Did Karl Rove out the CIA Agent?

[GIGObuster]

The way I see it, the media is in bed with this administration, it depends on it to get scoops, and depends on the administration to now get out of jail thanks to the magnanimous move of Rove, :rolleyes: it would be so romantic if we are willing to ignore that the media also becomes a joke and now they are so close to the administration that the term Media Whores has 100% justification.

While I do not shed a tear for the arrested reporter, I do have to say that we have a coward in this administration that is allowing a reporter to go to jail just to save his political ass; because if the consensus that very little will happen to the prepetrators comes to pass, it is indeed despicable that whoever is responsible is trying to avoid what could only be political heat as the only punishment!!

Like in Watergate, it is the coverup; unlike watergate, the mainstram media is part of it.

[Cervaise]

@wring

in prior postings, **Bricker ** had posted that Bush, in his position, could decide who was or who was not covert

Problem is, right after the news broke, eighty-four zillion years ago seems like, Bush got up in front of the cameras and said, “This is an awful thing, we’ll investigate, if we find who’s responsible, they’ll be punished.” If this was a decision he made at the time, it’s rather unlikely he’d be saying something like that, eh?

Otherwise, now he has to say, “Yeah, uh, funny thing. When I said that, turns out I was responsible. Guess I should have said that, huh?”

[Bricker]

@SteveG1

I really don’t care about any “technically” anything. What he did was WRONG. What he did was DELIBERATE. Let him hang.

Hypothetical:

The US decides to forbid export of computer equipment to Iran. This move is highly publicized. The House and Senate overwhelmingly vote in favor of the bill, and it’s rushed to the White House for the President’s signature.

Twenty minutes before the bill is signed into law by the President, I complete a sale and shipment of computer products to Iran.

Should I be prosecuted?

Lesson: the entirety of the law is “technically.” We cannot prosecute someone whose conduct is within the law.

[Evil_Captor]

@Bricker

Hypothetical:

The US decides to forbid export of computer equipment to Iran. This move is highly publicized. The House and Senate overwhelmingly vote in favor of the bill, and it’s rushed to the White House for the President’s signature.

Twenty minutes before the bill is signed into law by the President, I complete a sale and shipment of computer products to Iran.

Should I be prosecuted?

Lesson: the entirety of the law is “technically.” We cannot prosecute someone whose conduct is within the law.

(Emphasis mine): The last line SHOULD read: “We cannot prosecute someone whose conduct, however vile and reprehensible is within the law.”

This is why many people do not respect the law, or lawyers.

[andros]

@Evil Captor

(Emphasis mine): The last line SHOULD read: “We cannot prosecute someone whose conduct, however vile and reprehensible is within the law.”

This is why many people do not respect the law, or lawyers.

Then “many people” are fucking idiots.

[TVeblen]

@Bricker

Lesson: the entirety of the law is “technically.” We cannot prosecute someone whose conduct is within the law.

Nothing healthy can possibly thrive devoid of context, Bricker, not even–maybe especially–the law. The entirety of law isn’t “technically.” Law, all of it, is an abstract construct. When the complexity of the construct becomes not only the means but the goal, its basic utility is lost.

Laws are purely mental. They’re useful only to the extent they’re respected by those who buy into the mental constructs.

Spirit of the law, letter of the law is a razor’s edge. It’s never an easy, and probably one that divides chaos from civilization. Sorting out scoundrels from everybody else ain’t obvious, especially when high politics/power are involved. But don’t discount the real peril of the law being turned into a refuge for abuse by those who craft and interpret laws for their own ends.

The lacework of law, gorgeous as it is, can fray to shreds if becomes an end in itself.

[Evil_Captor]

@andros

Then “many people” are fucking idiots.

Many people ARE fucking idiots, and some of them may not respect the law for the reason I cited, but at least one of them is Samuel Johnson, whom not many people think is a fucking idiot.

“The law is an ass.”
-Samuel Johnson

[andros]

Sure. And Ambrose Bierce wrote:

Once Law was sitting on the bench,
And Mercy knelt a-weeping.
“Clear out!” he cried, “disordered wench!
Nor come before me creeping.
Upon your knees if you appear,
'Tis plain your have no standing here.”

Then Justice came. His Honor cried:
“Your status? – devil seize you!”
“Amica curiae,” she replied –
“Friend of the court, so please you.”
“Begone!” he shouted – “there’s the door –
I never saw your face before!”
G.J.

Neither man made mention of precisely how one should go about prosecuting someone who has comitted no crime.

[SteveG1]

@Bricker

Hypothetical:

Twenty minutes before the bill is signed into law by the President, I complete a sale and shipment of computer products to Iran.

Should I be prosecuted?

Lesson: the entirety of the law is “technically.” We cannot prosecute someone whose conduct is within the law.

Your example might be legal, but also extremely unethical if you knew about the bill - not too far removed from a variation of insider trading, if you rush the sale to beat the deadline. The whole point is, this action that Rove is being questioned about, is a “whole nother thing”. It was never legal. It was never right. It’s about outing a covert operative, with no valid reason or authorization to do so. Rove is neither the CIA Director nor is he the President. Let’s put your question in a different light. Assume through some gross oversight by law makers and policy makers, this Rove incident turns out to have been borderline legal… Would it still be valid grounds at the very least for dismissal and blacklisting? Why does it appear that “technicality” is only invoked when it protects someone who in motive and intent is guilty as hell? I better stop there before I start sounding like Roy Bean.

It also flies in the face of those fine sounding words

The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He’s made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.

I know what you’re saying, and legally I’d be crazy to challenge you since you are an attorney. You’d smoke me. I just don’t want Rove to get away with it, and yes, I have a strong personal distaste for him. I want him to hang.

[elucidator]

The technical culpabilty of Mr. Rover is of no consequence, so far as I am concerned. The only reason I would have to want him tried is so that all the facts of the matter become public record. I have no particular interest in seeing him “do time” at some min-security Club Fed, that isn’t “prison”, that’s summer camp where you can’t leave.

The crime or lack thereof isn’t the story. The story is the lengths to which a vindictive and mean-spirited WH will go to punish and discredit. But mostly punish. By the time this story got out, the cat was long since out of the bag, discrediting Plame/Wilson as a source was no longer relevent, the facts were already on the table: the “yellowcake” fable included in Bush’s “Saddam’s got nukes to get yo mamma!” scenario was a steaming load.

The Bushiviks aren’t afraid of anyone going to jail. They’re afraid of the ghost of Nixon clinging to Bush, they’re afraid of the image of him screwing over his enemies. For telling the truth. Remember Scott Ritter? Now, I don’t much cotton to jarhead officers with stainless steel rectums, they give me the willies. But I admire and respect a man who speaks truth to power.

When he was confronting Saddam’s henchcreeps and bullying them into compliance, the Bushiks just loved his tight little heinie, they couldn’t get enough of him, they’d eat him up with a spoon. But as soon as he started talking truth they didn’t want to hear, suddenly rumors began to pop up, dark shadows in his past, hints of sexual misconduct with minors, if I recoil correctly.

These people play dirty. Their image of propriety and decency is pure Bushwah. They’d feed their grandmother into a wood chipper for ten electoral votes. For twenty, they’d do it feet first and videotape the look on her face.

Let the truth be known, and justice will have been done. Let the people see the true nature of the men we’ve so foolishly entrusted with awesome power, and maybe…just maybe…we’ll be a little more careful next time.

From my lips to the antennae of our Insect Overlords.

[Atticus_Finch]

From this Washington Post report and the CNN report cited earlier, it appears that Rove informed reporters (Cooper at least) that Joseph Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA. This was apparently part of an effort to undermine Wilson’s evidence that uranium shipments from Niger to Iraq didn’t exist. Presumably, this undermining was to be done by insinuating that he was being manipulated by his wife or something along those lines. What’s important is that this information was revealed, and the fact that the wife was a CIA agent was central to what Rove was saying and thus to be central to any news story coming from the leak.

However, Rove did not “name” Plame. That is, he didn’t say “Valerie Plame is a CIA agent”, but merely something like “Joseph Wilson’s wife is a CIA agent”. This appears to be what he’s hanging his hat on as a defence to the possible charges of revealing an undercover intelligence agent.

Can anyone stand up for this “defence”? I don’t see any difference between “Valerie Plame is a CIA agent” and “Joseph Wilson’s wife is a CIA agent”. In the latter case, any journalist would have been able to find out the name of Wilson’s wife, so it’s pretty much the same thing.

Another alternate defence - Rove knew Plame was a CIA agent, but he didn’t know she was covert and thus that it would be a felony to reveal her name. I don’t buy this at all, but it seems like it would be more promising from Rove’s POV than the “well, I didn’t technically use her name” defence.

[Bricker]

Note: I have yet to read the articles; I’m commenting on the comments here, so to speak.

@Atticus Finch

However, Rove did not “name” Plame. That is, he didn’t say “Valerie Plame is a CIA agent”, but merely something like “Joseph Wilson’s wife is a CIA agent”. This appears to be what he’s hanging his hat on as a defence to the possible charges of revealing an undercover intelligence agent.

Can anyone stand up for this “defence”? I don’t see any difference between “Valerie Plame is a CIA agent” and “Joseph Wilson’s wife is a CIA agent”. In the latter case, any journalist would have been able to find out the name of Wilson’s wife, so it’s pretty much the same thing.

Of course. It’s irrelevant whether or not Rove “named” her as Valerie Plame, unles there was something special about their relationship (i.e. they lived apart and no one knew they were married). That “defense” is nonsense.

Another alternate defence - Rove knew Plame was a CIA agent, but he didn’t know she was covert and thus that it would be a felony to reveal her name. I don’t buy this at all, but it seems like it would be more promising from Rove’s POV than the “well, I didn’t technically use her name” defence.

Also nonsense. This will be a “knew or should have known” standard, and I’ll have a very hard time believing that given Rove’s position, he didn’t know this fact. And even if, by chance, he didn’t, he SHOULD know that if he is in possession of the name of a CIA agent, he should ensure she is not covert before revealing it.

[wring]

on Today, the report is that Rove testified that he did not reveal any “classified info”, though the email referred to “Wilson’s wife” working for the agency on WMD.

A. it appears clear that Rove knew she was an operative, but had no authorization to know she was covert. whoever told him (ie who knew her status) would have been in the wrong.

however-

B When the story broke - it was clear that Plame was indeed covert and the revelation was indeed a “bad thing” and yet Rove failed to admit to investigators that he did indeed reveal to reporters Wilson’s wife’s employer. Seems to me that willl be a difficult explanation to make.

[furlibusea]

I think we are heading into the “what is the definition of is” territory. It was complete and utter bull-shit when Clinton did it, and personaly, I do not think the technique has aged well.

I have one other question. How was this supposed to work? How does the fact the guy’s wife being a CIA agent supposed to discredit his information? It seems to me that it would tend to back up that he knew where-of he spoke. I am missing some twist here I think, or the spin didn’t complete its appointed rounds.

[Merijeek]

@wring

A. it appears clear that Rove knew she was an operative, but had no authorization to know she was covert. whoever told him (ie who knew her status) would have been in the wrong.

Since when is ignorance a valid defense?

“I’m sorry, officer, I was driving with my eyes closed so I had no idea there was a stop sign there.”

-Joe

[Evil_Captor]

On Air America, they interviewed the author of “Bush’s Brain” a book about Karl Rove. He said Rove had a sufficiently high security clearance that he could have made a phone call to the CIA and gotten the name of any covert op without any problem. So the treason charge may be in play as well.

[Metacom]

@Bricker

Should I be prosecuted?

No. But your business should be shunned by businesses that consider themselves ethical, and if you have any involvement at all with a political administration or group it should be immediately terminated and they should publicly condemn you, just to make sure their hands are clean.

Not that any of that would likely happen: “What should be?” is a very sad question to ask.

[elucidator]

And it is certainly to early to ask “What did the President know, and when did he know it?” So, I won’t.

[ElvisL1ves]

Frog march! I wanna see Rove do the frog march!

[Frank]

@ElvisL1ves

Frog march! I wanna see Rove do the frog march!

Is that the same thing as a perp walk?