Why is the Rove/Plame issue important?

[Gokul43201]

That was my suspician as well.
Do you have a source?

I think I jumped the gun on that one. So far, it's a bunch of underground reporting from no solid sources...but may prove to be true.

 

[Skyhunter]

I think I jumped the gun on that one. So far, it's a bunch of underground reporting from no solid sources...but may prove to be true.

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/National_Security_Adviser_was_Woodwards_source_1116.html is the source for the rumor although it has not yet been confirmed.

National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley was the senior administration official who told Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward that Valerie Plame Wilson was a CIA officer, attorneys close to the investigation and intelligence officials tell RAW STORY.
Testifying under oath Monday to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, Woodward recounted a casual conversation he had with Hadley, these sources say. Hadley did not return a call seeking comment.

 

[Skyhunter]

So according to Bob Novak Bush knows who his first source was.

http://www.newsobserver.com/722/story/377675.html

"I'm confident the president knows who the source is," Novak told a luncheon audience at the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh on Tuesday. "I'd be amazed if he doesn't."

"So I say, 'Don't bug me. Don't bug Bob Woodward. Bug the president as to whether he should reveal who the source is.' "

 

[BobG]

So the current status is:

Rumsfeld says he's not the source: "This is quite amusing," Rumsfeld said. "I was asked to speak with Mr. Woodward about a couple of books he's written, and I declined, and finally I was told by the White House, the president, that he thought I should meet with him. So I did. But I did it on the basis that there would be a transcript and it would be public. And both of the times that I've met with him, the transcript's there. It's public. You can go read it. And you won't find anything like that in it."

Rice's aide says Rice isnt' the source:“Secretary Rice wasn’t Woodward’s source,” Rice senior adviser Jim Wilkinson said.

An unnamed adminsitration official says Bush, Card, and Bartlett aren't the source:"An unnamed administration official quickly told The New York Times that neither Bush, White House chief of staff Andrew Card Jr, nor White House aide Dan Bartlett had spilled this secret to Woodward."

A spokesman for Colin Powell says he's not the source. Spokespeople for Tenet and McLaughlin way they're not the source:"Spokespeople for Colin Powell, former CIA chief George Tenet and former CIA director John McLaughlin did the same. "

Hadley says that others say that he isn't the source:“I’ve also seen press reports from White House officials saying that I am not one of his sources.”

And, of course, my favorite - an anonymous source says Cheney wasn't Woodward's anonymous source."In another development, a person familiar with the federal investigation said that Vice President Dick Cheney is not the unidentified source who told Woodward about Plame's CIA status.

The vice president did not talk with Woodward on the day in question, did not provide the information that's been reported in Woodward's notes and has not had any conversations over the past several weeks about any release for allowing Woodward to testify, said the person, speaking on condition of anonymity because the federal probe is still under way."

That creates two mysteries: who was Woodward's anonymous source and who was the anonymous source that would know which day is in question (Woodward never revealed that), what is in Woodward's notes, and would know whether or not Cheney and Woodward had had any conversations about the case.

Is Woodward the anonymous source that denied that Cheney was Woodward's anonymous source? (Silly, I know, but that would just be too rich )

As to the more important mystery, we're left with Armitage as the top pick for being Woodward's source, with Hadley running a strong second, and gaining ground considering the Novak's comments.

 

[SOS2008]

They are all idots playing a shell game, which is buying time at the minimum. They should all go to jail for wasting the American people's time and money.

 

[edward]

BobG

BOB

Great post.

 

[Skyhunter]

Another coincidence

Here is the copy of a letter acquired by http://rawstory.com/other/pdfs/RawStoryFitzLetter.pdf to Libby's attorneys from Fitzgerald.

"In an abundance of caution," he writes, "we advise you that we have learned that not all email of the Office of the Vice President and the Executive Office of the President for certain time periods in 2003 was preserved through the normal archiving process on the White House computer system."

Just a coincidence, it is not like they are trying to hide anything..

 

[Gokul43201]

Breaking News on MSNBC (right now) : "Libby testifies that Bush authorized the CIA leak."

Nothing definitive up on the internet yet...

Edit : It appears that Libby's testimony is mostly about leaking those parts of the NIE that discredit Wilson's reports. Bush had allegedly suggested that Libby leak these bits to Woodward (who was at the time finishing up his book on the planning of the Iraq War) and Miller. Libby claims to have learned of Plame's identity from Cheney, but says that he wasn't asked to leak that bit.

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002313106

This article, however, claims that Libby also leaked Plame's identity.

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0406nj1.htm

 

[BobG]

Hence no one being charged for leaking classified information. The President has the authority to declassify information and to authorize the release of classified information.

It does raise a lot of other questions about White House reaction to the "leak" and about the motivation for spreading the information in the first place. Hiding the fact that the leaks were authorized by the President allowed Bush to avoid having to answer those questions.

That's an interesting twist on obstruction of justice. Libby's basically being charged with causing the government to waste its money on an investigation that never should have been initiated. Technically, you would think that would also apply to any member of the administration that knew who authorized the leak, yet allowed the investigation to continue.

I'm not sure about the legal details, but that seems like gross fraud, waste, and abuse of government resources, at a minimum.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Can you say "abuse of power"? Technically, Bush could give all of our military secrets to the enemy as well, so there is a line here.

 

[Manchot]

I can imagine someone trying to spin this: "That Scooter Libby is a liar! He tricked his way into being the Chief of Staff of the VP!"

Oh wait, all we'll get from McClellan is "I can't comment on an ongoing investigation."

 

[Gokul43201]

If my foggy memory serves me, Fitzgerald had sit-downs with Bush and Cheney, as a part of his investigation...right ? Did they testify under oath, or were they waived that inconvenience ? If they did talk to him, and I can't imagine he didn't ask them something along the lines of "Do you know anything about where these leaks originated...", what did they say in response ?

 

[Manchot]

The President has the authority to declassify information and to authorize the release of classified information.

From what I'm reading, Bush authorized Libby to leak the information, not to declassify it. I would assume that there are channels that he is supposed to go through to declassify things, so he very well might have leaked classified information, rather than simply declassifying it.

 

[edward]

Or Cheney could have done it on his own. According to this excerpt from
from an interview, Cheney claims he has the authority to classify and declassify information. I think it was on the last page of the interview text.

Hume: Let me ask you another question. Is it your view that a Vice President has the authority to declassify information?

Cheney: There is an executive order to that effect.

Hume: There is.

Cheney: Yes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11373634/page/7/

To me this new only verifies what I have stated several times: "There was a conspiracy to defraud the American people in regards to WMD and our reason for invading Iraq."

 

[SOS2008]

Breaking News on MSNBC (right now) : "Libby testifies that Bush authorized the CIA leak."

Nothing definitive up on the internet yet...

Edit : It appears that Libby's testimony is mostly about leaking those parts of the NIE that discredit Wilson's reports. Bush had allegedly suggested that Libby leak these bits to Woodward (who was at the time finishing up his book on the planning of the Iraq War) and Miller. Libby claims to have learned of Plame's identity from Cheney, but says that he wasn't asked to leak that bit.

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002313106

This article, however, claims that Libby also leaked Plame's identity.

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0406nj1.htm

It is in the news now:

Libby: Bush himself authorized leak on Iraq
NBC News and news services
Updated: 8:43 p.m. ET April 6, 2006

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney’s former top aide told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.

For more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12187153/

 

[SOS2008]

And another update:

White House won't challenge leak story
NBC News and news services
Updated: 4:34 p.m. ET April 7, 2006

WASHINGTON - The White House on Friday declined to challenge assertions that President Bush authorized the leaks of intelligence information to counter administration critics on Iraq.

But Bush’s spokesman, Scott McClellan, appeared to draw a distinction about Bush’s oft-stated opposition to leaks.

“There is a difference between providing declassified information to the public when it’s in the public interest and leaking classified information that involved sensitive national intelligence regarding our security,” he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12187153/

What!? First of all the information was not declassified at the time Libby feed the leak to GOP pundit Judith Miller. Second, just exactly how was it in the public interest to be lied to about yellowcake, which took our country into a costly quagmire that we can't get out of now?

Do they really think people will accept this lame excuse? Well, yes, the base will. I can hear it now, "Yes, there's distinction (yeah, that's the ticket)." Otherwise I'd laugh because it is so ridiculous. But you watch, the chimp will come out of it smelling like a rose while feces ends up on others.

 

[edward]

This should be a real challenge for Smirk and Sneer. The are claiming that the information was already declassified, because a prez can do that. But on the other hand Libbly is asking for all documents relating to the incident.

These documents are now historic in that there is no longer any doubt by anyone that there was no attempt by Iraq to buy yellow cake.

I have a gut feeling these historic documents will never see the light of day. The documents requested are included in the Libby trial transcript below.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-06-libby-filing.pdf

The documents requested by Libby are on page 6.

 

[SOS2008]

This should be a real challenge for Smirk and Sneer. The are claiming that the information was already declassified, because a prez can do that. But on the other hand Libbly is asking for all documents relating to the incident.

These documents are now historic in that there is no longer any doubt by anyone that there was no attempt by Iraq to buy yellow cake.

I have a gut feeling these historic documents will never see the light of day. The documents requested are included in the Libby trial transcript below.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-06-libby-filing.pdf

The documents requested by Libby are on page 6.

Who cares about the legality of leaking Plame's name, but rather the motive and ethics behind it is what should be questioned. We are talking about "fixing the intelligence to fit a predetermined agenda." And does a president have to be under oath and commit perjury in order to be impeached for lying to the American people, Congress, the UN and the world? I should hope not, especially in view of the high cost our country has had to pay as a result.

 

[BobG]

To me this new only verifies what I have stated several times: "There was a conspiracy to defraud the American people in regards to WMD and our reason for invading Iraq."

That's becoming pretty obvious, as evidenced the Washington Posts article about the 'mobile biological weapons laboratories' discovered after the invasion. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060412/pl_nm/iraq_usa_labs_dc_3

The most problematic comment in the article is:

A U.S. intelligence official, speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, confirmed the existence of the field report cited by the Post, but said it was a preliminary finding that had to be evaluated.

"You don't change a report that has been coordinated in the (intelligence) community based on a field report," the official said. "It's a preliminary report. No matter how strongly the individual may feel about the subject matter."

That's a false choice. Upon the discovery of the trailers, the White House acted on preliminary reports from CIA and DIA officials located in Washington DC and chose not to act on the preliminary report from DIA experts that actually inspected the trailers.

 

[SOS2008]

High Crimes & Misdemeanors

Editorial - "A Bad Leak"
Published: April 16, 2006
NYTimes

President Bush says he declassified portions of the prewar intelligence assessment on Iraq because he "wanted people to see the truth" about Iraq's weapons programs and to understand why he kept accusing Saddam Hussein of stockpiling weapons that turned out not to exist. This would be a noble sentiment if it actually bore any relationship to Mr. Bush's actions in this case, or his overall record.

Mr. Bush did not declassify the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq — in any accepted sense of that word — when he authorized I. Lewis Libby Jr., through Vice President Dick Cheney, to talk about it with reporters. He permitted a leak of cherry-picked portions of the report. The declassification came later.

And this president has never shown the slightest interest in disclosure, except when it suits his political purposes. He has run one of the most secretive administrations in American history, consistently withholding information and vital documents not just from the public, but also from Congress. Just the other day, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told the House Judiciary Committee that the names of the lawyers who reviewed Mr. Bush's warrantless wiretapping program were a state secret.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/o...585bf27c6&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Why is it that no one in the media has asked Bush why he allowed Judith Miller to spend 12 weeks in jail, when according to him there was no leak and he personally declassified the information? If there was no leak then she didn't have any sources to protect, and yet he allowed her to be incarcerated. Why?

This is clearly a matter of High Crimes & Misdemeanors where the White House is concerned.

And moving on to our wonderful Congress, where are we with the Phase II investigation the Senate reluctantly agreed to after Sen. Reid shut down the Senate on November 1st? Five and a half months later, and still nothing!

The cockroaches never want the light turned on.

Remove all of them!

 

[SOS2008]

A Fresh Focus on Cheney
Hand-written notes by the Vice President surface in the Fitzgerald probe.

May 13, 2006 - The role of Vice President Dick Cheney in the criminal case stemming from the outing of White House critic Joseph Wilson's CIA wife is likely to get fresh attention as a result of newly disclosed notes showing that Cheney personally asked whether Wilson had been sent by his wife on a "junket" to Africa.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12774274/site/newsweek/

I would hardly call an unpaid trip to Niger a "junket" but in any event, the notes and other new evidence (timeline) is showing that the outing of Plame was done with full knowledge and intent to shore up the Iraq war. Furthermore, it appears the investigation may well include Cheney (and as I say, who knows who?).

In the meantime, rumors are buzzing this weekend that Fitzgerald visited Rove's attorneys on Friday, and served and indictment. But formal announcements won't be made until Monday at the earliest if it's true. Be still my heart.

We'll get them one by one, just like Nixon. Go Pat Go!

 

[SOS2008]

At a Michigan Trial Lawyers’ Association dinner Saturday night in Dearborn, Mich., the group's vice president Robert Raitt announced — according to the Detroit Free Press — that President Bush’s longtime strategist had just been indicted.
----------
Rove – not indicted, not out on bail, and wearing a business suit, not orange prison garb -- was in person at the right-wing think tank, American Enterprise Institute Monday morning.
----------
If Rove is indicted soon, as some...hope and expect, then this may have been Rove’s valedictory message...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12799420/

What a continuing saga this has been. We can only hope for a happy ending.

 

[Art]

Here's an article stating where the latest rumours are purported to have started..

Rove's Camp Takes Center of Web Storm

Bloggers Underscore How Net's Reporting
Dynamics Provide Grist for the Rumor Mill
By ANNE MARIE SQUEO
May 16, 2006; Page A4

On Saturday night, attorney Robert Luskin was trying to barbecue at his Washington home when the phone started ringing nonstop. A story posted on an Internet site Truthout.org reported that his client, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, had been indicted.

Mr. Luskin says he issued an explicit denial to anyone who contacted him. But the story set off a fire storm, with reporters from newspapers, television and elsewhere seeking to check its veracity, and Web log writers seeking comment.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB114774060320053665-thX800H42zwJ_CbAllza7zwnpRE_20060614.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
and here's the story itself

Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Saturday 13 May 2006

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spent more than half a day Friday at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm representing Karl Rove.

During the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.

http://www.truthout.org/fitzgeraldcalling.shtml

The author Jason Leopold seems to have good sources as previous articles he has written on this subject ahead of the mainstream media have proven true.

And Truthout.org are still standing by their story

How Accurate Was the 'Rove Indicted' Story?

By Marc Ash,

Mon May 15th, 2006 at 02:04:04 PM EDT :: Bush
(132 comments)

On Saturday afternoon, we ran a breaking story titled, "Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators." We assumed that we were well ahead of the mainstream media and that we would be subsequently questioned. Right on both counts.

What everyone is asking right now is how accurate is the story? Has Rove in fact been indicted? The story is accurate, and Karl Rove's attorneys have been served with an indictment.

In short, we had two sources close to the Fitzgerald investigation who were explicit about the information that we published, and a former high-ranking state department official who reported communication with a source who had "direct knowledge" of the meeting at Patton Boggs. In both instances, substantial detail was provided and matched.

We had confirmation. We ran the story.

http://www.truthout.org/fitzgeraldcalling.shtml

on the other hand there are suggestions that the story is false and that Leopold was deliberately fed misinformation by whitehouse sources who may themselves have been duped by Rove's people to find the whitehouse leaks and to discredit him and Truthout.

 

[SOS2008]

New twist in CIA 'outing' inquiry puts focus on Cheney
By Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington
Published: May 15 2006 03:00 | Last updated: May 15 2006 03:00

US vice-president Dick Cheney's alleged role in the outing of Valerie Plame, a former covert Central Intelligence Agency agent, has come under greater scrutiny following the release of questions he wrote on a newspaper article penned by her husband.

...Shortly after Mr Wilson's article appeared, the identity of Ms Plame as a covert CIA operative was leaked to journalists. The copy of the article where Mr Fitzgerald said Mr Cheney made his notes asks if it is usual for former ambassadors to travel for the government to check out reports. "Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?" asks one notation.
Mr Fitzgerald has already indicted I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Mr Cheney, on five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying during interviews with Federal Bureau of Investigation officials investigating the case.

Mr Libby and senior Bush adviser Karl Rove spoke to reporters about Ms Plame before her identity was made public by columnist Robert Novak in July 2003.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/e9227cea-e3ae-11da-a015-0000779e2340.html

People are also reporting that Rove has been preoccupied and a bit solemn. I'd say he is worried, which means there is good cause. New evidence of various meetings show Rove could not have forgotten communication with reporters as he claims. As for Cheney, of course he was involved too, but who knows if this will ever be proven.

To top it all off Bush stated that he asked all his staff of any involvement (hah) and was assured the leak did not come from the White House. They hoped to get away with this (along with all their other dastardly deeds) at least until after the 2004 election, and the rat bastards succeeded.

 

[Art]

If Rove is not indicted now it seems likely he will be at some point in the future.

As Truthout have said if they find they were fed misinformation they will out their sources it appears the only 2 options are;

1) The story is true and there will be a public announcement of the indictment probably Friday of this week.

2) The story is false and the whitehouse will have been shown to manipulate the press for it's own ends in order to expose leaks within the administration.

I doubt the general public will be much impressed in either event.

As for proving Cheney was directly involved I unfortunately do not think this will happen. I would imagine that anybody who receives jail time over this will be kept quiet with the promise of a presidential pardon in return for keeping their mouths shut and so given how long the trials will probably take they would only serve at most a few months.

Another interesting aspect of all this is it appears (from what's been announced publically anyway) that Fitzgerald is no closer to charging anybody in relation to the leaking of Plame's name now than he was when this investigation started which suggests there is still a lot of investigative work to be done to unravel the lies..

 

[Art]

Truthout have reaffirmed their story again today and say they now have further corroboration from independent sources.

Update on the Rove Indictment Story

By Marc Ash,

Wed May 17th, 2006 at 12:52:48 PM EDT :: Fitzgerald Investigation
(39 comments, 503 words in story)

For the past few days, we have endured non-stop attacks on our credibility, and we have fought hard to defend our reputation. In addition, we have worked around the clock to provide additional information to our readership. People want to know more about this, and our job is to keep them informed. We take that responsibility seriously.

Here's what we now know: I spoke personally yesterday with both Rove's spokesman Mark Corallo and Rove's attorney Robert Luskin. Both men categorically denied all key points of our recent reporting on this issue. Both said, "Rove is not a target," "Rove did not inform the White House late last week that he would be indicted," and "Rove has not been indicted." Further, both Corallo and Luskin denied Leopold's account of events at the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove. They specifically stated again that no such meeting ever occurred, that Fitzgerald was not there, that Rove was not there, and that a major meeting did not take place. Both men were unequivocal on that point.

We can now report, however, that we have additional, independent sources that refute those denials by Corallo and Luskin. While we had only our own sources to work with in the beginning, additional sources have now come forward and offered corroboration to us.

We have been contacted by at least three reporters from mainstream media - network level organizations - who shared with us off-the-record confirmation and moral support. When we asked why they were not going public with this information, in each case they expressed frustration with superiors who would not allow it.

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/

 

[GENIERE]

According to SHT satellite news service:

Howard Dean has hired Karl Rove to manage the 2008 Democratic presidential candidate’s campaign. Dean was heard speaking to the Ladies United for Trees; “I’ve always known Karl was innocent and since he’s become dissatisfied with the GOP, I couldn’t pass up the opportunity.”

 

[Gokul43201]

This should probably come first (but I've been having such a pathetic time connecting to PF) : various news sources confirm that Fitzgerald has contacted Rove to inform him that he (Rove) will not be charged.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-06-13-rove-cia_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

<hope this post goes through>

 

[Gokul43201]

According to SHT satellite news service:

Howard Dean has hired Karl Rove to manage the 2008 Democratic presidential candidate’s campaign. Dean was heard speaking to the Ladies United for Trees; “I’ve always known Karl was innocent and since he’s become dissatisfied with the GOP, I couldn’t pass up the opportunity.”

Can we have a link to that article, please? This is a joke, right?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Fitzgerald has contacted Rove to inform him that he (Rove) will not be charged.

Yep, this is the best week Bush has had since Katrina.

It's too bad they couldn't get Rove. Maybe he did nothing wrong here, but considering his record... it's too bad we can't read the report.

The trial could still be interesting.

 

[Skyhunter]

It's too bad they couldn't get Rove. Maybe he did nothing wrong here, but considering his record... it's too bad we can't read the report.

It is too bad that exposing a CIA agent for political advantage is not a crime. Well I guess it is a crime, however the threshold of proof is extremely high.

But the statute also requires an extremely high burden of proof. A prosecutor must overcome so many legal obstacles before he can bring criminal charges that prosecutions are always difficult, even under the best of circumstances. Among other things, prosecutors must prove that the person disclosing the information knew that its release would reveal a covert agent's identity. If, as with the example of the Bush administration official cited above, the official truly did not know that Plame was a covert operative but merely a CIA employee, that official would not have violated the law.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=9588

I guess that Rove was able to convince Fitzgerald that he really did forget about the conversation he had with reporters. I find it hard to believe but who knows why Libby is being charged for perjury and obstruction and Rove is not.

 

[turbo]

Watch the 6/14 show now!

http://www.democracynow.org/

 

[StarkRavingMad]

There have been several reports "connecting the dots" between foreign policy and Rove's alleged leak of Valerie Plame.

There is another side of the story, one in which the lines between the dots are not actually crimes. Plame wasn't under this supposed deep cover that made releasing her name a a security breach. Rove mentioning her name in conversation was as innocent as talking about a desk clerk in the Langley front office.

Convoluting the matter further is that the whole mess is actually a cover up of a real conspiracy carried out by Joe Wilson and the CIA, in which they lied to discredit the administration and our involvement in Iraq on a false premise.

It is reminiscent of Watergate in that you'll be hard pressed to find ANY three people who can consistently explain what the conspiracy actually was... and average citizens had no prayer of keeping up with it anyway, so they just threw up their hands.

 

[Skyhunter]

Convoluting the matter further is that the whole mess is actually a cover up of a real conspiracy carried out by Joe Wilson and the CIA, in which they lied to discredit the administration and our involvement in Iraq on a false premise.

What an appropriate name.

I think this post belongs in skepticism and debunking.

 

[Gokul43201]

There is another side of the story, one in which the lines between the dots are not actually crimes. Plame wasn't under this supposed deep cover that made releasing her name a a security breach.

She doesn't have to be deep undercover. All that is required is that her employment status with the CIA be classified and that the person who leaked her identity be aware of this. A part of Libby's defense will probably be along the lines that he was unaware that her status was classified.