Karl Rove - CIA leaker?

Great Debates
421

In light of the Washington Post article elucidator cites, and presuming for the sake of argument that the Plame info was gleaned from the memo, let’s have another look at the relevant section of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act 1982, s 421 (a):

So these are the elements:

  • The info must be classified. Check.
  • The info must identify an agent. Check.
  • The discloser must have / have had authorized access. Unclear.
  • The info must be disclosed. Check.
  • The info must be intentionally disclosed. Check.
  • The discloser must know that the info identifies the agent. Check.
  • The US must be taking measures to conceal the person’s status. Check.
  • The discloser must know of these efforts to conceal. Check.

As I see it, if Rove gleaned the Plame info from the memo, or if someone else got it from the memo and told Rove, all that remains is whether Rove had authorized access to this information.

422

Correction: “…all that remains is whether the reader of the memo had authorized access to this information.”

423

Or if that other person had authorized access. I mean, they did disclose it to him, perhaps with a purpose.

424

Some questions: One defense of Rove up to this point has been along the lines of “A reporter told me, not the other way around”. If a reporter did come to him with Plame’s classified identity, shouldn’t it be Rove’s duty to either deny Plame’s status, tell the reporter that the information is classified, or if he’s not sure, go find out and get back to the reporter?

Does the fact that a reporter knew Plame’s status - but hadn’t published it yet - mean that the information is technically out in the open and thus Rove is somehow protected from prosecution? Can Rove simply shrug his shoulders, say “hey, I didn’t know” and get out of it? That seems too easy.

425

This has been covered. Rove should have played dumb - neither comfirm nor deny. Then he should have reported it immediately to the CIA and / or the FBI. If information is classified, it remains classified, even after it is compromised.

426

Fark, no. If he even remotely understood and/or gave a crap about the implications of what he was doing, he woulda zipped his bulbous lips.

427

THis seems to be from July 9th 2003

428

So it was. I’m noot sure where I got the later date.
The gaggle was in Praetoria, South Africa. It’s still missing from the white house briefing collection.

429

I find this to be the most peculiar part of this exchange

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030714-4.html

MR. FLEISCHER: No, you’re missing the point I’ve said earlier about in addition to Niger, Africa is a large continent that has more than one country. There was reporting that there were other countries on the continent that Iraq may have been pursuing uranium from. Whether those reports turn out to be true or not, we do not know. The point is. the information in Cincinnati was specific to one country. The information in the State of the Union was much broader than that, about the continent. And given the fact that this is where Iraq did, indeed, as the world knows, get a portion of its uranium from before, it’s not a statement that could be without merit. In fact, it could be.

<snip>

MR. FLEISCHER: The reason the British were cited is because the British had a public document. We often refer to public documents, as opposed to classified information. How many times from this podium have you heard me say that I don’t discuss classified information or intelligence information? The British report was public, that’s why we discussed the British report. it was based on a public document.

Now, we’ve said it went through the vetting process, and that’s exactly how it worked.

Q But Dr. Rice made clear yesterday in her Sunday talk shows that what made the sentence technically accurate was that it was cited to the British – not the CIA, not the U.S., that it was cited to the British. So you all went –

MR. FLEISCHER: And the British stand by it.

Q Well, that’s true. But you all went through a lot of hoops to try to get this into the speech. Why?

MR. FLEISCHER: Because this was information that was relevant to the case about whether Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. It was part of the argument that the President was making based on biological weapons, chemical weapons and nuclear weapons.

Q But it didn’t matter that you had –

MR. FLEISCHER: And the sentence immediately before it, Jeanne – do you remember what the sentence was immediately before the statement about Niger?

Q No.

MR. FLEISCHER: It was that Iraq is seeking five different ways to enrich its uranium. It was a broad statement and then the President made the specific reference to Niger. And he made it because that’s what the intelligence showed at that time, and we’ve been very up front in saying since then that it should not have risen to the President’s level.

You’re asking, why did it rise to the President’s level. The answer is it shouldn’t.

Q I’m asking why did somebody want it in the speech so badly?

MR. FLEISCHER: Because it was based on reporting; we had reason to believe the reporting was accurate.

Clearly he’s talking about the SOTU. Note the five different ways:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

Yet he specifically says that the comments about uranium are a specific reference to Niger. I though the out they had was that the info was about other countries in Africa.

Did Ari get off message? Or is there something I’m missing here?

430

They were wrong about the aluminum tubes, too, of course.

The ‘Africa’ line was specifically about Niger. No other country was ever mentioned that I can recall, and Niger was mentioned specifically by others supporting the case for war.

431

You know that, and I know that, but the official line was “in addition to Niger, Africa is a large continent that has more than one country. There was reporting that there were other countries on the continent that Iraq may have been pursuing uranium from.”
And this official line was part of the out used to justify the use of “sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” even though the stuff about Niger was known to be false.
Yet right after voicing this line, Ari goes on to say that the “sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” bit was specifically referring to Niger instead of “other countries on the continent.”

At least that’s how it looks to me.

432

Or announces a Supreme Court nominee on prime time.

433

Perjury, anyone?

From Bloomberg

Well, at least Scott McClelland can take solace in the idea that he wasn’t the only one being lied to.

By the way, where did Sam Stone go? This was shaping up so nicely like SDMB Swift Boats Debates Round 2.

434

They probably just didn’t want to risk him reading from the teleprompter and mispronouncing “Niger”.

435

Yeah. If he said “nee-ZJER”, Kerry would have accused him of being French. :slight_smile:

436

There’s an odd paragraph in this saturday Guardian story:
Bush aide misled FBI, say reports

This is the first I’ve heard of an investigation into the actual forgeries in a long time. Is this real? Who is running the investigation?

437

Just to add a data point, Digby took a run at this today.

438

This morning, while being rushed out the door for the weekly bathing in the Blood of the Lamb, our old buddy and part time TV personality Ben Stein materialized on one of the Sunday morning blather shows. As near as I can tell from the bit I heard Ben is carrying a brief for the Noise Machine. He said that he had worked for Nixon who was a genius who somewhat mishandled a press generated controversy. Based on his experience with the Nixon White House Mr. Stein was of the opinion that President Bush must stand by Mr. Rove because Rove has been a loyal comrade in arms, has done nothing wrong, Mrs. Plume was not a real spy but rather actually worked at a desk, and dumping Rove would just encourage the liberals, especially Senator Schumer, who are really after the President’s heads, not Rove’s.

As amiable as Ben is on his quiz show just about everything he had to say this morning was either flat wrong or deliberately deceptive. More importantly it demonstrates an attempt to divert attention from the ethical shoddiness, and vindictiveness of the leak of Mrs. Plume CID connection and the necessary inquiry into the merits of Ambassador Wilson conclusions about Niger’s yellow cake and Iraq and the fraud (and I use that word with care) practiced by President Bush and his administration in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. The Administration’s effort is to spin the whole fiasco as a technical federal criminal law turning on arcane minutiae of evidence, statutory interpretation and federal job descriptions – that is, to make the whole damned thing too complicated and tedious for a person of ordinary intelligence, patience and attention span to bother with. This is just what I warned out friend elucidator about some days ago.

It makes no difference to me whether Mr. Rove’s conduct was criminal or not. What matters is that this was underhanded, dishonest, weasel like vengeance on what appears to be an honest career government employee who had the backbone to blow the whistle on a fraud. What matters is that this Administration’s reaction to challenge is defamation and thuggery. What matters is that this Administration has resorted to blatant falsehoods to get its way on the invasion Iraq, on social security, on income tax, on restricting court damages, on estate taxes, on the course of the occupation of Iraq, on federal court appointments, and that it has, so far evaded any attempt to require it to account for its actions.

Some place I suggested that the invasion of Iraq had about as much with bringing Iraq and the Middle East the blessings of Western liberal democracy as the Spanish conquest of Central America had to do with the Apostolic Mission, that the example of the French invasion of Mexico had lessons. I now suggest a number of parallels between the excuses for the invasion of Iraq and the justification for the Spanish-American war – noting that it is pretty well concluded that Spain had nothing to do with the explosion of the USS Maine and that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

439

Interesting. I wonder if there will be a proveable link from the forged yellow cake documents back to the White House, or at least back to the “department of neocon ideology” in the CIA, that was detailed by ex Lt Col Kwiatkowski a year or two ago. So now we have Bolton, Libby, Rove and Fleischman in the mix. Each with a different and conflicting story.

440

For your amusement:
Niger Yellowcake and The Man Who Forged Too Much