# Karl Rove - CIA leaker? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 3, 2005, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896 "2005-07-03T04:01:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/261 "2005-07-17T16:19:29Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > [MATTHEW COOPER: WHAT I TOLD THE GRAND JURY](http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,1083878,00.html) There’s new Libby convo details too. But he did say that Wilson’s wife works at the “Agency on WMD.” This was the first time Cooper had ever heard of Wilson’s wife. he had a distinct memory of Rove ending the call by saying, “I’ve already said too much.” Cooper had asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson’s wife sending him to Niger. Libby answered with words to the effect of “Yeah, I’ve heard that too.”According to the way I see it, the Cooper quotes damn Rove. In failing to follow the standard “Do not confirm, do not deny”, Libby is damned too. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/262 "2005-07-17T16:48:17Z")
Of course, the question now is whether or not either Rove or Libby broke the law. Although, I think either way, since Rove did (assuming Cooper’s comments are accurate) leak Plame’s CIA status to the press, I’d be hard pressed to see how Bush can get out of his promise to fire whoever was responsible for the leak. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/263 "2005-07-17T16:55:44Z")
> [@waterj2](#): > > I’d be hard pressed to see how Bush can get out of his promise to fire whoever was responsible for the leak. He already has. Where’ve you been? ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/264 "2005-07-17T17:21:17Z")
> [@squeegee](#): > > He already has. Where’ve you been? So far he has, but now that Cooper has named Rove as his first source, rather than just a contact whose exact role won’t be known until after Fitzgerald’s investigation, it’s going to be a bit harder for Bush to come up with a good answer when one of those pesky liberals in the White House Press Corps asks him if Rove will resign. I’m just interested in how much pressure to get rid of the guy Bush can deflect. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/265 "2005-07-17T17:34:14Z")
> [@waterj2](#): > > I doubt it was intentional, but if it was, that’s an incredibly subtle pun there. It was very definitely deliberate, but then, I didn’t think it was all that subtle. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/266 "2005-07-17T17:40:45Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > It was very definitely deliberate, but then, I didn’t think it was all that subtle. Now my response to it– **that** was a subtle pun! Betcha didn’t even notice it, huh? huh? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/267 "2005-07-17T17:53:46Z")
> [@waterj2](#): > > So far he has, but now that Cooper has named Rove as his first source, rather than just a contact whose exact role won’t be known until after Fitzgerald’s investigation, it’s going to be a bit harder for Bush to come up with a good answer when one of those pesky liberals in the White House Press Corps asks him if Rove will resign. I’m just interested in how much pressure to get rid of the guy Bush can deflect. Bush has [already answered](http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/nation/12128196.htm): he’s going to wait for the SP to finish before making up his mind. > [@George the disassembler](#): > > “This is a serious investigation,” Bush said at the end of a meeting with his Cabinet, with Rove sitting just behind him. "I will be more than happy to comment on this matter once this investigation is complete. Until Fitzgerald is done, and presumably short of an indictment, Bush has nothing to say. Since this was not the context of the earlier promise (to fire whoever leaked), ipso facto the promise is dust. Fuggedaboudit. ---
**Author:** ![Stephe96](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Stephe96](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stephe96)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/268 "2005-07-17T21:17:21Z")
[http://www.time.com/time/press\_releases/article/0,8599,1083878,00.html](http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,1083878,00.html) “Matthew Cooper testified that when **he called** White House political advisor Karl Rove the week of July 6, 2003, Rove **did not** reveal Joe Wilson’s wife’s name and **did not** reveal her covert status to Cooper.” ---
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/269 "2005-07-17T21:38:47Z")
What, you missed the next sentence? > [@](#): > > But he did say that Wilson’s wife works at the “Agency on WMD.” This was the first time Cooper had ever heard of Wilson’s wife. 1. It doesn’t matter who called who. 2. It doesn’t matter that there was no name given. “Joe Wilson’s wife” identifies a particular person. 3. The fact that Joe Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA was classified information. Whether or not Rove told Cooper that Plame actually covert, he had no right to tell him or anyone without security clearance and a need to know that she worked for the CIA. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/270 "2005-07-17T22:11:06Z")
> [@](#): > > For the record, the first time you learned that Joe Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA was from Karl Rove? > > MR. COOPER: That’s correct. [Transcript of Cooper/Russert Interview](http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000980364) ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/271 "2005-07-17T23:07:06Z")
Just to summarize the position being floated around on the right: 1. Plame was not ‘actively been kept under cover’ by the CIA, which is a condition of the statute for finding someone guilty of ‘outing’ an agent. She was openly coming and going from Langley every day, in full view of any enemy agents who wanted to tally up who worked there. She even appeared on the cover of Joe Wilson’s book. No one appears to have been trying at all to keep her identity secret. 2. She had not been overseas for more than five years, which is also a condition of the statute. 3. Therefore, even if Rove did ‘out’ her, he did nothing illegal. Furthermore, 1. Plame’s status was not a secret. Her neigbors apparently knew, as did the Wilson’s friends. No one seriously considered her ‘undercover’ - least of all the Wilsons. 2. Rove has testified before the grand jury that he learned that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA in WMD from another journalist (presumably Bob Novak). This also disqualifies him from being charged, since another condition of the statute is that the ‘leaker’ has to be leaking information he gained from classified sources. Novak isn’t a classified source, and therefore repeating what he tells you is not a crime. It’s not even clear that Rove knew that she was technically ‘under cover’. He may have just thought of her as an analyst at the CIA. 3. Contrary to the Democrat’s spin that he ‘outed’ her to ‘punish’ Wilson, Rove claims that he only told Cooper who she was to correct a lie being spouted by Wilson. Wilson was claiming that Dick Cheney sent him to Niger. Cheney said that wasn’t true. So when Cooper asked Rove about it, Rove said that Wilson was picked on the advice of his wife, an analyst for the CIA, and not by Cheney’s office. 4. There’s more to be told yet that we don’t know. Novak has been cooperating with the Grand Jury, but nothing he’s said has been made public. Judith Miller is still hiding HER source, meaning that someone else was leaking this information before Rove mentioned Plame to Cooper. I personally think that the above account is largely accurate, and that claims that Karl Rove broke the law and should be in jail are WAY premature and definitely politically motivated. The Democrats are hoping to smear and tarnish the hated Rove as hard as they can before this whole case falls apart, in hopes that the mud will stick long after the case itself is over. That said, Karl Rove has apparently testified under oat to the Grand Jury that he was given Plame’s name by another reporter before he ever talked to Cooper. If that’s true, then Rove is guilty of nothing. If it’s not, he’s guilty of perjury and should do time. That’s what this whole thing now boils down to, and that’s where the focus of the investigation should be. Aside from the legality, the other issue is whether or not Rove showed poor judgement in telling Cooper that Plame was involved in sending Wilson to Niger. That depends on what he really knew - if he knew that she was clandestine and ‘outed’ her anyway, then even if what he did is technically legal he should probably be booted anyway, since I think security leaks during times of conflict should be taken very seriously. On the other hand, if it really was an ‘open secret’ who she was, and her ‘cover’ was effectively long blown anyway, then this whole thing is just a tempest in a tea pot. I also find it humorous that the left is totally enraged about this ‘huge breach of security’, and calling for Rove’s head, while not too long ago they were willing to shrug and give the benefit of the doubt to Sandy Berger when he intentionally walked out of a secure facility with hidden classified documents. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/272 "2005-07-17T23:33:18Z")
I really, really shouldn’t, because it just gets my blood pressure going, but just to respond to this BS about her being no longer under cover at the time of her outing, here’s the first story I ran across upon googling Valerie Plame: > [@](#): > > **Minimal damage** > > Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said it’s unlikely that Plame is in any danger as a result of being identified. And an internal review at the CIA concluded that her exposure caused minimal damage, mainly because she had been working at headquarters for years, former officials familiar with the review said. The above to concede the point that the damage caused was, in fact, not much. In terms of the legality of what the White House (whether it was Rove or not is immaterial to me, since we’re talking about a scabrous crew that thinks nothing of sending soldiers out to die for not just nothing, but less than nothing, when real work needs to be done securing our big cities and important economic targets from terrorist attack)did, not to mention the morality, the above is entirely irrelevant. To remind those who may not know much about our history, George Washington ran our first spy network himself, because he considered them to be an indispensable part of our defense. They are on an equal footing with any of our armed forces. That’s just to set the stage. Let us continue: > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON - Several months after her identity as a CIA operative was exposed in a newspaper column, Valerie Plame had dinner with five of her classmates from the agency’s training academy. > Four had already left the CIA, and they spent the evening catching up on what they’d done during their clandestine careers, as well as the jobs and moves that followed. But even though Plame’s “cover” had been cracked wide open, her dinner companions didn’t pry for details. Even in that tight circle, no one wanted to spill any more secrets. > “Cover is a mosaic; it’s a puzzle,” said James Marcinkowski, a former CIA case officer who attended the dinner. “Every piece is important [to protect] because you don’t know which pieces the bad guys are missing.” Take note of that. This is not a game. Real blood, real lives are at stake. But the White House, and its amoral apologists, choose to treat it as a game. As they choose to treat the lives of the soldiers and citizens under their care, as the last five years have very amply shown. Or, to quote someone who should know, from this article: > [@](#): > > “It doesn’t matter whether he used her name,” Marcinkowski said of the recent disclosures surrounding Rove. “It doesn’t matter what her status was. He gave up a piece of the puzzle, and he had no right to do it.” So, all that bs about how she was already no longer under cover is just that, bs. First, it’s false, flatly false. Second, the fact she worked out of HQ rather than in the field is irrelevant; she was under cover, and that’s all that matters in this case. Article: [Plame Case Shines a Light on the Value of Cover](http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.plame17jul17,1,3403543.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines) ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2005, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/273 "2005-07-17T23:45:13Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > 1. Plame was not ‘actively been kept under cover’ by the CIA, which is a condition of the statute for finding someone guilty of ‘outing’ an agent. She was openly coming and going from Langley every day, in full view of any enemy agents who wanted to tally up who worked there. She even appeared on the cover of Joe Wilson’s book. No one appears to have been trying at all to keep her identity secret. > > 2. She had not been overseas for more than five years, which is also a condition of the statute. > > 3. Therefore, even if Rove did ‘out’ her, he did nothing illegal. If these statements are accurate, then why did the CIA internal investigation conclude that there had likely been a violation of the statute and refer it to the Department of Justice? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2005, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/274 "2005-07-18T00:18:52Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > 1. Plame was not ‘actively been kept under cover’ by the CIA, which is a condition of the statute for finding someone guilty of ‘outing’ an agent. She was openly coming and going from Langley every day, in full view of any enemy agents who wanted to tally up who worked there. She even appeared on the cover of Joe Wilson’s book. No one appears to have been trying at all to keep her identity secret. > > 2. She had not been overseas for more than five years, which is also a condition of the statute. > > 3. Therefore, even if Rove did ‘out’ her, he did nothing illegal. > > 4. Plame’s status was not a secret. Her neigbors apparently knew, as did the Wilson’s friends. No one seriously considered her ‘undercover’ - least of all the Wilsons. Yet the [PotUSA used the phrase “criminal action”](http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/10/wh100603.html) to describe the release of her name. He may have mis-spoken before he knew all of the facts. He’d only had about three months to gather pertinent info when he said that. The CIA described her as “[an employee operating undercover](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/plame.cia.letter.pdf).” The CIA’s Office of Security had opened an investigation into this matter and the CIA’s ‘subject matter experts’ decided that the case warranted forwarding to the DoJ. The CIA requested that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) undertake a criminal investigation of this matter. So, to professional eyes with ample access to relevant information re Mrs. Wilson’s status something appears to be amiss to. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > 1. Rove has testified before the grand jury that he learned that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA in WMD from another journalist (presumably Bob Novak). This also disqualifies him from being charged, since another condition of the statute is that the ‘leaker’ has to be leaking information he gained from classified sources. Novak isn’t a classified source, and therefore repeating what he tells you is not a crime. It’s not even clear that Rove knew that she was technically ‘under cover’. He may have just thought of her as an analyst at the CIA. Of course this would not bar the prosecution under a general theft statute. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > Wilson was claiming that Dick Cheney sent him to Niger. Cheney said that wasn’t true. I’m not so sure about this. Where does he do this? > [@Sam Stone](#): > > So when Cooper asked Rove about it, Rove said that Wilson was picked on the advice of his wife, an analyst for the CIA, and not by Cheney’s office. Supposedly, there’s a disagreement on the part of the CIA over Mrs. Wilson’s role. I’ve not been able to find the document yet, though I have seen two references to it, and heard one reference to it. Has anyone seen it? Here’re the print references to it [http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2005/07/14/plame/print.html](http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2005/07/14/plame/print.html) 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. and [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/16/AR2005071601364\_pf.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/16/AR2005071601364_pf.html) CIA officials maintain that Plame never ordered up the trip. I’d like to see the actual CIA response, or failing that, the news articles discussing the CIA’s response. If anyone has seen either of these and knows where to direct me, I’d be much obliged. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > The Democrats are hoping to smear and tarnish the hated Rove as hard as they can before this whole case falls apart, in hopes that the mud will stick long after the case itself is over. I’ve no doubt. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > That said, Karl Rove has apparently testified under oat to the Grand Jury that he was given Plame’s name by another reporter before he ever talked to Cooper. If that’s true, then Rove is guilty of nothing. Not necessarily. There’re more than one possible avenues of prosecution here. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > On the other hand, if it really was an ‘open secret’ who she was, and her ‘cover’ was effectively long blown anyway, then this whole thing is just a tempest in a tea pot. I don’t think that there was an exception in the law for this particular possibility. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > I also find it humorous that the left is totally enraged about this ‘huge breach of security’, and calling for Rove’s head, while not too long ago they were willing to shrug and give the benefit of the doubt to Sandy Berger when he intentionally walked out of a secure facility with hidden classified documents. It’s important to keep a sense of humor about politics. Not that these things aren’t serious business, but if you cant’ laugh… ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2005, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/275 "2005-07-18T00:22:01Z")
> [@pantom](#): > > I really, really shouldn’t, because it just gets my blood pressure going, but just to respond to this BS about her being no longer under cover at the time of her outing, here’s the first story I ran across upon googling Valerie Plame: Not under cover _with respect to determining whether the statute applies that would make Karl Rove criminally liable_. That’s the whole point. The law is quite specific. Should Karl Rove go to jail? Only if Plame was under cover by the definition of the statute. From what I understand, that means that A) her identity has to be a secret. B) The CIA has to be taking ‘positive measures’ to keep it secret. C) She has been on ‘major assignment’ overseas within the last five years, and D) her clandestine status is revealed by someone who got the information from classified sources. At this point, it does not appear that this case meets a single one of those conditions, let alone all of them. Whether it was right to ‘out’ her anyway is a totally separate discussion. > [@This Year's Model](#): > > If these statements are accurate, then why did the CIA internal investigation conclude that there had likely been a violation of the statute and refer it to the Department of Justice? Uh, because it’s a political agency, and was engaged in all kinds of infighting with State and the White House? This is nothing new. I love how you guys switch allegiance when it’s convenient. Now the CIA is on your side, so they are the guardians of truth and justice and would never do anything so crass as try to use political dirty tricks to discredit other agencies. Had the CIA been heavily supporting the war, you guys would be claiming that it’s a dangerous agency with an agenda, not to be trusted. And to be fair, the Republicans would do the same thing were the situation reversed. The mere fact that the CIA would ‘call for an investigation’ doesn’t necessarily mean anything. Calls for investigations are a dime a dozen in Washington. The question is whether or not that investigation turned anything up. I also love the rationalization I’ve heard in this thread that there must be something to this, because the prosecutor thinks there is. I don’t recall that attitude on the left back when Ken Starr was going after Clinton… I wish everyone could just admit that this is mostly politics. The Democrats see an opening to ‘get’ Karl Rove, and they are taking it. The Republicans do the same, all the time. Politics is a dirty business, and they play hardball. Rove may in fact be guilty, in which case he’s also perjured himself and could do serious time. But at this point it sure doesn’t look that way. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2005, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/276 "2005-07-18T00:26:52Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Uh, because it’s a political agency, and was engaged in all kinds of infighting with State and the White House? Yet the [PotUSA used the phrase “criminal action”](http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/10/wh100603.html) to describe the release of her name. What’s _his_ angle? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2005, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/277 "2005-07-18T00:30:10Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > Yet the [PotUSA used the phrase “criminal action”](http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2003/10/wh100603.html) to describe the release of her name. He may have mis-spoken before he knew all of the facts. He’d only had about three months to gather pertinent info when he said that. More likely is that at the time he thought it would be someone not affiliated with his administration, so he was just playing the same kind of gotcha politics the Democrats are currently playing. > [@](#): > > The CIA described her as “[an employee operating undercover](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/plame.cia.letter.pdf).” For the purpose of the statute, it’s not enough that she’s just ‘under cover’. See my previous message. > [@](#): > > The CIA’s Office of Security had opened an investigation into this matter and the CIA’s ‘subject matter experts’ decided that the case warranted forwarding to the DoJ. The CIA requested that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) undertake a criminal investigation of this matter. An investigation may have been politics as usual, or it may have been fully warranted, even if they knew that this particular leak wasn’t a crime. I don’t blame them at all for taking very seriously leaks coming from the White House, Congress, or anywhere else. Washington leaks WAY too much. That’s pissed me off for years and years. Both sides do it. And if it turns out that A) Rove knew Plame was undercover and B) leaked her name anyway, then I hope Bush fires him even if what he did isn’t strictly illegal. And it would be great if a Senator or Congressman on either side got actually arrested and charged the next time they release classified information for partisan purposes. This constant leaking of info may have been borderline bad in the 90’s when there were no clear threats, but it’s despicable now. > [@](#): > > Of course this would not bar the prosecution under a general theft statute. Theft of what? I haven’t heard this. ---
**Author:** ![bizzwire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/958977/32.png) [@bizzwire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bizzwire)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2005, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/278 "2005-07-18T00:35:05Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > I wish everyone could just admit that this is mostly politics Gee, d’ja think? > [@](#): > > The Democrats see an opening to ‘get’ Karl Rove, and they are taking it. OK…great…let’s hold that thought, and work backwards: Why do they Democrats want to “get” Karl Rove? (hint: it may possibly be due to the not unrelated actions of the administration seeking petty revenge against Wilson for denouncing a major falsehood use to justify invading Iraq) ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2005, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/279 "2005-07-18T00:39:17Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Just to summarize the position being floated around on the right: > > 1. Plame was not ‘actively been kept under cover’ by the CIA, which is a condition of the statute for finding someone guilty of ‘outing’ an agent. She was openly coming and going from Langley every day, in full view of any enemy agents who wanted to tally up who worked there. She even appeared on the cover of Joe Wilson’s book. No one appears to have been trying at all to keep her identity secret. [http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/plame.cia.letter.pdf](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/plame.cia.letter.pdf) From the CIA: > [@](#): > > 30 January 2004 > > The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. > Ranking Democratic Member > Committee on the Judiciary > House of Representatives > Washington, DC 20515 > > Dear Mr. Conyers: > > Thank you for your letter of 29 September 2003 to the Director of Central intelligence (DCI) regarding any contacts the Central intelligence agency has had with the Department of Justice (DoJ) \*\*to request an investigation into the disclosure earlier that year of the identity of an employee operating undercover. \*\* The DCI has asked me to respond your letter on his behalf. > > Executive order 12333 requires CIA to report to the Attorney General “possible violations of criminal law.” In accordance with executive order 12333 on 24 July 2003, a CIA attorney left a phone message for the chief of the counterespionage section of DOJ noting concern with recent articles on this subject and stating that the CIA would forward a written crimes report pending the outcome of a review of the articles by subject matter experts. By letter dated 30 July 2003, the CIA reported to the criminal division of DOJ a possible violation of criminal law concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information. The letter also informed, DOJ that the CIA’s Office of Security had opened an investigation into this matter. This letter was sent again to DOJ by facsimile on 5 September 2003. > > **By letter dated 16 September 2003, and in accordance with standard practice in such matters, the CIA informed DOJ that the Agency’s investigation into this matter was complete, provided DOJ a memorandum setting forth the results of that investigation, and requested that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) undertake a criminal investigation of this matter.** In a 29 September 2 003 letter, DOJ advised that the Counterespionage Section of DOJ had requested that the FBI initiate an investigation of this matter. > > Stanley M. Moskowitz > Director of Congressional Affairs > [@](#): > > 1. She had not been overseas for more than five years, which is also a condition of the statute. > > 2. Therefore, even if Rove did ‘out’ her, he did nothing illegal. > > Furthermore, > > 1. Plame’s status was not a secret. Her neigbors apparently knew, as did the Wilson’s friends. No one seriously considered her ‘undercover’ - least of all the Wilsons. let me guess, you got that from this: > **[Rove fight escalates](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/jul/15/20050715-121257-9887r/)** > > The partisan fight over Karl Rove exploded onto the Senate floor yesterday, with Democrats trying to strip him of his security clearance and Republicans retaliating by trying to strip the chamber’s two top Democrats of theirs. However: [http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,524486,00.html](http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,524486,00.html) > [@](#): > > Plame worked as a spy internationally in more than one role. Fred Rustmann, a former CIA official who put in 24 years as a spymaster and was Plame’s boss for a few years, says Plame worked under official cover in Europe in the early 1990s — say, as a U.S. embassy attache — before switching to nonofficial cover a few years later. Mostly Plame posed as a business analyst or a student in what Rustmann describes as a “nice European city.” Plame was never a so-called deep-cover NOC, he said, meaning the agency did not create a complex cover story about her education, background, job, personal life and even hobbies and habits that would stand up to intense scrutiny by foreign governments. “[NOCs] are on corporate rolls, and if anybody calls the corporation, the secretary says, ‘Yeah, he works for us,’” says Rustmann. “The degree of backstopping to a NOC’s cover is a very good indication of how deep that cover really is.” > > For decades, a varying number of NOCs (the exact figure is classified) have been installed abroad in big multinational corporations, small companies or bogus academic posts. The more genteel rules of traditional espionage do not apply to NOCs. When the Soviets caught a diplomat doing spy work during the cold war, they roughed him up a little and sent him home. Unmasked NOCs, on the other hand, have met with much harsher fates: CIA officer Hugh Redmond was caught in Shanghai in 1951 posing as an employee of a British import-export company and spent 19 years in a Chinese prison before dying there. In early 1995 the French rolled up five CIA officers, including a woman who had been working as a NOC under business cover for about five years. Although the NOC caught in Paris in 1995 was simply sent home, “it might not have been so easy in an Arab country,” says a former CIA official familiar with the matter. “[NOCs] have no diplomatic status, so they can end up in slammers.” That was in 2003, now Fred Rustmann is saying that he took issue with her identification as an “undercover agent”, however her status was no small thing, I see now that the real scandal is that at the time of her cover being blown, she was besides working at Langley, doing other secret stuff. I have to really take issue with the Moonie Times: even here in Phoenix I have seen people shopping at the grocery store going to their cars with CIA plates, they do mundane stuff, and like me in my work, I can switch suddenly to a different position, the real secret at that time was her presence in the front company, it would not be surprising to me that it is that part what Rove or others in this administration did blow. And in other reports I have seen interviews of friends that were surprised that she was an agent. So no, with the CIA letter and other sources, I have to say I don’t trust the WT on this one. > [@](#): > > 1. Rove has testified before the grand jury that he learned that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA in WMD from another journalist (presumably Bob Novak). This also disqualifies him from being charged, since another condition of the statute is that the ‘leaker’ has to be leaking information he gained from classified sources. Novak isn’t a classified source, and therefore repeating what he tells you is not a crime. It’s not even clear that Rove knew that she was technically ‘under cover’. He may have just thought of her as an analyst at the CIA. Read the CIA letter. > [@](#): > > 1. Contrary to the Democrat’s spin that he ‘outed’ her to ‘punish’ Wilson, Rove claims that he only told Cooper who she was to correct a lie being spouted by Wilson. Wilson was claiming that Dick Cheney sent him to Niger. Cheney said that wasn’t true. So when Cooper asked Rove about it, Rove said that Wilson was picked on the advice of his wife, an analyst for the CIA, and not by Cheney’s office. Smoke screen, This was already discredited. > [@](#): > > 1. There’s more to be told yet that we don’t know. Novak has been cooperating with the Grand Jury, but nothing he’s said has been made public. Judith Miller is still hiding HER source, meaning that someone else was leaking this information before Rove mentioned Plame to Cooper. Looking at what her previous reporting was about: WMD, my impression is that there is a lot she is hiding. this however does not exclude Rove. > [@](#): > > I personally think that the above account is largely accurate, and that claims that Karl Rove broke the law and should be in jail are WAY premature and definitely politically motivated. The Democrats are hoping to smear and tarnish the hated Rove as hard as they can before this whole case falls apart, in hopes that the mud will stick long after the case itself is over. As many are saying, the big point is how the information on WMD was manipulated. > [@](#): > > I also find it humorous that the left is totally enraged about this ‘huge breach of security’, and calling for Rove’s head, while not too long ago they were willing to shrug and give the benefit of the doubt to Sandy Berger when he intentionally walked out of a secure facility with hidden classified documents. If you can point the agents whose covers were blown by that action you may have a point. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2005, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896/280 "2005-07-18T00:46:34Z")
The GOP and its supporters have no shame. Here is the debunking of the "Wilson claimed Cheney sent him bullshit. [http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week\_2005\_07\_10.php#006082](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_07_10.php#006082) Not only does it debunk the charge, but it also shows how RNC Chairman Mehlman is a fatuous liar who did a Fox-like editing of the actual transcript. Here’s what Mehlman says Wilson said: > [@Mehlman's Clip Show](#): > > Joe Wilson: “What They Did, What The Office Of The Vice President Did, And, In Fact, I Believe Now From Mr. Libby’s Statement, It Was Probably The Vice President Himself …” (CNN’s “Late Edition,” 8/3/03) > [@actual transcript](#): > > WILSON: Well, look, it’s absolutely true that neither the vice president nor Dr. Rice nor even George Tenet knew that I was traveling to Niger. > > What they did, what the office of the vice president did, and, in fact, I believe now from Mr. Libby’s statement, it was probably the vice president himself… > > BLITZER: Scooter Libby is the chief of staff for the vice president. > > WILSON: Scooter Libby. > > They asked essentially that we follow up on this report – that the agency follow up on the report. So it was a question that went to the CIA briefer from the Office of the Vice President. The CIA, at the operational level, made a determination that the best way to answer this serious question was to send somebody out there who knew something about both the uranium business and those Niger officials that were in office at the time these reported documents were executed. **Sam** , out of curiousity, will this allow you personally to stop foisting this nonsensical red herring? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/karl-rove-cia-leaker/310896.md?page=15)