelevant.  Whether Valerie actually DID authorize him IS relevant.
   
   
7.  Ok.  Not relevant to the investigation though. Its worth pointing out that he DID contribute to the Bush-Cheney campaign in '00. "Wilson gave $1000 to Gore in
   

1999, but also $1000 to the Bush campaign".  I think he was just being a smart diplomat, but I won't deny that by 2002 he wasn't probably friendly to the Bush cause.

8.  BURNING QUESTION
   
   
9.  ok
   
   
10. ok - but not just WHERE but WHEN.
    
    
11. I would say SHAKY, because of the perjury/obstruction charge.  You compare it to Clinton by inference, but remember Clinton lied about a personal matter, Rove (if found guilty) would have lied about a potentially criminal or even treason matter.  
    
    
12.  Shaky because I'd say its SOLID that cooper didn't consider the release to be valid.  Then it becomes SHAKY whether Rove knew Cooper was still trying to protect him or not.  Since Rove only gave him approval 'in a dramatic fashion' after Time already released all of Cooper's information (about Rove), Rove had nothing to lose at that point.  In fact, by releasing Cooper, but not Miller in such a 'dramatic' fashion, one wonders whether Rove is trying to keep the issue confused (by letting everyone think that Miller's source is someone else) or whether he simply isn't Miller's source.

To be solid, Rove should publicly/dramatically in an uncoerced fashion, release Miller from protecting him, even if he isn't the source.  If she then starts talking, then Rove has to have been her source.  If she doesn't talk, then he's (probably) not the source.

13. Ok.  If only because I never expect bush to condemn the actions of anyone in his admin whether they're unethical criminals or not.  He's extremely consistent on the loyalty issue, I will acknowledge that.  And Rove has been a Bush loyalist since he first saw the dreamy-eyed cowboy strut into the saloon 20 years ago...

And yes, Whitehouse press secretary is one of the most difficult jobs in the world, especially for this administration.  ;)

Let's pretend we're detectives.

We know at the time of Rove's telecon with Cooper, that Wilson is a lying partisan hack out to discredit the President. He's working for Kerry's campaign for crissakes. He's using "information" that he gleaned while working for the CIA to campaign against the President. His wife happens to work for the CIA. His wife happened to lobby for him to get the Niger gig. How is that not relevant to the investigation?

I'm not arguing that Rove was justified in referencing Plame, only that Plame's role in the mess is relevant to the investigation.

From that link:

HARVARD UNIVERSITY, JOHN F. KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT, CAMBRIDGE, MA

PH.D. IN PUBLIC POLICY, June 1985.

MASTER OF PUBLIC POLICY, June 1977.

HAVERFORD COLLEGE, HAVERFORD, PA

BACHELOR OF ARTS, magna cum laude, June 1972.

Major fields: Economics (honors), Philosophy (honors), Political Science (high honors). Phi Beta Kappa.

Yes - this seems to be the current sticking point. Why is J. Miller in jail, and who and what is she protecting. The wholly unsupported inferences seem to involve the source (V. Plame, J. Wilson, C. Powell, random CIA staff contacts, misc. democratic party "operatives", members of the DC "cocktail" circuit, etc.????), and the nature of the info/disclosures involved (classified info from CIA files, foreign intelligence reports, stolen WH memos????). This is as imaginatively bizarre as possible.

Meanwhile, though many infer Rove must NOT be her source since his release presumably covered her in the same fashion as Cooper, he or his counsel Luskin has not defied Miller on this, i.e. "if she's covering for me, she hasn't told me that", in such a way as to bait her out. Not that he has to do that, but it would be a stark way of eliminating the inference with fact.

Also, Rove may be one, of many, of her sources, which leads to some obvious legal questions.

Can a subpoenaed party refuse to testify about one source, and testify as to multiple others, or is it all or none (I think the Star chamber fear of grand juries is that once your in, all topics are open - i.e. about your 1984 tax return Ms. Miller???)? How did Fitzgerald hit on Miller, since she wrote no story - someone must have said, "hey, she's got loads of scoop"? Who sent him to her?

Finally, what is the speculation (tin foil double layered) as to the info she possesses which may lead out of IIPA into espionage - classified data/reports from State, CIA, etc... which she received from a non-adminstration source. Is this veering into S. Berger territory of "it must of dropped into my briefcase by accident"?

Foil removed.

What does J. Miller know?

This poster has posted something incredibly stupid, for the sole purpose of aiming to leave us.

I agree to many of your conclusion but what I dont understand is what did Wilson exactly lie about.  In reading these 2 articles written by Joseph Wilson,  it looks consistent to what is

known.

I link this 2 articles written specifically by Joseph Wilson:

This is Wilson's Jul 6 2003 article:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm

This is Joseph Wilson's response to 911 Panel:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/07/16/wilson_letter/index.html

I agree with the stuff at the end, up front I am not convinced.

Long, detailed response here

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/313

Good work though.  Congrats.

By all means, let's not examine the facts. Throw Rove under the bus! It's a Known Fact he's guilty already.

Are you trying to get ejected? Because you were doing okay up until this point.

It's not our "official" position but it is mine.

I'll remember that.

If the papers you mention cannot be believed at all to do anything except slam republicans, then they cannot be used to source any evidence for anything.  I guess that invalidates Leon's number 4.

It has not, and someone else has. Thus - blog freely!

Leon, my point is this: All this endless debate over  second-tier issues does a disservice to our nation.

This is a moral issue. All Karl Rove has to do is call a press conference and lay it out for us. He is free to do so.

Leon, my point is this: All this endless debate over  second-tier issues does a disservice to our nation.

I'm not the one spending three consecutive days at the WH press conferences literally screaming at Scott McClellan. I didn't create this issue, I'm just doing my humble best to respond to it.

This is a moral issue. All Karl Rove has to do is call a press conference and lay it out for us. He is free to do so.

You really think that this course of action should be taken during the middle of an investigation by a special prosecutor? Has it occurred to you that it's entirely possible that Rove has been ordered specifically not to speak about certain aspects of this case by the prosecutor or the court?

My position has been Plame and Wilson are in the hotseat.  It is interesting Plame is only now coming back to work after a year's absence.  The only sources for classified material on Saddam's nuclear intentions are primarily Plame, and Wilson regarding the results of his trip.

So you have found the gem of data I have been looking for - the statement that the classified information being leaked was related to national security.  With a hint it was about nuclear weapons as the topic.

My guess is Plame may have barely dodged the bullet because Miller is sitting in jail covering for her.  If Miller doesn't crack Plame may not come up on charges of passing material to Miller or her husband.  Maybe....

By this time Wilson had returned and opened up on the Bush administration in the press.  Orders came down to Tenent and company to find out who this fool was and what this trip he was on was all about.  That is why when Cooper talked to Rove they have learned, up the chain, they had a rogue element in the CIA off doing their own PR, their own diplomacy and their own policy debates in the media.

I know you won't respect the source, but you can read the entire article here.

http://digbig.com/4dysk

I always try to read both sources that I consider liberal and conservative - then draw my own conclusions. Here are some excerpts.

Attributing Wilson's trip to his wife's supposed authority became the predicate for a smear campaign against his credibility. Seven months after the appointment of the special counsel, in July 2004, the Republican-dominated Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued its report on flawed intelligence leading to the Iraq war. The blame for failure was squarely put on the CIA for "groupthink." (The Republicans quashed a promised second report on political pressure on the intelligence process.) The three-page addendum by the ranking Republicans followed the now well-worn attack lines: "The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA employee."

The CIA subsequently issued a statement, as reported by New York Newsday and CNN, that the Republican senators' conclusion about Plame's role was wholly inaccurate. But the Washington Post's Susan Schmidt reported only the Republican senators' version, writing that Wilson was "specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly," in a memo she wrote. Schmidt quoted a CIA official in the senators' account saying that Plame had "offered up" Wilson's name. Plame's memo, in fact, was written at the express directive of her superiors two days before Wilson was to come to Langley for his meeting to describe his qualifications in a standard protocol to receive "country clearance." Unfortunately, Schmidt's article did not reflect this understanding of routine CIA procedure. The CIA officer who wrote the memo that originally recommended Wilson for the mission -- who was cited anonymously by the senators as the only source who said that Plame was responsible -- was deeply upset at the twisting of his testimony, which was not public, and told Plame he had said no such thing. CIA spokesman Bill Harlow told Wilson that the Republican Senate staff never contacted him for the agency's information on the matter.

Curiously, the only document cited as the basis for Plame's role was a State Department memo that was later debunked by the CIA. The Washington Post, on Dec. 26, 2003, reported: "CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the ... document, the official said, because the agency officer identified as talking about Plame's alleged role in arranging Wilson's trip could not have attended the meeting. 'It has been circulated around,' one official said." Even more curious, one of the outlets where the document was circulated was Talon News Service and its star correspondent, Jeff Gannon (aka Guckert). (Talon was revealed to be a partisan front for a Texas-based operation called GOPUSA and Gannon was exposed as a male prostitute, without previous journalistic credentials yet with easy and unexplained access to the White House.) According to the Post, "the CIA believes that people in the administration continue to release classified information to damage the figures at the center of the controversy."

I'm not the one spending three consecutive days at the WH press conferences literally screaming at Scott McClellan

Exactly my point!

Has it occurred to you that it's entirely possible that Rove has been ordered specifically not to speak about certain aspects of this case by the prosecutor or the court?

Finally, Luskin conceded that Rove is legally free to publicly discuss his actions, including his grand-jury testimony. Rove has not spoken publicly, Luskin says, because Fitzgerald specifically asked him not to.

National Review

My message to Karl Rove: Put the interests of your country before yourself and your party. You can end this now.

But the WAPO article has a lot of inaccuracies such as it claims Wilson said that his conclusion is based on Niger Documents when his July 2003 article detailedly enumerated all the steps he took to investigate the matter,  the people he saw, etc.  Wilson  even concluded the first article with:

"The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why)...."

I suggest read the article written by Wilson and enumerate the "lies" directly from Wilson's articles not secondhand.

For not obeying the wishes of the special prosecutor?

I gotta say it, I'd do the same thing. If, after the investigation is over and Fitzgerald releases the request and he still isn't talking, I'll join your bandwagon.

....that makes reading here so interesting for us lefties is that it's just fascinating how starkly different and alien (used descriptively, not perjoratively) the world views and sets of "known facts" brought to the table are.  Perfect example:

Do I think Judith Miller, her editor, and the managing staff have it out for the President- that's a no-brainer.

See, most of us on this side would agree it's a no-brainer. But the other way.  Until this week, Miller's whole claim to fame in our paradigm was as a spear-carrier for the Bush administration in the run up to war. It was her byline on story after story (since shown to be false almost without exception) anonymously (and mostly single-) sourced by the neocons favorite ex-Iraqi and Bush's official State Of The Union guest, Mr. Chalabi.  The idea that Miller or the Times have

it out for Bush would just be stunningly unthinkable to most of us who do have it out for Bush. It would simply never occur to us.

And maybe it should, I dunno.

Fascinating.  And I mean that in a good way - no snark intended.  So may I ask.....is there anything specific in Miller's past work that leads you to to your belief about her?

Even though the source you cite is deep blue, it seems to jive with Leon's conclusion in #6 - Plame didn't authorize it, but she was clearly involved, and maybe "instrumental". If you're quibbling with Leon's emphasis, I understand your "not so sure" comment. Otherwise, what is distinguishing here other than where the bias comes from?

Thanks.

Wilson says, in an interview at rawstory.com, it was Novak who outed Plame's front company.

I'd link to it, but html may as well be greek as far as I'm concerned.

If, after the investigation is over and Fitzgerald releases the request and he still isn't talking, I'll join your bandwagon.

I'll be glad to have ya' on board :)

Regarding Cheney sending him or not, you wrote:

<div class="blockquote">

Now, in going back and looking at the actual transcripts, I realize that's not exactly what he said. However, I leave it to you to determine whether he deliberately created the impression that Cheney sent him on the trip.</div&gt

Okay, well, we Democrats are perfectly happy to give you that one if y'all in the G.O.P. can now admit that it is possible to purposefully create an impression that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 without actually saying so.

This is a very nice summary, BTW. But I am having trouble relating Wilson's flakiness to the relevance of the case. Either Plame was covert or she wasn't. Even if she wasn't anymore, it either had potential ramifications for those who still were or it didn't. It seems to me that the first thing the administration would have done when Novak published, had Plame not been covert, would have been to find that out for sure and say so. That they didn't for all this time suggests that she was.

My other impression of the case is that if Rove did not do this, then two other "highly placed" people did, if Novak is to be believed. Also, didn't Rove deny any involvement in this whatsoever? It is that which has so many reporters' undies in bunches.

Streiff,

I am afraid I disagree with your interpretation.  The only requisite knowledge Rove had to have for his telling Cooper to be a violation was the lawful knowledge that Plame's employment by the CIA was classified.

Intentionally [snipping] but trying not to change meaning or interpreting, 18 USC 793(d) says:

"Whoever, lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any [variations on information types] or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, [variations on communicates] the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it on demand to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it ;"

[continuation to conclusion clause]

"Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."