Late breaking: Rove e-mailed some guy you’ve never heard of – this proves Rove was really really telling the truth all along! really!
Countdown until Little Green Footballs declares the e-mails a forgery.
crickets
He’s the one that set off the hyperbole alarm. I was just trying to provide some perspective.
It’s funny how he defends himself against leaking stuff about Plame by leaking stuff about an investigation that the President says no one should be commenting on until Fitzgerald sings. I wonder if Bush’ll fire anyone over this?
The nice thing about email is, it includes a time and date stamp. So, it should be verifiable if true.
I’m not saying it’s a fake. I’m saying that this was obviously leak by the WH or or a close source as part of the last couple of days orchestrated leaks. I don’t know what the heck to think of it. Which I think is the intended effect.
In other words, it’s part of the WH chewbacca defense.
Sure. The grand jury wraps up in October. $50 says there will be an article trashing Fitzgerald on The Free Republic by November 1st.
(With the caveat that the date will change if the grand jury is granted an extension. If that happens the new deadline will be a reasonably short period after the grand jury does finish its work – say a week.)
And a clumsy one at that. Assuming for a second that Clinton did that, the republicans decided then that protecting Paula Jones rights were more important than what Clinton did in China, the republicans may have complained about the China stuff, but they did virtually NOTHING against Clinton regarding that.
And also Clinton is no longer the president, someone else is, someone that is currently affecting the security of the nation by allowing ideology to interfere with the intelligence of the nation, so **samclem ** was right about you.
Sure. Per the OP, “trashing” is defined as:
But we need to strike #4 unless you put some bounds on it. As it is, that could mean almost anything.
This topic should probably be a thread by itself. That said, If you want to talk about allowing ideology to affect the intelligence of the nation, let’s talk about the Church Committee gutting the CIA in the 70’s or the Clinton Administration edict that covert CIA sources cannot have criminal records.
I don’t personally know how deep Plame was at one point, but if she is willing to pose in Vanity Fair magazine, it couldn’t be that far. Also, from what I understand, she was not actually functioning under cover when the leak happened and she hadn’t been for a number of years.
It could even cover this:
It has never been classified information that a woman named Valerie Plame exists, and that she is married to Joe Wilson. The classified part is that she worked for the CIA.
Not all covert work is the kind that gets you killed once you get found out; it just means that the people who trusted you stop doing so and you can’t do your job anymore. If that’s the case–and it appears to have been with Plame, Wilson’s initial hyperbole notwithstanding–she had no reason not to appear in VF.
I have heard this from a few Bush apologist mouthpieces, but I haven’t heard it substantiated. In any case, it doesn’t matter; even if she was out of it at that point, her previous status would have still been classified information, and revealing her status raises suspicions on others in her field.
No time right now, but I did read on TIME or Newsweek that spooks virtually found no problem getting info, IOW, it was mostly a cosmetic change.
In any case, that point of yours is IMO false in light of recent developments, there was a reason why not to trust the criminal element, when the administration dropped that limitation, guys like Chalabi moved in, and thanks to that criminal, the administration got the “intelligence” it wanted to justify war. Problem is the information was false. And here we have the main reason why that edict was just common sense, depending on the situation the criminal has an axe to grind that should be taken into account, this administration dumped the lessons of the Bay of Pigs.
Yeah it could, but you can count on finding anything on some blog somewhere.
The gist of the OP, though, is that the Bush administration will take an ad hominem tack against Fitzgerradl. That’s why I want some bounds on the criteria-- an attack against the investigation itself can’t count.
Seems pretty hard to define; the administration has so many deniable surrogates.
If Novak writes a column noting that someone told him Fitzgerald was a gay transvestite liberal athiest, does that count? Or does it only count if he says “administration sources, speak on condition of anonymity”? Or does that even count?
You forgot “Judicial Activist.”
To say Nothing of Poland.
Lucky for me they just don’t return my phone calls or respond t my letters.
Well we get into some First Ammendment issues if we’re not careful.
PReviously, the USG has used a theft law to punish leakers:
Bush’s Unofficial Official Secrets Act
…for over two hundred years, our government has operated without an “official secrets act.”
... Great Britain and other nations have long criminalized the disclosure of government information. But there's a crucial difference between them and us: They lack an equivalent of our First Amendment.
...in 1971 the Nixon Justice Department ... tried to invoke the [theft statute](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=641)... ...the government charged agents of the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) with using DEA information to set up a drug operation of their own.
... the Reagan Justice Department saw fit to ... invoke the 1917 Espionage Act and the general theft statute to prosecute a leak of government information. ...the government procured a conviction under both statutes.
The government argued the case came within the theft statute because it reaches the unlawful disposition of "any record ... or thing of value" of the United States. The government argued that even intangible information was a "thing of value," and the federal district and appellate courts agreed.
...[the Fourth Circuit] reiterated that information could be a "thing of value" that could be stolen, and held - invoking the 1971 drug case precedent - that it ... was applicable.
Attorney General John Ashcroft is making good on his word to aggressively prosecute leaks...
...Jonathan Randal [sic], an intelligence research specialist ...of the DEA.
...the London Times ... had DEA documents showing that [Lord Michael Ashcroft (no relation)] was index-numbered on the DEA files, a measure that, it said, is taken only when serious suspicions exist.
...Randal [sic] had leaked [the DEA documents] to a ... journalist who was investigating Lord Ashcroft...
[U.S. Attorney in Atlanta, William Duffey Jr.] ...confronted Randal [sic] with a twenty-count indictment.
Count One [was] based on the general theft statute - with information, once again, alleged to be the "thing of value" stolen.
For sentencing purposes... the value of the information ... was up to $70,000...
**The information was not classified. It did not compromise any investigator, investigation, or investigative method.**
It Appears That Karl Rove Is In Serious Trouble
[United States District Court Judge Richard Story said at Randel’s sentencing] …that he [Randel] surely must have appreciated the risks in leaking DEA information. "Anything that would affect the security of officers and of the operations of the agency would be of tremendous concern, I think, to any law-abiding citizen in this country."
Judge Story acknowledged that Randel’s leak did not appear to put lives at risk, nor to jeopardize any DEA investigations. But he also pointed out that Randel "could not have completely and fully known that in the position that [he] held."
[Judge Story said] "for any person with the agency to take it upon himself to leak information poses a tremendous risk; and that’s what, to me, makes this a particularly serious offense."
United States Code
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 31 - EMBEZZLEMENT AND THEFT
Section 641. Public money, property or records
Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or
Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; but if the value of such property does not exceed the sum of $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
The word ''value'' means face, par, or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.
So there is a precedent. One from this Administration no less.
Apparently she was deep enough undercover for the President to use the phrase “a criminal action.”
Also, from the CIA:
[30 January 2004](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/plame.cia.letter.pdf)
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
The letter explicitly states the affair is about the “disclosure … of the identity of an employee operating undercover.” It could just as easily said and employee who “operated undercover” and been more vague.
This letter makes it clear that CIA “subject matter experts” investigated the matter and decided to refer it to the FBI for a criminal investigation. So, apparently it’s possible that a crime has been committed.