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.
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.
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: he’s going to wait for the SP to finish before making up his mind.
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.
“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.”
It doesn’t matter that there was no name given. “Joe Wilson’s wife” identifies a particular person.
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.
Just to summarize the position being floated around on the right:
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.
She had not been overseas for more than five years, which is also a condition of the statute.
Therefore, even if Rove did ‘out’ her, he did nothing illegal.
Furthermore,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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:
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:
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.
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?
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.
Of course this would not bar the prosecution under a general theft statute.
I’m not so sure about this. Where does he do this?
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
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.”
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.
I’ve no doubt.
Not necessarily. There’re more than one possible avenues of prosecution here.
I don’t think that there was an exception in the law for this particular possibility.
It’s important to keep a sense of humor about politics. Not that these things aren’t serious business, but if you cant’ laugh…
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.
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.
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.
For the purpose of the statute, it’s not enough that she’s just ‘under cover’. See my previous message.
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.
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)
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.
Read the CIA letter.
Smoke screen, This was already discredited.
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.
As many are saying, the big point is how the information on WMD was manipulated.
If you can point the agents whose covers were blown by that action you may have a point.
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:
Sam, out of curiousity, will this allow you personally to stop foisting this nonsensical red herring?