Why is the Rove/Plame issue important?

[Skyhunter]

My apologies if this is duplication but I don't have time right now to read the other posts.

To me the most distressing element in this whole affair is the question that is not being asked.

Why did Karl Rove want to destroy the CIA's ability to monitor Saudi oil money?

Everyone just assumes Rove exposed Mrs. Wilson to punish her and her husband. I understand why people might assume this because, that is how he practices politics. I am worried about the close relationship this president has with the Saudi royal family.

Why did the Bush administration reveal the identity of Brewster-Jennings & Associates?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Jennings_&_Associates?

Hmm...

Saudis hijack planes and fly them into the Pentagon and World Trade Center and the Bush administration attacks Iraq?

When the basis for the propoganda blitz that this administration used to sell the war proves to be greatly exaggerated, if not completely false, the administration blames the CIA.

Then Bush bestows the medal of freedom on it's director?

Now the administration exposes a CIA front company, that may have been the best intelligence asset the CIA had to monitor Saudi oil money and it's flow to terrorist organizations?

Am I missing something?

This doesn't make sense to me.

 

[SOS2008]

...Everyone just assumes Rove exposed Mrs. Wilson to punish her and her husband. I understand why people might assume this because, that is how he practices politics. I am worried about the close relationship this president has with the Saudi royal family.

...When the basis for the propoganda blitz that this administration used to sell the war proves to be greatly exaggerated, if not completely false, the administration blames the CIA.

Then Bush bestows the medal of freedom on it's director?

Now the administration exposes a CIA front company, that may have been the best intelligence asset the CIA had to monitor Saudi oil money and it's flow to terrorist organizations?

Am I missing something?

This doesn't make sense to me.

I agree it is about far more than just revenge against Wilson. This administration is truly diabolical, as can be seen in several threads regarding election fraud or what have you.

Based on the fact that there has been more than two years investigation, we can conclude that Bush has no sincere desire to find out who leaked, and in fact has been hoping for the matter to go quietly away...(NO! ) Here's an update:

"77% OF AMERICANS BELIEVE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH ON PLAME LEAK."

CBS News poll released today...

Regarding the Plame leak, the Bush Administration is:
~Hiding something: 55% of all surveyed
~Mostly lying: 22% " "
~Telling entire truth: 12% " "

Even 57% of Republicans think Bush, et al, are either hiding something or flat-out lying. I'm guessing the 12% "Truth" responders are, well we know who they are (if you subscribe to the SwiftBoaters monthly newsletter, watch Faux News, etc., I'm referring to you).

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/03/opinion/polls/main713832.shtml

 

[BobG]

I'm guessing the 12% "Truth" responders are, well we know who they are (......, watch Faux News, etc., I'm referring to you).

Hey! I happen to like the O'Reilly Factor. And this interview of Michael Crook by Hannity and Colmes was an all-time classic! (Even if they were duped by a scam artist) okay, maybe the quality drops off pretty badly

I'm just not all that sure this is so cut and dried a case. Bob Novak has been reporting for decades and he's good enough at putting the pieces together that it doesn't take much to confirm whether or not he's put them together correctly. Harlow pretty much confirmed the story to Novak all by himself, although you'd think someone as good at putting the pieces together as Novak could have also figured out that he'd better not include Plame in his story (how is it that it's a crime to leak classified information to the press, but it's legal for the press to print the classified information, even knowing it's classified?)

Rove's comments, whether his version or reporters' versions, were pretty brain-dead in any event - something that's pretty hard to see as 'just a mistake' from someone as calculating as Rove is.

If he goes down, it's good all the way around. It's good when a Segretti, Atwater, or Rove causes embarassment to their client. It makes his type seem a little riskier for candidates to employ - that's good in today's anything goes campaign climate. I'd just be surprised to see it happen, though.

 

[SOS2008]

Hey! I happen to like the O'Reilly Factor. And this interview of Michael Crook by Hannity and Colmes was an all-time classic! okay, maybe the quality drops off pretty badly after that.

I used to watch FOX News to see what the right-wing radicals were up to, but find it preferable to learn this through round table programs like the McLachlan Group, or The Situation with Tucker Carlson (now there's a Libertarian), and speaking of which I'll have to get transcripts of last night's program.

I'm just not all that sure this is so cut and dried a case. Bob Novak has been reporting for decades and he's good enough at putting the pieces together that it doesn't take much to confirm whether or not he's put them together correctly. Harlow pretty much confirmed the story to Novak all by himself, although you'd think someone as good at putting the pieces together as Novak could have also figured out that he'd better not include Plame in his story (how is it that it's a crime to leak classified information to the press, but it's legal for the press to print the classified information, even knowing it's classified?)

Rove's comments, whether his version or reporters' versions, were pretty brain-dead in any event - something that's pretty hard to see as 'just a mistake' from someone as calculating as Rove is.

If he goes down, it's good all the way around. It's good when a Segretti, Atwater, or Rove causes embarassment to their client. It makes his type seem a little riskier for candidates to employ - that's good in today's anything goes campaign climate. I'd just be surprised to see it happen, though.

Novak seems to be a little stressed indeed, and is now on suspension from CNN for his lack of professionalism on air. Still, let's say he was putting things together, a reporter can't print suspicions. Watergate is a great example in which reporters basically cross-referenced several sources before going to print. And Rove had no business discussing what he did with Cooper, even if he was only providing confirmation of a suspicion--what is that?

BTW, Karl Rove's middle name is 'Christian' - Somehow that seems creepy.

 

[Antiphon]

BTW, Karl Rove's middle name is 'Christian' - Somehow that seems creepy.

Funny- I'm more creeped out by people named "Mohammed." I guess
we each have our biases in such matters.

Novak is probably stressed bacause he's feeling too old to go to jail for contempt
of court. He's obviously better connected than the other two journalists
who are either in or were headed for jail.

This thing's a tempest in a teapot. Don't get too worked up over it or
you'll start sounding like the poor unhinged souls on the Democratic Underground.

(I'd post over there too but they won't let people with my views in.
You see, for the true believers on the left it's not really about freedom
of speech or diversity of opinion- unless it's their speech and their
opinion.)

 

[Astronuc]

Overview and Timeline on the Plame/Wilson matter.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20050825/ts_latimes/aciacoverblownawhitehouseexposed

By Tom Hamburger and Sonni Efron Times Staff Writers
Thu Aug 25, 7:55 AM ET

WASHINGTON — Toward the end of a steamy summer week in 2003, reporters were peppering the White House with phone calls and e-mails, looking for someone to defend the administration's claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

About to emerge as a key critic was Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former diplomat who asserted that the administration had manipulated intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion.

At the White House, there wasn't much interest in responding to critics like Wilson that Fourth of July weekend. The communications staff faced more pressing concerns — the president's imminent trip to Africa, growing questions about the war and declining ratings in public opinion polls.

Wilson's accusations were based on an investigation he undertook for the CIA. But he was seen inside the White House as a "showboater" whose stature didn't warrant a high-level administration response. "Let him spout off solo on a holiday weekend," one White House official recalled saying. "Few will listen."

In fact, millions were riveted that Sunday as Wilson — on NBC's "Meet the Press" and in the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post — accused the administration of ignoring intelligence that didn't support its rationale for war.

Underestimating the impact of Wilson's allegations was one in a series of misjudgments by White House officials.

In the days that followed, they would cast doubt on Wilson's CIA mission to Africa by suggesting to reporters that his wife was responsible for his trip. In the process, her identity as a covert CIA agent was divulged — possibly illegally.

 

[Skyhunter]

Did Time hide the truth to help Bush win reelection?

Here is an interesting take on the whole Rove/Plame scandal.

The Los Angeles Times takes a long look at Plamegate today. There's little new here -- except for a claim by someone close to Karl Rove that Rove first heard Plame's name from Bob Novak -- but the Times does raise an interesting question along the way. We know now that Rove and Scooter Libby were involved in the outing of Plame. But how is it, the Times asks, that their roles remained secret until after George W. Bush was reelected?

The answer, at least in part: Their roles remained secret because some members of the mainstream press helped to keep them secret. According to the Times' report, Time magazine's Matthew Cooper chose not to ask for a waiver of confidentiality from Rove until this summer -- in part because his attorney advised against it, and in part because "Time editors were concerned about becoming part of such an explosive story in an election year." As a result, the Times says, "Cooper's testimony was delayed nearly a year, well after Bush's reelection."

Translated, as John Aravosis explains at AMERICAblog today, that means that Time's editors didn't want Cooper to reveal information that could be damaging to Bush's reelections hopes until after the election was over. "It's one thing for Time to do its job and ignore the effects of its reporting and overall work on US elections," Aravosis writes. "It's quite another for Time to make decisions based on whether they'll influence US elections."

In a way, it may be even worse than that. By not seeking a waiver from Rove -- by not reporting what its reporter knew to be true -- Time allowed Americans to go the polls believing that which the magazine knew to be false. Until Time turned over Matthew Cooper's e-mail messages to Patrick Fitzgerald this July, the White House was free to proclaim -- as it did, repeatedly and vociferously -- that Karl Rove had nothing whatsoever to do with the outing of Valerie Plame. That's the false story Americans had been told when they cast their votes for the presidency in November. Time knew better but didn't say.

Now once again I must ask the question;

Is the US government a government of the people, by the people, and for the people?

It seems to be run by corporatists, which is just another way of saying fascists.

 

[BobG]

Here is an interesting take on the whole Rove/Plame scandal.

But how is it, the Times asks, that their roles remained secret until after George W. Bush was reelected?

The answer, at least in part: Their roles remained secret because some members of the mainstream press helped to keep them secret.

Now once again I must ask the question;

Is the US government a government of the people, by the people, and for the people?

It seems to be run by corporatists, which is just another way of saying fascists.

I doubt this is a case of Time Magazine trying to help Bush get elected. It's more an attempt to avoid the image of influencing the election. In other words, if Cooper had testified before the election and made that testimony public, people could have said Time Magazine's reporter directly influenced the election - they would have become the news rather than just reporting it.

The logic is flawed. It's like the aversion of a soccer referee to call a foul in the penalty area, knowing the resulting penalty kick would be an almost certain goal - it ignores the fact that a 'non-decision' just rewarded the person that committed the foul. Once you're in the game, it's too late to start pretending you can exist outside it.

First, Time Magazine is in the business of influencing opinion by the very nature of their work - they provide information. The only neutral and objective way to do this is to report all the news, regardless of which side is helped or hurt.

Second, Time was already part of the story whether they liked it or not. Choosing not to disclose to the public that they were part of the story didn't change the fact that they were going to impact the election one way or the other regardless of their decision. Revealing Cooper's story would help Kerry - hiding Cooper's story would help Bush - there was no neutral ground.

What hiding the story did accomplish was to allow Time to project the image that they were just a neutral observer outside the game. Sometimes affecting the story they're reporting on is unavoidable, but, even when unavoidable, it's embarrassing to a newspaper or magazine to become the story instead of just reporting it.

Edit: In other words, Time Magazine is guilty of cowardliness, not of being in cahoots with the Bush team.

 

[SOS2008]

Funny - I'm more creeped out by people named "Mohammed." I guess we each have our biases in such matters..)

You've misunderstood me. I have nothing against Christians. Many people claim Rove is the anti-Christ, and thus my joke. As for your remark about people named "Mohammed," you have once again revealed yourself--this time as being racist.

This thing's a tempest in a teapot. Don't get too worked up over it or you'll start sounding like the poor unhinged souls on the Democratic Underground.

Never heard of it. I guess it's along the line of the Free Republic, etc., etc. :zzz:

That's the problem with this country...people don't get worked about things. Anyone with an iota of understanding and insight can see the seriousness of this and other matters related to Dubya & Co. I find it sad the media can report night after night about missing people, yet can't seem to keep Americans informed of how the investigation is progressing. In the meantime Miller remains and jail, and Novak--now he is creepy.

 

[Skyhunter]

What hiding the story did accomplish was to allow Time to project the image that they were just a neutral observer outside the game. Sometimes affecting the story they're reporting on is unavoidable, but, even when unavoidable, it's embarrassing to a newspaper or magazine to become the story instead of just reporting it.

Edit: In other words, Time Magazine is guilty of cowardliness, not of being in cahoots with the Bush team.

I understand your point, but I disagree.

They might have become the story, but only because the White House and their spin machine would have spun it that way.

Exposing the identity of a CIA operative is a felony. The fact that it was the President's political "architect" and chief of staff is news.

Of course it would have influenced the election. It was bound to come out sooner or later so your cowardice argument doesn't really hold up.

I believe the people making the decisions were Bush supporters and knew it would damage the presidents campaign.

If enough is made of this revelation maybe we will find out more that may alter my opinion, but at present I believe it is what it looks like. Corporate media supporting corporatist politicians. (not that John Kerry isn't a corporatist as well.)

 

[The Smoking Man]

I doubt this is a case of Time Magazine trying to help Bush get elected. It's more an attempt to avoid the image of influencing the election. In other words, if Cooper had testified before the election and made that testimony public, people could have said Time Magazine's reporter directly influenced the election - they would have become the news rather than just reporting it.

The logic is flawed. It's like the aversion of a soccer referee to call a foul in the penalty area, knowing the resulting penalty kick would be an almost certain goal - it ignores the fact that a 'non-decision' just rewarded the person that committed the foul. Once you're in the game, it's too late to start pretending you can exist outside it.

First, Time Magazine is in the business of influencing opinion by the very nature of their work - they provide information. The only neutral and objective way to do this is to report all the news, regardless of which side is helped or hurt.

Second, Time was already part of the story whether they liked it or not. Choosing not to disclose to the public that they were part of the story didn't change the fact that they were going to impact the election one way or the other regardless of their decision. Revealing Cooper's story would help Kerry - hiding Cooper's story would help Bush - there was no neutral ground.

What hiding the story did accomplish was to allow Time to project the image that they were just a neutral observer outside the game. Sometimes affecting the story they're reporting on is unavoidable, but, even when unavoidable, it's embarrassing to a newspaper or magazine to become the story instead of just reporting it.

Edit: In other words, Time Magazine is guilty of cowardliness, not of being in cahoots with the Bush team.

Then again ... What is the role of the 5th estate/Free Press?

What did Woodward and Bernstein do for the USA?

You all DO remember Watergate don't you?

 

[faust9]

Now how's this for a headline: "Scooter outed Plame!"

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/30/cia.leak/index.html

Lewis Libby, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, is Judith Miller's source. I wonder where Dick's personal chief of staff got the little'ol idea to leak Plame to the press?

[edit] I like how "scooter" let Ms. Miller sit in jail for 12 weeks before releasing her from her confidentiality agreement---here's the kicker race fans---even though the WH said she was freed of this obligation before she was imprisoned(only generically though). Why did it take WH VP chief of staff so long to come forward and do this? Did the WH want to spread out the links between 1600 Penn. Ave over a few months instead of releasing a handful of WH operative names at once? Hmmm first Rove, now Libby; the plot thickens.

 

[pattylou]

Isn't it possible that Lewis Libby knew who leaked Plame to the press (Maybe Rove?) and that he was Miller's source but what he told her was that it was Rove that actually leaked the name?

The sequence would be, briefly:

Rove: Wants to send message to Plame's husband to support the party line; leaks Plame's name.

Libby: Knows that Rove did this, tells Miller about it.

... In this case, Libby comes out looking pretty good. Is this possible?

 

[faust9]

Isn't it possible that Lewis Libby knew who leaked Plame to the press (Maybe Rove?) and that he was Miller's source but what he told her was that it was Rove that actually leaked the name?

The sequence would be, briefly:

Rove: Wants to send message to Plame's husband to support the party line; leaks Plame's name.

Libby: Knows that Rove did this, tells Miller about it.

... In this case, Libby comes out looking pretty good. Is this possible?

Sure, that is possible, but that doesn't explain a 12 week wait. If Libby was being such a boyscout then I would have expected him to step up a lot earlier say BEFORE Miller went to jail.

This stinks of spreading bad news out to minimize damage. Why did Libby wait until Thursday night to release Miller(knowing Millers story would hit on friday and hoping Miller's account would not be in the papers until Saturday)?

Libby might be a whistle blower but he's gone about it in an odd sort of fashion don't you think.

 

[pattylou]

Yeah.

But if we point the finger at Libby, what does that do to Rove's culpability?

 

[faust9]

Yeah.

But if we point the finger at Libby, what does that do to Rove's culpability?

Both can be equally culpable. Maybe Rove told Libby to out Plame. Maybe they all had a big get together---Bush, cheney, and the rest of the little rascals---where the outing of Plame would be used to divert attention from Wilson's report. Maybe a whole group of people decided and organized an outing strategy in concert with hitting the Sunday talking head shows in order to deflect a bad story about the WH's decision to invade Iraq on a patently false document---which they knew about it being false. We could have a case of co-conspirators with one of the parties coordinating the efforts.

 

[pattylou]

OOOOHHHH. Wow, can you imagine that coming to light? They should do a reality TV show on this.

 

[SOS2008]

Both can be equally culpable. Maybe Rove told Libby to out Plame. Maybe they all had a big get together---Bush, cheney, and the rest of the little rascals---where the outing of Plame would be used to divert attention from Wilson's report. Maybe a whole group of people decided and organized an outing strategy in concert with hitting the Sunday talking head shows in order to deflect a bad story about the WH's decision to invade Iraq on a patently false document---which they knew about it being false. We could have a case of co-conspirators with one of the parties coordinating the efforts.

The old shell game. This administration is known for it's secretive behavior and frequent behind-closed-doors pow wows, and Bush is very controlling. I doubt individuals are going around doing anything on their own. The problem is, if evidence can ever be obtained, it may not be until long after Bush is gone.

 

[faust9]

Ariannia makes some good points about little miss jail bird: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/miller-walks-the-plot-th_b_8116.html

 

[SOS2008]

Ariannia makes some good points about little miss jail bird: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/miller-walks-the-plot-th_b_8116.html

Add Novak to that list. What a wonderful "watch dog" free press we have.

 

[Tsu]

This from the NY Times:

Washington - Reporters hauled before grand juries. A White House under fire. With the CIA leak investigation perhaps ending soon, some questions and answers about what it has meant:

Q: Who in the government disclosed the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame?

A: There is not a simple answer. In conversations inside the Bush administration, Plame was referred to as the CIA employee who was the wife of a former U.S. ambassador, Joseph Wilson.

In this regard, at least Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, and I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, qualify as leakers. Rove learned of Plame's name in a conversation with columnist Robert Novak. Where Novak heard about Plame's name is not known publicly. Libby says he did not learn Plame's name until he saw it in Novak's column. The reason any of this matters is that leaking the identity of a covert agent can be a crime.

Plame had a hand in sending Wilson on a trip to the African nation of Niger for the CIA. Wilson returned with the information he later used to accuse the White House of hyping prewar intelligence about Iraq, including the threat of nuclear weapons.

Q: When will we learn what the investigation by the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has turned up?

A: Possibly as early as this month. The federal grand jury that New York Times reporter Judith Miller testified to on Friday expires Oct. 28. If Fitzgerald has plans to seek indictments, he probably would do so with the grand jury that has been dealing with all the evidence for the past two years.

If Fitzgerald does not seek criminal charges, it will not end the matter. By law, he will write a comprehensive report of his findings and submit it to the Justice Department, which probably would make it public.

Q: What convinced Miller, after spending 85 days in jail, that she should testify before the grand jury?

A: Perhaps Fitzgerald's promise to limit the scope of his questioning. Miller, a national security reporter with many sources in the Bush administration, undoubtedly feared open-ended questioning. The prosecutor would not have had to range too far to get into troubling territory for Miller. Starting in 2002, her stories about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq strengthened the administration's case in preparing for war. The failure to find the weapons was developing into a major issue at the time of the Plame leak and resulted in heavy criticism of Miller and her newspaper as well as of the administration.

Q: Miller said she wanted her source to release her from a promise of confidentiality. If a personal conversation between the reporter and her source was all she was waiting for, what took so long?

A: The saga of the phone call goes back more than a year, when Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, says he and his client released Miller to testify. Tate says he was surprised when Miller's lawyers again asked for a release in the past few weeks. Miller's lawyers called and said there was "a misunderstanding and Judy wanted to hear it straight from the horse's mouth" that Libby was releasing her to talk to the grand jury about their conversation, Tate said.

One of Miller's lawyers involved in the earlier discussions, Floyd Abrams, said there was "a great deal of ambiguity" about the long-ago release given by Tate. Libby, like other administration officials, had granted a blanket waiver authorizing reporters to speak to the grand jury about any conversations they may have had. Abrams said Miller was concerned that such a release "was, by its very nature, coercive."

Q: Other than testifying about her source, what could have kept Miller from going to jail?

A: Probably nothing. Fitzgerald was adamant that he needed Miller's testimony about the contents of her conversations with Libby. The prosecutor indicated in court in July that he was prepared to pursue a criminal contempt of court charge against her if she continued to defy him.

Q: What are the chances anybody is going to jail as a result of this investigation?

A: For disclosing Plame's identity, probably a slim chance at best. For lying to Fitzgerald's investigators, the possibility may be greater. The prosecutor seems to have pursued a number of questions that could signify nothing more than imperfect memory by witnesses or could point to evidence of a cover-up.

As late as July, Fitzgerald was asking Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper "several different ways" whether Rove had indicated how he had heard that Plame worked at the CIA. Rove never said, according to Cooper. Regarding the leak of Plame's identity, under the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act, there has to be an intentional disclosure of the identity. The person making the disclosure has to know that the information identifies somebody whose status is covert and that the U.S. government has taken measures to conceal the identity. Some legal experts say that high legal threshold appears to be impossible to meet in the Plame case.

--------

Associated Press reporter David Caruso in New York City contributed to this report.

 

[Informal Logic]

WASHINGTON - Federal prosecutors have accepted an offer from presidential adviser Karl Rove to give 11th hour testimony in the case of a CIA officer’s leaked identity but have warned they cannot guarantee he won’t be indicted, according to people directly familiar with the investigation.

...Rove has already made at least three grand jury appearances and his return at this late stage in the investigation is unusual.

The prosecutor did not give Rove similar warnings before his earlier grand jury appearances.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9613084/

Though Rove has not been sent a target letter, and "Leaking the identity of a covert agent can be a crime, but it must be done knowingly and the legal threshold for proving such a crime is high" it does not mean he is safe from an indictment.

 

[faust9]

A little summary of the Rove/Scooter/Plame/Wilson fiasco:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Hardball-Rove-gate-10-10-05.mov

 

[Skyhunter]

Sure, that is possible, but that doesn't explain a 12 week wait. If Libby was being such a boyscout then I would have expected him to step up a lot earlier say BEFORE Miller went to jail.

This stinks of spreading bad news out to minimize damage. Why did Libby wait until Thursday night to release Miller(knowing Millers story would hit on friday and hoping Miller's account would not be in the papers until Saturday)?

Libby might be a whistle blower but he's gone about it in an odd sort of fashion don't you think.

I think that she is still protecting someone. Only two names come to mind; Dick Cheney or George Bush. My guess is Dick Cheney.

 

[Skyhunter]

Has anyone seen the letter from Scooter Libby to Judith Miller?

Here is the last paragraph.

"You went into jail in the summer. It is fall now. You will have stories to cover -- Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats and the Iranian nuclear program. Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them. Come back to work -- and life. Until then, you will remain in my thoughts and prayers -- With admiration, Scooter Libby."

Is this a code for how she should testify?

The more I learn the more I believe she is protecting someone other than Libby.

[edit]here are a few links to get anyone who would like to investigate further started.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001263179

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/valerie_plame_/2005/10/patrick_fitzgeralds_mousetrap.php

 

[BobG]

So, what will be the result of Fitzgerald's grand jury?

Most accounts say charging anyone with intentionally violating the http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html is too narrowly worded and it's unlikely anyone in the administration would be found guilty of violating it.

Other reporters suggest the most likely charge(s) to come out of the grand jury will be perjury or obstruction of justice. That has some rich irony in it. The perpetrators fall all over themselves, committing new crimes, to escape being charged with a virtually unprosecutable crime.

Of course, they could be charged with espionage. The http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC794 is more generally worded. The individual is guilty if he would "have reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation" if he passes classified information to them "either directly or indirectly". Leaking classified information to the media could reasonably be assumed to result in the classified info being published for anyone to read, including foreign governments hostile to the US ... including governments who could link Plame to other covert agents still active. Not that anyone is ever charged with espionage for press leaks, nor is there ever a serious attempt made to find the 'leaker'.

That would just means that charging Rove or Libby with espionage would possesses even more irony than a perjury or obstruction of justice charge. In 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft sent this letter to Dennis Hastert, pushing for more aggressive prosecution of individuals leaking classified information to the press. His aim was to put a stop to government officials leaking classified information to the press by forcing reporters to reveal their sources and to prosecute the sources to the fullest extent of the law.

Most notably, Ashcroft said,

We need an effective Government-wide program to curtail these damaging disclosures and to hold the persons who engage in unauthorized disclosures of classified information fully accountable for the serious damage they cause to intelligence sources and methods, military operations, and to the nation. Those who would break faith with the American people and disclose classified information without authority to do so will face severe consequences under the law.

The problem with press leaks:

In most of the few cases in which a person who engaged in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information has been identified, the sanctions applied have been relatively inconsequential in comparison to the damage caused as a result of the unauthorized disclosure. In most cases, identifying the individual who disclosed classified information without authority has been difficult, at best.

What has to be done:

Regardless, the vital need in protecting national security secrets must include rigorous investigation of unauthorized disclosures of classified information to identify the individuals who commit them, and vigorous enforcement of the applicable administrative, civil, and criminal provisions already available.

And, in his conclusion, Ashcroft complains that:

In sum, to protect its diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities, the Nation must combat unauthorized disclosures of classified information effectively, through aggressive administrative enforcement of current requirements, rigorous investigation of unauthorized disclosures, and vigorous enforcement of the criminal laws that make such disclosures a Federal crime. Clearly, that only a single non-espionage case of an unauthorized disclosure of classified information has been prosecuted in over 50 years provides compelling justification that fundamental improvements are necessary and we must entertain new approaches to deter, identify, and punish those who engage in the practice of unauthorized disclosures of classified information.

Basically, Ashcroft charges that we've just been too easy on these guys that go around leaking classified information to the press. It's about time we crack down on these offenders!

So, here's the ultimate paradox for liberals. Should reporters be allowed to obtain classified information from anonymous sources in government in the interest of freedom of information? (This means liberals should be supporting Rove and Libby ) Should reporters and, especially, the sources who reveal classified information be prosecuted for espionage? (It sure would be nice to see this happen to Rove and Libby, but then how will public find out what it's government is doing?)

It's probably a pretty big paradox for Bush loyalists, as well. The liberal media is free to mine government employees for classified info and to publish it without much fear of prosecution (only once in 50 years), but at least Rove and Libby survive.

Even worse, if Rove and Libby are charged with espionage, Ashcroft will probably not get a Medal of Freedom.

 

[faust9]

I vote for obstruction of justice all around though I feel the offending parties were aware of Plame's position and as such should be prosecuted under the IIPA.

The whole affair boils down to defamation of character to protect the Iraq war. Wilson stood up and said "Hay, you guys knew the African-Uranium link was a lie from the get-go!" at which point the slander machine went into action. Well, the slander machine didn't bother to check which laws it was violating and here we ar today. We now get to watch some heavy hitters in Washington politics literally beg to give sworn testimony to a grand jury.

 

[Informal Logic]

So, here's the ultimate paradox for liberals. Should reporters be allowed to obtain classified information from anonymous sources in government in the interest of freedom of information? (This means liberals should be supporting Rove and Libby ) Should reporters and, especially, the sources who reveal classified information be prosecuted for espionage? (It sure would be nice to see this happen to Rove and Libby, but then how will public find out what it's government is doing?)

It's probably a pretty big paradox for Bush loyalists, as well. The liberal media is free to mine government employees for classified info and to publish it without much fear of prosecution (only once in 50 years), but at least Rove and Libby survive.

Even worse, if Rove and Libby are charged with espionage, Ashcroft will probably not get a Medal of Freedom.

You basically say it, but the irony is that Ashcroft is "a man of great integrity, a man of great judgment and a man who knows the law," President George W. Bush.

 

[faust9]

Rove is having his fourth little sitdown with the grand jury right now---can't wait for the leaks!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/14/cialeakinvestigation.ap/index.html

This is a funny(not haha but funny odd) little observation:

The White House has shifted from categorical denials two years ago that Rove or Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, were involved in the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity to "no comment" today.

 

[russ_watters]

So, here's the ultimate paradox for liberals. Should reporters be allowed to obtain classified information from anonymous sources in government in the interest of freedom of information? (This means liberals should be supporting Rove and Libby ) Should reporters and, especially, the sources who reveal classified information be prosecuted for espionage? (It sure would be nice to see this happen to Rove and Libby, but then how will public find out what it's government is doing?)

It's probably a pretty big paradox for Bush loyalists, as well. The liberal media is free to mine government employees for classified info and to publish it without much fear of prosecution (only once in 50 years), but at least Rove and Libby survive.

Entertaining duality. I actually hadn't paid much attention to this issue, my opinion of the above catch-44 is that there are times when national security trumps freedom of information. This has always been true and enforcing it now would not change that. And since I'm not a Bush or Rove fan, it works out just fine: I would not be at all upset to see Rove go down in flames. So I guess for me, there really isn't any catch-22.

 

[Skyhunter]

Rove is having his fourth little sitdown with the grand jury right now---can't wait for the leaks!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/14/cialeakinvestigation.ap/index.html

This is a funny(not haha but funny odd) little observation:

I found this to be the best tidbit. Poor simple Scotty.

"They are good individuals," McClellan said of Rove and Libby on October 7, 2003. "They are important members of our White House team. And that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt with that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did."

Those good people lied to him.

 

[SOS2008]

The lawyers (of individuals under investigation) have leaked that things have not been looking good. One leak is that they have been trying to negotiate for lesser charges.

 

[Gokul43201]

This may be completely disruptive of the flow here; I haven't read all the posts in this thread. Just wanted to make sure this was out there :

From my favorite guy, Scottie (White House press briefing, 07 Oct 2003), a flashback...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031007-4.html#2

Q Scott, you have said that you, personally, went to Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Elliot Abrams to ask them if they were the leakers. Is that what happened? Why did you do that, and can you describe the conversations you had with them? What was the question you asked?

MR. McCLELLAN: Unfortunately, in Washington, D.C., at a time like this, there are a lot of rumors and innuendo. There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made. And that's exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals. They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt of that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.

And more recently (Oct 11 2005) ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050711-3.html#2

Q: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this" -- do you stand by that statement?

MR. McCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time, as well.

Q: Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation --
...
Q Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

Well, do you ?PS : Just read Skyhunter's post (#66). Guess this substantiates what he said.

 

[Astronuc]

there are times when national security trumps freedom of information.

That is certainly quite true, and there is information that should never be made available, like the identity of CIA agents whose lives are put in jeopardy by such disclosure.

Unfortunately, I think politicians often use the reason of "national security" to cover up unethical behavior, or possibly illegal/criminal acts.
It still surprises me that things have gone as far as they have with Rove in his fourth testimony to a Grand Jury, while Robert Novak clearly published Plame's identity. It is either a crime, or it isn't, to disclose a CIA agent's identity. If it's not, there is no issue, so just drop it.

If on the other hand, it is illegal to disclose a CIA agent's identity, and if indeed Plame is one, and if Novak did diclose it (his published column is the evidence proving he disclosed Plame's identity) then arrest Novak and he person(s) who leaked the information.

Mission to Niger
Jul 14, 2003
by Robert Novak
. . . .
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.
. . . .

This is either illegal or it isn't. How difficult can it be to figure out?

Meanwhile, the prosecutors are harrassing reporters who did not disclose Plame's identity, but only tried to find out the story.

This is so bizarrely surreal.

I wonder how many presidential pardons Bush will issue just before he leaves office?

 

[Informal Logic]

I wonder how many presidential pardons Bush will issue just before he leaves office?

Well if there was any justice, Bush would not be around to pardon anyone else.