# Rove treason coverup investigation widens to include Gonzalez **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 25, 2005, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-treason-coverup-investigation-widens-to-include-gonzalez/314039 "2005-07-25T12:57:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2005, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-treason-coverup-investigation-widens-to-include-gonzalez/314039/21 "2005-07-25T16:40:23Z")
> [@Evil One](#): > > Feel free to haunt me with this post in the future if possible, but “Rovegate” Will turn out to be nothing more than liberal porn. Keep dreaming, bubelah. I understand how hard it must be. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2005, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-treason-coverup-investigation-widens-to-include-gonzalez/314039/22 "2005-07-25T16:41:41Z")
I agree that it is indeed treason. It is treason to give enemy forces the location and makep of defensive forces, because doing so endangers US government agents, namely the soldiers. Similarly, to blow the cover of a secret agent endangers that agent’s life plus that of his/her family. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2005, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-treason-coverup-investigation-widens-to-include-gonzalez/314039/23 "2005-07-25T16:44:30Z")
Although she _was_ a covert agent (whose exposure can definitely _lead_ to the exposing of sources’ names, by association) Plame wasn’t a source. God, I’m starting to parse sentences like Rove! > [@Little Nemo](#): > > _“I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.”_ - I think President Bush will have a hard time denouncing this quote. It was said by his father when he was President. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2005, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-treason-coverup-investigation-widens-to-include-gonzalez/314039/24 "2005-07-25T16:52:47Z")
> [@Evil One](#): > > You’re right. If Rove is found guilty of perjury, for example, we can excuse him. We can say that he’s doing a good job otherwise and that the stink is being raised for no good reason by people who don’t like him anyway. You will be delighted to observe our absolute consistency as this goes along. (BTW: Can you show me where someone was convicted of perjury? I hadn’t heard about that…) We will continue to say the same things we said about Clinton: \* Context Matters. The details matter. What the lie was about matters. What the results of the lies are matters. \* Lying about sex is completely unimportant. Laughably. We said exactly this then, and we say exactly this now. Will you and your ilk be as consistent in your views? Quite obviously not. For you and your ilk, truth, honor, integrity…even reality itself is molded to suit what you need in the moment. I understand, if revile, the motives of the people who are actually in power. What is it \* you \*, and other regular Joes like you are after that is worth that kind of sacrifice, I cannot begin to imagine. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2005, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-treason-coverup-investigation-widens-to-include-gonzalez/314039/25 "2005-07-25T17:42:51Z")
It looks like Rove violated the law against revealing the identity of a covert CIA operative, sure, although it’s hard to be sure. He certainly blew her cover, but it isn’t clear that he violated the law when doing so. You seem sure that violating that law would be treason. But it isn’t treason, no matter how much you wish it was. Again, blowing the cover of a CIA agent isn’t treason, ladyfoxfyre posted the definition of treason. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. Did Rove levy war against the US? No. Did he adhere to the Enemies of the US, giving them Aid and Comfort? No. Therefore, he didn’t commit treason. Open and shut case. You could argue that what he did was treason by the everyday definition of treason, but it certainly wasn’t legally treasonous. Do you really want to use Ann Coulter’s definition of treason? Is that the precedent you want to set? Or would you rather argue that Ann Coulter is an idiot, and that Rove violated the law for partisan purposes but it wasn’t treason? In other words, the only way Karl Rove is guilty of treason is if Ann Coulter is right. Sure it might be satisfying to attempt to judge Karl Rove by the same standards we imagine he might judge others, however that doesn’t make either case right. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2005, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-treason-coverup-investigation-widens-to-include-gonzalez/314039/26 "2005-07-25T17:52:42Z")
> [@Little Nemo](#): > > _“I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.”_ - I think President Bush will have a hard time denouncing this quote. It was said by his father when he was President. Not to imply anything, but did you have a reliable cite for this? I ask because I am reminded of the “atheists aren’t citizens” quote also attributed to Bush Sr., but which to my knowledge has not been independently confirmed. Regards, Shodan ---
**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 25, 2005, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-treason-coverup-investigation-widens-to-include-gonzalez/314039/27 "2005-07-25T17:57:10Z")
Saying nothing will happen to the leakers is truly missing the point, the fact remains that what the left and the Democrats said about the Bush administration was the truth and the failings of it are just popping out in the open (WMD, torture, misguided war against terror actions, rotten picks for cabinet positions (good bye Mr. Bolton!)), if it becomes reality that very little will happen to the leakers then it becomes a common shame for the entire Republican party, IOW: that is the recipe for making an administration lame 3 years ahead of time. If you don’t think so, look at what happened to the Bolton nomination. And indeed like \*\*Stoid \*\* mentions, this scandal exists in the context of the manipulation of the intelligence to gets us to Iraq, this scandal is only a piece of the puzzle. Recently the New Yorker found evidence that torture was one of the reasons FALSE connections between Saddam to Al-qeada were found, together with the false yellow cake report, cuddling to criminals for intelligence like Chalabi, the OSP, and the Downing street minutes, if not treason, what we have here is gross incompetence, choose your poison. The fact remains that if this had been the Clinton administration 4 or more independent investigations and hearings would have happened already. The charge of hypocrisy launched against the Republican Party is a valid one. ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2005, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-treason-coverup-investigation-widens-to-include-gonzalez/314039/28 "2005-07-25T18:01:34Z")
[http://www.cia.gov/cia/public\_affairs/speeches/1999/bush\_speech\_042699.html](http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/1999/bush_speech_042699.html) > [@Shodan](#): > > Not to imply anything, but did you have a reliable cite for this? I ask because I am reminded of the “atheists aren’t citizens” quote also attributed to Bush Sr., but which to my knowledge has not been independently confirmed. > > Regards, > Shodan ---
**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 25, 2005, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-treason-coverup-investigation-widens-to-include-gonzalez/314039/29 "2005-07-25T18:02:04Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Not to imply anything, but did you have a reliable cite for this? I ask because I am reminded of the “atheists aren’t citizens” quote also attributed to Bush Sr., but which to my knowledge has not been independently confirmed. > > Regards, > Shodan The CIA to the rescue again: [http://www.cia.gov/cia/public\_affairs/speeches/1999/bush\_speech\_042699.html](http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/1999/bush_speech_042699.html) > [@](#): > > Remarks By George Bush > 41st President of the United States, > At the Dedication Ceremony for the George Bush Center for Intelligence > > 26 April 1999 > > … > > Even though I’m a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2005, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-treason-coverup-investigation-widens-to-include-gonzalez/314039/30 "2005-07-25T18:03:24Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > giving them Aid and Comfort? No. Therefore, he didn’t commit treason. You don’t think blowing an agent’s cover is giving aid and comfort? I beg to differ. > [@](#): > > Do you really want to use Ann Coulter’s definition of treason? Did someone die and make her queen? She’s about as un-credible as one can get. Who cares what loony Ann says? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2005, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-treason-coverup-investigation-widens-to-include-gonzalez/314039/31 "2005-07-25T18:12:57Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > You will be delighted to observe our absolute consistency as this goes along. That would make a nice change. Unless by “absolute consistency” you mean “It doesn’t count for a Democrat”, then, yes, I expect you will continue to be consistent. > [@Stoid](#): > > - Context Matters. The details matter. What the lie was about matters. What the results of the lies are matters. \* I see. So, if it cannot be shown that anyone actually died, then the whole matter becomes completely trivial and you will drop it at once. Right, oh model of consistency? > [@Lemur88](#): > > Another thing. > > Can we please stop with the “hypocracy” card? Nope. You think only one side gets to play that game? 'Fraid not. We’ve seen **Evil Captor** being fairly upfront that he would like to change the subject everytime he gets caught in a contradiction. You wanna let him get away with it? Feel free. We had eight years of the Most Ethical White House in History[sup]TM[/sup] shoveling out the shit, and the Usual Suspects lapping it up like rosewater. Now all of a sudden I’m supposed to pretend they have any right to the moral high ground? Not Gonna Happen. Sorry. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2005, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-treason-coverup-investigation-widens-to-include-gonzalez/314039/32 "2005-07-25T18:13:37Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > You don’t think blowing an agent’s cover is giving aid and comfort? I beg to differ. > > Did someone die and make her queen? She’s about as un-credible as one can get. Who cares what loony Ann says? I don’t think you’re getting the full lameness of Lemur’s argument. Here it is in a nutshell: Ann Coulter says giving aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime is treason. Therefore, any citizen who has ever challenged the rationale for war or the justness of a war after the fact is committing treason. We now say that outing a CIA agent is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Therefore, challenging the rationale for war equals outing a CIA agent. There aren’t enough rolleyes in the world … ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2005, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-treason-coverup-investigation-widens-to-include-gonzalez/314039/33 "2005-07-25T18:16:46Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You think only one side gets to play that game? 'Fraid not. We’ve seen **Evil Captor** being fairly upfront that he would like to change the subject everytime he gets caught in a contradiction. You wanna let him get away with it? Feel free. An attempted hijack and a gratuitous swipe at me, all in one go. WTG Shodan! ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2005, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-treason-coverup-investigation-widens-to-include-gonzalez/314039/34 "2005-07-25T18:18:22Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The CIA to the rescue again: > [http://www.cia.gov/cia/public\_affairs/speeches/1999/bush\_speech\_042699.html](http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/1999/bush_speech_042699.html) Thanks. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2005, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-treason-coverup-investigation-widens-to-include-gonzalez/314039/35 "2005-07-25T19:05:48Z")
Treason or not, can we at least agree that revealing top secret information (such as, oh, the identity of a covert agent) is the kind of crime that should be rewarded by having the criminal sent to a federal pound-you-in-the-ass prison? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2005, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-treason-coverup-investigation-widens-to-include-gonzalez/314039/36 "2005-07-25T19:35:43Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > I don’t think you’re getting the full lameness of Lemur’s argument. > > Here it is in a nutshell: > > Ann Coulter says giving aid and comfort to the enemy in wartime is treason. Therefore, any citizen who has ever challenged the rationale for war or the justness of a war after the fact is committing treason. > > We now say that outing a CIA agent is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. > > Therefore, challenging the rationale for war equals outing a CIA agent. > > There aren’t enough rolleyes in the world … Hmm, not exactly. OK, scroll up a bit. Treason isn’t “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.” If that were the definition of treason, then anything that harms the war or helps the enemy would be treason. I don’t think you’ve actually read the quote from the Constitution, so I’m gonna repeat it for the third time: > [@](#): > > Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. If “giving the enemy aid and comfort” were the standard, then we could lock up just about anyone. Maybe Al Qaida was aided and comforted by outing Valerie Plame, although as far as I know no one has alleged any actual harm to the United States or help to Al Qaida. But even if outing Valerie Plame’s secret identity got people killed and ruined hundreds of sources and jeopardized the war, it still wouldn’t be treason. Why? Read the constitution. Unless he “adhered to the Enemies” of the US, he didn’t commit treason. He didn’t give the information to an enemy of the US, he gave it to American journalists. Publishing or leaking secret information isn’t treason. It may violate other laws, it may be grounds to revoke someone’s security clearance, it may be grounds to kick someone out of government service forever, it may be grounds for disgrace and ignomy, it may mark the leaker as a petty vindictive asshole who would compromise the safety of the US for partisan advantage (or it might mark the leaker as a brave steadfast whistleblower) (bonus points of you can identify which category I believe Karl Rove should be place in). But it isn’t and shouldn’t be treason. The point of the Ann Coulter reference was to point out that just because some idiots think treason is any old thing that hurts the US and helps the “enemy” that doesn’t make it so. Decide what YOU think treason should be, and argue for that. I know, it is sport to see the engineer hoist on his own petard. But see, that’s Karl Rove thinking. Honestly, you don’t care much about the Plame affair, you’re really pissed at Rove and Bush for 99 other things, it’s just that in the current scandal it appears that Rove actually broke this obscure law. Why do I say the law is obscure? How many other people have been indicted and convicted under the law since it was enacted? And I don’t agree that rape should be the punishment, even if someone did commit treason, even if revealing that information was a crime. Revealing secret information isn’t even a crime in many cases, just a career-ender. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2005, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-treason-coverup-investigation-widens-to-include-gonzalez/314039/37 "2005-07-25T19:38:05Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > The dislcosure of that clasified info may be a lot of things, but I don’t think it rises to the level of treason. Coulter-style treason maybe, but real treason, no. For _real_ style treason, Rove’d have to be involved in the yellowcake forgery, Iran, AIPAC, Ghorbanifar affair. Has the President, or McClellan assured us that he wasn’t yet? 😉 ---
**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 25, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-treason-coverup-investigation-widens-to-include-gonzalez/314039/38 "2005-07-25T19:52:46Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Revealing secret information isn’t even a crime in many cases, just a career-ender. > **[FindLaw Legal Blogs - FindLaw](https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/)** > > Get the latest legal news and information, and learn more about laws that impact your everyday life by visiting FindLaw Legal Blogs. > [@](#): > > The Jonathan Randel Leak Prosecution Precedent > > I am referring to the prosecution and conviction of Jonathan Randel. Randel was a Drug Enforcement Agency analyst, a PhD in history, working in the Atlanta office of the DEA. Randel was convinced that British Lord Michael Ashcroft (a major contributor to Britain’s Conservative Party, as well as American conservative causes) was being ignored by DEA, and its investigation of money laundering. (Lord Ashcroft is based in South Florida and the off-shore tax haven of Belize.) > > Randel leaked the fact that Lord Ashcroft’s name was in the DEA files, and this fact soon surfaced in the London news media. Ashcroft sued, and learned the source of the information was Randel. Using his clout, soon Ashcroft had the U.S. Attorney in pursuit of Randel for his leak. > > By late February 2002, the Department of Justice indicted Randel for his leaking of Lord Ashcroft’s name. It was an eighteen count “kitchen sink” indictment; they threw everything they could think of at Randel. Most relevant for Karl Rove’s situation, Court One of Randel’s indictment alleged a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641. This is a law that prohibits theft (or conversion for one’s own use) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes. But its broad language covers leaks, and it has now been used to cover just such actions. > > Randel, faced with a life sentence (actually, 500 years) if convicted on all counts, on the advice of his attorney, pleaded guilty to violating Section 641. On January 9, 2003, Randel was sentenced to a year in a federal prison, followed by three years probation. This sentence prompted the U.S. Attorney to boast that the conviction of Randel made a good example of how the Bush Administration would handle leakers. > > The Randel Precedent – If Followed – Bodes Ill For Rove > > Karl Rove may be able to claim that he did not know he was leaking “classified information” about a “covert agent,” but there can be no question he understood that what he was leaking was “sensitive information.” The very fact that Matt Cooper called it “double super secret background” information suggests Rove knew of its sensitivity, if he did not know it was classified information (which by definition is sensitive). > > United States District Court Judge Richard Story’s statement to Jonathan Randel, at the time of sentencing, might have an unpleasant ring for Karl Rove. Judge Story told Randel that he 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,” the judge observed. Judge Story concluded this leak of sensitive information was “a very serious crime.” BTW, just in the faint chance that you are putting the leakers in the category of whistleblowers: they can only be if they did blow on Jeff Gannon’s whistle. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2005, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-treason-coverup-investigation-widens-to-include-gonzalez/314039/39 "2005-07-25T20:17:10Z")
Thought [this](http://www.factcheck.org/article337.html) might be helpful as generally [Factcheck.org](http://Factcheck.org) is pretty reliable: > [@](#): > > Summary > > The disclosure of CIA agent Valerie Wilson’s identity has triggered a partisan blame game complete with distortions and misstatements by both sides. Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said the agent’s husband Joe Wilson falsely claimed Vice President Cheney authorized his trip to Africa – a claim Wilson never actually made. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said on the floor of the Senate that the leak “put this agent’s life in jeopardy,” a claim for which no evidence has surfaced. > > Here we won’t attempt to debunk every false or misleading claim. We thought our readers would be better served by a timeline documenting what is publicly known so far, with citations for each fact and links to original source whenever possible. > > We have no idea whether Karl Rove or anybody else has broken the law, something that can only be decided by a judge and jury should any charges ever be brought. Some information remains classified, and we can’t know what facts the special prosecutor may have turned up, as they are protected by grand-jury secrecy. New bits and pieces seem to surface almost daily. > > Here is what we know so far: > [@Evil Captor](#): > > Lying about Niger yellowcake While I was there I figured I’d post Factchecks take on this, just because I’m sick of seeing this yellowcake thing. From [Factcheck](http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html): > [@](#): > > Bush’s “16 Words” on Iraq & Uranium: He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn’t Lying > Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address. > > July 26, 2004 > Modified: August 23, 2004 > eMail to a friend Printer Friendly Version > > Summary > > The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain. > > Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did. > > A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.” > A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke. > Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger . > Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA’s conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium. > None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech. > > But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that’s not the same as lying. -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2005, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-treason-coverup-investigation-widens-to-include-gonzalez/314039/40 "2005-07-25T20:24:48Z")
Crap, I meant to post the actual timeline (or some of it anway so as not to violate the rules of the board) but somehow it got chopped off: > [@](#): > > October 15, 2001 – US intelligence agencies become aware of reports from the Italian intelligence service of a supposed agreement between Iraq and Niger for the sale of uranium yellowcake. The State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research considers the report “highly suspect” because the French control Niger ’s uranium industry. The CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the Department of Energy consider a uranium deal “possible.” (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 36, July 2004). > > October 18, 2001 – The CIA writes a report titled, Iraq: Nuclear-Related Procurement Efforts. It quotes many of the Italian report’s claims, but adds that the report of a completed deal is not corroborated by any other sources. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 36-37, July 2004). > > February 5, 2002 – The CIA’s Directorate of Operations – the clandestine branch that employed Valerie Wilson – issues a second report including “verbatim text” of an agreement, supposedly signed July 5-6, 2000 for the sale of 500 tons of uranium yellowcake per year. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 37, July 2004). > > February 12, 2002 – The Defense Intelligence Agency writes a report concluding “Iraq is probably searching abroad for natural uranium to assist in its nuclear weapons program.” Vice President Cheney reads this report and asks for the CIA’s analysis. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 38-39, July 2004). > > Responding to inquiries from Cheney’s office, the State Department, and the Defense Department, the CIA’s Directorate of Operations’ Counterproliferation Division (CPD) look for more information. They consider having Wilson return to Niger to investigate. In the process, Valerie Wilson writes a memo to a superior saying, “My husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” One of Valerie Wilson’s colleagues later tells Senate investigators she “offered up his name” for the trip. Wilson says that her agency made the decision and she only later approached her husband on the CIA’s behalf. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 39, July 2004). > > February 19, 2002 – Joseph Wilson meets with officials from CIA and the State Department. According to a State Department intelligence analyst’s notes, the meeting was convened by Valerie Wilson. She later testifies that she left the meeting after introducing her husband. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 40, July 2004). > > February 26, 2002 – Wilson arrives in Niger . He concludes, after a few days of interviews, that “it was highly unlikely that anything was going on.” (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 42, July 2004). > > March 5, 2002 –Wilson reports back to two CIA officers at his home. Valerie Wilson is present but does not participate. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 43, July 2004). > > March 8-9, 2002 – An intelligence report of Wilson ’s trip is sent through routine channels, identifying Wilson only as “a contact with excellent access who does not have an established reporting record.” (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 43-44, July 2004). The CIA grades Wilson ’s information as “good,” the middle of five possible grades. Cheney is not directly briefed about the report. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 46, July 2004). > > September 24, 2002 – The British government issues a public dossier saying, “[T]here is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” ( British Govt. Report 25, Sept. 2002). The Washington Post reports later that the CIA tried unsuccessfully to get the British to omit these claims. (" Bush, Rice blame CIA ,” July 2003). > > October 1, 2002 – The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) – a summary of intelligence assessments for policymakers – says “a foreign government service” reported that Niger planned to send several tons of “pure uranium” to Iraq , possibly up to 500 tons a year. “We do not know the status of this arrangement,” the NIE says, according to a later declassified version released by the White House. In the NIE, State Department intelligence officials caution that African uranium claims are “highly dubious.” ( Background WMD Briefing by Senior Administration Official ). > > January 28, 2003 – Bush’s State of the Union Address includes this 16-word sentence: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. ” (Transcript of “ State of the Union" ). > > March 7, 2003 – The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – the international body that monitors nuclear proliferation – tells the UN Security Council that, after a “thorough analysis” with “concurrence of outside experts,” that the Italian documents— “which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger—are in fact not authentic.” ( Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq… , March 2003). > > March 19, 2003 – President Bush announces the start of the Iraq war in a televised address, saying it is “to disarm Iraq , to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.” (Bush, “ Addresses the Nation" ). > > Spring 2003 –Valerie Wilson is in the process of moving from non-official to official, State Department cover, according to a later Vanity Fair article based on interviews with the Wilsons . ( Vanity Fair , January 2004). > > May 2003 – Joseph Wilson begins advising the Kerry campaign on foreign policy issues. ( White House expects calls… ,” USA Today, October 2003). > > May 6, 2003 – A New York Times columnist writes the first account of Wilson’ s trip, but not naming him: “I’m told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president’s office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger . In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong.” (" Missing In Action: Truth, ” New York Times, Op-ed, May 2003). > > June 2003 – State Department intelligence officials reportedly prepare a memo on the Niger affair mentioning Wilson ’s trip to Niger and Valerie Wilson’s role in selecting her husband for the mission. The exact date is uncertain. The memo does not identify Valerie Wilson or her status as a covert agent. According to one account, the memo was classified and the paragraph containing information about Valerie Wilson was marked with “(S)” to indicate that the information was classified at the “secret” level. The CIA applies this level of classification to the identities of covert officers, according to the Washington Post. (“ State Dept. memo gets scrutiny… ,” New York Times, July 16, 2005; “ Probe Centers on Rove, Memo, Phone Calls, ” [Bloomberg.com](http://Bloomberg.com), July 18, 2005; “ Plame’s Identity Marked as Secret, ” Washington Post, July 21, 2005). > > June 12, 2003 – A Washington Post article quotes an “envoy” (Wilson ) as saying that the “dates were wrong and the names were wrong” on the Italian document determined to be forged by the IAEA. (" CIA Did Not Share Doubt…, ” Washington Post, June 2003). Wilson later tells the Senate Intelligence Committee that he may have “misspoken” to reporters, thinking he had seen the documents himself, rather than reading about them secondhand. (Senate Intelligence Cmte., Iraq 44). > > July 6, 2003 – Wilson publishes " What I didn’t find in Africa" in The New York Times, identifying himself for the first time as the unnamed “envoy.” He writes, “I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq 's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.” Wilson does not mention that he learned there was a possibility Iraq had sought uranium during a 1999 trade meeting with Niger ’s former Prime Minister. > > Contrary to later statements by White House officials, Wilson does not claim that Cheney sent him on the Niger trip, only that he was sent to answer questions from Cheney’s “office.” He also doesn’t claim that Cheney was told of his findings, only that it would be “standard operating procedure” for the CIA to brief Cheney’s office on the results of his mission. (Wilson, " What I didn’t find, New York Times July 6, 2003). > > July 7, 2003 –Secretary of State Colin Powell, aboard Air Force One, reportedly receives a copy of the State Department memo prepared in June about the purported Niger-Iraq uranium deal, which mentions Valerie Wilson’s role in her husband’s trip, according to later media reports. (" State Dept. memo gets scrutiny…" New York Times , July 2005; " Memo Underscored … Shielding Plame’s Identity ,” Wall Street Journal , July 2005; " Memo Eyed in CIA Leak Probe, ” AP, July 2005). > > July 7, 2003 – White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer retracts the 16-word yellowcake claim from the State of the Union address, calling the President’s statement “incorrect.” ( White House Press Gaggle, July 7 2003) . > > July 8, 2003 – Columnist Robert Novak calls senior White House adviser Karl Rove, according to subsequent media accounts. Novak tells Rove he had heard that Joseph Wilson’s wife, who worked for the CIA, played a role in Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger. Rove confirms the story to Novak without mentioning Valerie Wilson’s name or covert status, saying “I heard that, too.” ( Rove … Talk on C.I.A. Officer, NY Times, July 2003). Novak will later write that he originally acquired the information from an official who is “no partisan gunslinger.” Novak says, “When I called another official for confirmation, he said: ‘Oh, you know about it.’” (Novak, " CIA Leak" Chicago Sun-Times, Oct 2003). > > July 11, 2003 –Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper calls Rove, who cautions him to be careful of Wilson’s story, “‘Don’t get too far out on Wilson ,’ he told me,” Cooper later writes. Rove tells Cooper that Wilson’s wife works for the CIA on “WMD” (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and that it was she, not Cheney or the CIA’s director, who was “responsible” for sending Wilson to Africa. “Rove never used her name…indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week,” Cooper later recalls adding, “Rove never once indicated to me that she had any kind of covert status." Cooper says Rove ends the call saying “I’ve already said too much.” > > Cooper also says he earlier had talked to Cheney’s Chief of Staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, about the story. “I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson 's wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, ‘Yeah, I’ve heard that too,’ or words to that effect. Like Rove, Libby never used Valerie Plame’s name or indicated that her status was covert.” (Matthew Cooper, " What I told the Grand Jury, ” Time, July 2005). > > July 11, 2003 – Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet concedes in a statement that the State of the Union claims about Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa were a mistake and that the “16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.” ( Tenet Statement, July 2003). > > July 12, 2003 – Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus is told by an administration official that that White House had ignored Joseph Wilson’s 2002 trip to Niger because it was a “boondoggle” set up by his wife. (" Anonymous Sources, ” Nieman Reports 27, Summer 2005). Pincus did not report his conversation because, as he would later describe, “Plame’s name was never mentioned and the purpose of the disclosure did not appear to be to generate an article, but rather to undermine Wilson 's report.” (" Probe Focuses on Month Before Leak, ” Washington Post, October 2003). > > July 14, 2003 – Robert Novak’s " Mission to Niger" column is published. This is the first published mention of Joseph Wilson’s wife’s name, her employment at the CIA, and her role in his trip to Niger. In the sixth of ten paragraphs, Novak writes, “Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson 's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him.” The column does not describe her as a covert agent, then, but it does name her as “Valerie Plame” – her maiden and cover name. Novak gives conflicting accounts of whether Mrs. Wilson instigated her husband’s trip or was asked by others to do so. (Novak, " The Mission to Niger, ” Chicago Sun-Times, July 2003). > > July 14-17, 2003 – Newsday’s Washington bureau chief, Timothy Phelps, tells Joseph Wilson “that he had heard from the CIA that what Novak reported vis-à-vis Valerie’s employment was not incorrect,” according to Wilson’s memoir. “I declined to be drawn into a confirmation even then,” Wilson would later recall. ( Wilson, Politics 348) . > > July 16, 2003 – Wilson speaks about his conversation about Novak’s column with David Corn, Washington bureau chief for the liberal magazine The Nation. According to what Corn writes on his blog at [thenation.com](http://thenation.com), Wilson says, “Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career.” Corn says Wilson is still “known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm.” (" A White House Smear ,” The Nation, July 2003; Wilson, Politics, 349 ). Corn’s entry is the first instance where someone alleges publicly that the release of Valerie Plame’s name disclosed the identity of a covert agent. > > July 17, 2003 – Time publishes online “ A War on Wilson? ” by Cooper and others, the first time Time names Mrs. Wilson. Cooper quotes, “government officials” as saying “that Wilson 's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband’s being dispatched Niger [sic] to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein’s government had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium ore.” (Matt Cooper, " A War on Wilson? ,” Time, July 2003). > > July 22, 2003 – In an article headlined “Columnist Blows CIA Agent’s Cover,” Newsday publishes a story as saying, based in part on Wilson ’s assertions, that senior administration officials “violated the law and may have endangered her (Mrs. Wilson’s) career and possibly the lives of her contacts in foreign countries.” The newspaper says Wilson wouldn’t confirm that his wife was a covert agent. (“Columnist Blows CIA Agent’s Cover, ” Newsday, July 2003). > > July 30, 2003 – The CIA sends a letter to the Criminal Division of the Justice Department noting “a possible violation of criminal law concerning the unauthorized disclosure of classified information,” according to a letter from the CIA’s Director of Congressional Affairs. (CIA, Letter to John Conyers ). > > August 21, 2003 – Wilson, speaking at a public panel discussion, said he was interested in seeing Karl Rove “frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs” after hearing from reporters that Rove had called his wife “fair game.” (Wilson, Politics 372-4; 351). > > September 16, 2003 – The CIA sends another letter to Justice requesting that the FBI undertake a criminal investigation. (Wilson, Politics 359). > > September 16, 2003 – White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan dismisses the idea that Karl Rove was Novak’s anonymous source as “totally ridiculous." ( White House Press Briefing, Sept. 16, 2003 ). > > September 29, 2003 – McClellan says he has spoken to Rove, denies that Rove was involved in the leak, and says, “If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the leak], they would no longer be in this administration.” ( White House Press Briefing, Sept. 29, 2003) . In a letter sent to Representative John Conyers on January 30, 2004 , the CIA will confirm that its Counterespionage Section has asked the FBI to initiate an investigation. ( Letter to Rep. John Conyers from the CIA) . > > September 30, 2003 – The Justice Department publicly announces an official criminal investigation. Commenting, Bush says, “And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.” (" President discusses job creation, ” U. of Chicago, Sept. 30, 2003 ). > > September 30, 2003 – Wilson endorses Senator John Kerry for president. (“ Man … With an Independent Streak, ” Washington Post, October 1, 2003 ). > > December 30, 2003 – Facing allegations of bias, Attorney General Ashcroft recuses himself from the investigation and U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald takes over the investigation as a special prosecutor. (" Ashcroft Recuses Self … ” Washington Post, 31 December 2003 ). > > May 21, 2004 – Time’s Cooper is subpoenaed for the grand jury investigation. Time says it will fight the subpoenas. (" Reporters Subpoenaed … " Wash. Post, May 2004). > > June 10, 2004 – Bush is asked by a reporter, “[D]o you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have [who leaked the agent’s name]?” Bush replies, “Yes. And that’s up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.” ( President Bush Press Conference Following G-8 Summit, Savannah, GA, June 10, 2004). > > June 24, 2004 – Prosecutors question President Bush, who is not under oath, in the Oval Office for over an hour. (" Bush Interviewed… ” Washington Post, June 25, 2004) . > > August 12, 2004 – New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who did not write a story identifying Valerie Wilson, is subpoenaed by the grand jury. (" NY Times reporter subpoenaed… ” AP, Aug. 2004). > > November 2, 2004 – Bush wins re-election. > > October 15, 2004 – Rove testifies before a federal grand jury for two hours. Fitzgerald assures Rove that he is not a target of the probe. (" Rove Testifies … ” Washington Post, Oct. 2004). > > June 27, 2005 – The Supreme Court declines to hear the appeal of Judith Miller of The New York Times and Cooper of Time, leaving standing a lower court’s ruling that they must testify to a federal grand jury. (" Reporters Lose … ” Washington Post, June 28, 2005 ). > > July 1, 2005 – Over Cooper’s objections, Time Inc. turns over subpoenaed material. Time managing editor Norm Pearlstine tells CNN that journalists “regularly point a finger at people who think they’re above the law,” and “I’m not comfortable being one of them myself.” (" Time Magazine … ” [CNN.com](http://CNN.com), June 30, 2005 ). > > July 6, 2005 – Miller, still refusing to testify before the grand jury, is jailed for contempt of court. (" ’Time’ Reporter to Testify … ” [USAToday.com](http://USAToday.com), July 6, 2005).Cooper says he receives last-minute permission from his confidential source, Karl Rove, to testify. (Matthew Cooper, " What I told the Grand Jury, ” Time, July 2005). > > July 18, 2005 – Bush – easing off his earlier statement to fire anyone who leaked – says “if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.” ( Bush Press Conference with Prime Minister of India, July 18, 2005) . His press secretary Scott McClellan declines to say whether a firing would be triggered by an indictment or would require a conviction. ( White House Press Briefing, July 18, 2005 ). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-treason-coverup-investigation-widens-to-include-gonzalez/314039.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rove-treason-coverup-investigation-widens-to-include-gonzalez/314039.md?page=3)