Lawrence O'Donnel goes on record: Rove was the Plame leak. Rove lawyer denies it.

[Ladewig]

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=2155Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's remarks on the McLaughlin Group :

"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury, the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.

"And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000972855
NEW YORK An attorney for Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, confirmed to the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times on Saturday that his client did speak with Time magazine's Matthew Cooper in July 2003. But the lawyer said Rove never identified Valerie Plame as a CIA operative to Cooper in those conversations.

The attorney, Robert Luskin said that Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the Plame case, assured him in October and again last week that Rove is not a target of his investigation.

"Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn't disclose Valerie Plame's identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else," Luskin told the Post's Carol D. Leonnig. Luskin said the question remains unanswered: "Who outed this woman? ... It wasn't Karl."

[kimiko]

"The suspense is terrible - I hope it will last." -Willy Wonka ;)

[Upchurch]

Assuming it's true, the biggest surprise to me is that they were able to trace it so high up in the Bush administration. That it came from within the White House was almost a given.

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and predict that the same people who called for charges to be brought against Deep Throat are going to be standing up Karl Rove. (again, if all this is true.)

[WildCat]

Are political advisors normally given access to top secret material? If so, is that legal? It certainly seems inappropriate.

[WildCat]

The attorney, Robert Luskin said that Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the Plame case, assured him in October and again last week that Rove is not a target of his investigation.
That's exactly what Fitzgerald told former Illinois Gov. George Ryans' attorney. Right before he indicted him on corruption charges.

[varwoche]

Bush is already feeling the pressure of his flagging popularity. This is optimal timing (depending on perspective) for a good kick to the presidential groin, in terms of the looming scotus confrontation.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by WildCat
Are political advisors normally given access to top secret material? If so, is that legal? It certainly seems inappropriate.

Are you talking about Rove? Rove is an employee of the government and assigned as is Bush's chief of staff. As such, he is cleared for all levels of classification. Certain restrictions apply.

I don't know if he did it or not but I'm going to be very surprised if they can prove he did. I'd be further surprised if, assuming they can prove it, they can win a legal case against him. The political case is easy.

[varwoche]

Some supporting evidence... Rove spoke to Time reporter Matthew Cooper in July 2003, during the week before published reports revealed the identity of operative Valerie Plame, the wife of Bush administration critic and former U.S. envoy Joseph Wilson. article (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3250943)

[crackmonkey]

How does that support the contention that Rove divulged Plame's identity? The reporter also talked to other sources around the same time - so I guess that would be considered exculpatory evidence, huh?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
How does that support the contention that Rove divulged Plame's identity? The reporter also talked to other sources around the same time - so I guess that would be considered exculpatory evidence, huh?

It is evidence that it could have been Rove, not evidence that it was. Politically, for the time being, that's good enough. Legally, they've got a long way to go.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
How does that support the contention that Rove divulged Plame's identity? The reporter also talked to other sources around the same time - so I guess that would be considered exculpatory evidence, huh? It's so obvious (to me) that I'm not sure how to explain. Maybe where you and I use the word "evidence" you are thinking "proof".

It is alleged that Rove revealed Plame's name to Cooper.

If Cooper had not communicated with Rove, that would be evidence that the allegation is not true.

Whereas Rove supposedly did communicate with Cooper just prior to the leak, which supports the allegation.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Are you talking about Rove? Rove is an employee of the government and assigned as is Bush's chief of staff. As such, he is cleared for all levels of classification. Certain restrictions apply.

Time restrictions.

Rove was not Bush's deputy chief of staff until Feb 2005. At the time of the Plame leak, Rove was working as "senior advisor and political strategist" and should have had little-to-no access to classified information.

[Regnad Kcin]

People, people... some perspective please. Do you really think any of this is important? I mean, it's not as if anyone got a blowjob.

[Manny]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm going to go way out on a limb here and predict that the same people who called for charges to be brought against Deep Throat are going to be standing up Karl Rove. (again, if all this is true.) Absolutely. And the people who thought that DT's frustrating of an FBI investigation made him a hero will be using the word "treason" to refer to the leaker in this case (and to refer to Rove if they turn out to be two people).

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Time restrictions.

Rove was not Bush's deputy chief of staff until Feb 2005. At the time of the Plame leak, Rove was working as "senior advisor and political strategist" and should have had little-to-no access to classified information.

Why not? Who signed his paychecks? If he was working for Bush in either capacity I can't imagine him not having legal access. If he didn't have legal access, that raises other difficulties. Mostly for the prosecutor.

[crackmonkey]

Rove never denied talking to the reporter. If the fact that he had contact with the reporter 'evidence' of his guilt? Saddam had some contact with Al Qaeda as well... is that considered to be 'evidence' that he was involved with 9/11?
Rove said he never divulged the name, and the reporter contacted several other people. Is this similarly 'evidence' of Rove's innocence?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Rove never denied talking to the reporter. If the fact that he had contact with the reporter 'evidence' of his guilt? Saddam had some contact with Al Qaeda as well... is that considered to be 'evidence' that he was involved with 9/11?
Rove said he never divulged the name, and the reporter contacted several other people. Is this similarly 'evidence' of Rove's innocence?

That would be circumstantial evidence of their guilt as well. But they are not Rove and therefore not news.

When the reporters spill the beans, and I think they will, we'll know.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Rove never denied talking to the reporter. So? That means he never denied the evidence, not that it's not evidence. If [sic?] the fact that he had contact with the reporter 'evidence' of his guilt? Yes. (Assuming the act is a crime to begin with. I've seen varying opinions.) Saddam had some contact with Al Qaeda as well... is that considered to be 'evidence' that he was involved with 9/11? Yes. (Though I find it non-compelling.)
Rove said he never divulged the name, and the reporter contacted several other people. Is this similarly 'evidence' of Rove's innocence? Yes.

However, I assign less weight to the part I underlined, versus the revelation of Rove's contact with Cooper just before the leak. It seems rational (to me) to discount denials of guilt, because this synchs with the behavoir of innocent and guilty people alike.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
That would be circumstantial evidence of their guilt as well. But they are not Rove and therefore not news.

When the reporters spill the beans, and I think they will, we'll know.

More interesting is Time's (the company, not the reporters) take on the matter.

"In surrendering a reporter's notes, TIME Inc.'s top editor says the rule of law trumps the promise of confidentiality. Where does journalism go from here?"

Source (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1079464,00.html)

I have no real opinion on that. But, in doing what they did their reporters are going to have a very, very difficult time every getting another high-level confidential source.

If the reporters gave up their source, they'd be ruined as investagative reporters.

But Time is condeming all it's investagative reporters. Time is condeming itself.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Why not? Who signed his paychecks? If he was working for Bush in either capacity I can't imagine him not having legal access. If he didn't have legal access, that raises other difficulties. Mostly for the prosecutor.

You can't be serious. Some White House jobs come with classified access, and some do not. "Senior advisor and political strategist" generally does not.

If he did not have legal access to Plame's ID then it will be difficult for the prosecutor to convict Rove, (though if Rove was involved he should at minimum never work in government again) but then the Fitzgerald should be looking for the person who committed the crime of revealing Plame's name, shouldn't he? Whether or not it is difficult to determine who leaked to Rove should not dissuade Fitzgerald.

[crimresearch]

If anyone needs evidence of Rove's guilt, look no further:

http://www.pbase.com/image/45612299/medium.jpg

:p

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
You can't be serious. Some White House jobs come with classified access, and some do not. "Senior advisor and political strategist" generally does not.

If he did not have legal access to Plame's ID then it will be difficult for the prosecutor to convict Rove, (though if Rove was involved he should at minimum never work in government again) but then the Fitzgerald should be looking for the person who committed the crime of revealing Plame's name, shouldn't he? Whether or not it is difficult to determine who leaked to Rove should not dissuade Fitzgerald.

I agree with para2 pretty much but I don't buy para1. Why would a Senior Advisor generally not have classified access? I have to ask for confirmation on that one. As a senior advisor to the president he would be either working directly for the government or he would be a contractor for the government. I've done both and held classified clearances during both.

[crackmonkey]

So if talking to a reporter is paramount to evidence of guilt, then it follows that to determine the amount of evidence pointing to the potential felon (if it was indeed a felony, or a crime at all), one must compile a list of all sources the reporter talked to. We should weigh the evidence for guilt against the evidence against. So far, we know that the reporter talked to three sources, one of which was Rove. It looks as if the evidence exculpates him by a 2 to 1 margin.

[Manny]

Heh. By that simplistic analysis the evidence actually works against him by 2-1, as Messrs. Novak and Cooper both had two sources for their stories.

[varwoche]

Efforts to incorrectly infer black/white absolutes into my statements notwithstanding, this is a piece of evidence, to be weighed along with whatever other evidence may or may not exist. At least we're past the whimsical notion that it's not evidence at all.

[crackmonkey]

I suppose this could be considered evidence - of the most trivial kind. Seeing how anyone the reporter spoke to could be the culprit, Rove is just as much of a suspect as anyone else the reporter spoke with or met.
For that metter, there's no evidence that Rove even knew about Plame's past as a CIA agent.
There's also plentiful evidence that the reporter's editor is the culprit. I understand that they spoke on numerous occasions immediately before and after the identity was leaked...

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I suppose this could be considered evidence - of the most trivial kind. Seeing how anyone the reporter spoke to could be the culprit, Rove is just as much of a suspect as anyone else the reporter spoke with or met.
For that metter, there's no evidence that Rove even knew about Plame's past as a CIA agent.
There's also plentiful evidence that the reporter's editor is the culprit. I understand that they spoke on numerous occasions immediately before and after the identity was leaked...

I think you're going off the deep end with some of this.

Rove knew she was an operative. To think not goes a little beyond the pale for me. That doesn't mean he leaked it. I'm thinking he's too smart to leak it and if he did, he wouldn't have testified to the contrary under oath (Rove would have had someone else leak it). But I could be wrong. We keep hearing from the left on what an evil genius he is but maybe in reality he's just an average guy.

But you're right about the editor. But if so, no laws were broken unless you can demonstrate that he got that information in an illegal manner.

[joe1347]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
I think you're going off the deep end with some of this.

Rove knew she was an operative. To think not goes a little beyond the pale for me. That doesn't mean he leaked it. I'm thinking he's too smart to leak it and if he did, he wouldn't have testified to the contrary under oath (Rove would have had someone else leak it).

Agree. I can't believe that Rove was dumb enough to have directly leaked the name. He certainly knows that getting caught disclosing classified info is one of the surest ways that the mightly can be brought down by much weaker opposition. If it was Rove - I would think that he would have at least used some type of third party cutout.

[Manny]

Originally posted by joe1347
Agree. I can't believe that Rove was dumb enough to have directly leaked the name. He certainly knows that getting caught disclosing classified info is one of the surest ways that the mightly can be brought down by much weaker opposition. Let me offer a speculative situation in which he might have.

Suppose that Ms. Plame wasn't all that secret any more. She was -- when she was overseas she had a deep cover. But suppose that back in DC, she's pretty much "out." Introduces herself at dinner parties as a CIA analyst (people do!), has a Langley parking lot permit dangling from her rear-view mirror, etc.

Novak and others want to know, among other things, how it is that Wilson got the Africa gig. Rove says something like, 'Oh, you know his wife Val. She's a big shot over at Langley on WMD stuff and recommended him for the job. So that part makes perfect sense.' Under this scenario Rove may or may not know about Ms. Plame from confidential information but would also know about her from non-confidential sources.

As an alternative, he may have heard her name from someone with access to secret information who blabbed improperly. The first-generation leaker wouldn't have said something like 'this is top-secret information, so keep it under your hat...' he would have just said it, either out of carelessness or out of an erroneous belief that Rove is entitled to the information. Once he has that information, he's got no reason to believe that it was secret because he got it so casually.

Say that Wilson had been recommended for the gig by then-director Tenet or Robert Hutchings from the National Intelligence Council. No one would be accusing anyone of a crime for disclosing that -- everyone knows those guys are with the CIA.

To be clear, I'm merely offering up possibilities above, not my own opinion. There's a lot more we don't know than we do know, and frankly forming an opinion one way or another at this point is a good way to get caught wrong.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by manny
There's a lot more we don't know than we do know, and frankly forming an opinion one way or another at this point is a good way to get caught wrong.

Indeed. There's lots of potential ways this could still play out, and only some of them have Karl Rove as the culprit.

Originally posted by Upchurch
That it came from within the White House was almost a given.

As I pointed out in the other Plame thread, there were two SEPARATE pieces of information in Novak's original story: the first, that Plame was a CIA agent, and the second, that she recommended her husband. Go back and read Novak's original story carefully, and you'll see that Novak puts these two facts in separate sentences, and most critically, he only attributes the second piece of information to white house officials. He gives no indication where he got the first piece of information from - everyone seems to have assumed that Novak said he got it from white house sources, but that's not actually what he said.

Is it possible that Novak learned Plame was a CIA agent from a whitehouse official? Oh yes. Is it a given? No, it most certainly is not. I'm with manny on this one: there's too much we don't know to make any real conclusions yet.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I suppose this could be considered evidence - of the most trivial kind ... Seeing how anyone the reporter spoke to could be the culprit, "The most trivial"? It doesn't take my avatar to cross off the doorman, newstand clerk, mother-in-law, barista, panhandler and other incidental contacts.

And unless you're suggesting there is out-and-out malfeasance on the part of Cooper and Time, the suggestion that his editor could the unnamed source is fairly ludicrous. (As I suspect you know.)

That leaves N people who are actually in a position to know the facts about Plame, a subset of whom might have a motive to leak.

How small would N have to be for the evidence to rise above "the most trivial"?

In top of which, Rove has now been identified by a colleague of Cooper's. (Preemptively, I realize this is heresay. But this isn't court.)

Rob Lister, I'm with you that Time's actions are bizarre.

[crackmonkey]

I suppose it would depend on how big the set N is, and whether Rove is a member. Neither of which is yet known.
So, Rove's speaking to a reporter may be meaningless (if he isn't in the know) or perhaps momentous (if he IS in the know and N is small). Until N is defined numerically and Rove is found to belong to the set, it's pretty damned trivial.

[Skeptic]

I'm going to go way out on a limb here and predict that the same people who called for charges to be brought against Deep Throat are going to be standing up Karl Rove. (again, if all this is true.)

I don't think there should be charges brought against "Deep Throat", but the difference is that he ADMITTED he did it, while Rove DENIES he did it.

Perhaps there should be a formal investigation about it, but I am quite sure you'd defend anybody from being charged with criminal acts because a journalist SAID he is "Deep Throat".

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I don't think there should be charges brought against "Deep Throat", but the difference is that he ADMITTED he did it, while Rove DENIES he did it. My comment was mostly aimed at the grotesquely partisan and hypocritical nature of politics and commentators these days.

However, to my knowledge, there have been a great number of people throughout history who have denied having done things that they actually did do. Bill Clinton, for example, DENIED having an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky. He even did it under oath, which I would think is an even stronger denial. Did that have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not he actually did have such a relationship?

A denial is only relevent if it is a situation of one person's word versus one other person's word in the absense of any other physical or corroborating evidence. If Time's source material contains what it is claimed it contains, there should definitely be an inquery into the situation to see if there is anything to support the claim. Rove's denial is meaningless at this point. For what reason should we take his word on it?
Perhaps there should be a formal investigation about it, but I am quite sure you'd defend anybody from being charged with criminal acts because a journalist SAID he is "Deep Throat". I prefaced (and post-faced) my comments with "if it is true" for a very definite reason.

[corplinx]

I won't mourn Karl Rove being run out of Washington on a rail. He is the guy who keeps Bush anchored the the religious right as his power seat. However, I find this rampant speculation about him being the leak most disturbing. If he wasn't the leaker, then all of this was just slander.

[crimresearch]

And if he was the leaker, then some people on this forum just blew their chance at a million dollars.
:p

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by corplinx
However, I find this rampant speculation about him being the leak most disturbing.Is it speculation? At this point, I believe it is a claim made by Lawrence O'Donnell, and possibly Matt Cooper. Whether or not either of them have the evidence to back that claim has yet to be seen, but it has been promised.

[steinhenge]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
People, people... some perspective please. Do you really think any of this is important? I mean, it's not as if anyone got a blowjob.

This may be the most perfect thing I've ever read on the internet. Thank you.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
People, people... some perspective please. Do you really think any of this is important? I mean, it's not as if anyone got a blowjob.

Well, then why don't we reactivate one of the Jeff Gannon/Guckert threads and speculate about records showing him entering the White House without records showing him leaving the White House?

[varwoche]

An article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20050704/cm_huffpost/003637/nc:742) by O'Donnel about his revelation... Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, had his holiday weekend ruined on Friday when I broke the story that the e-mails that Time delivered to the special prosecutor that afternoon reveal that Karl Rove is the source Matt Cooper has been protecting for two years. The next day, Luskin was forced to open the first hole in the Rove two-year wall of silence about the case. In a huge admission to Newsweek and the Los Angeles Times, Luskin confessed that, well, yes, Rove did talk to Cooper. It is a huge admission in a case where Rove and Luskin have never, before Friday, felt compelled to say a word about Rove's contact with Cooper or anyone else involved in the case.

Luskin then launched what sounds like an I-did-not-inhale defense. He told Newsweek that his client "never knowingly disclosed classified information." Knowingly. That is the most important word Luskin said in what has now become his public version of the Rove defense. As you can see Crackmonkey, O'Donnel attaches significance to Rove's admission of contact with Cooper.

Until O'Donnel's revelation, I had no opinion as to who leaked. Because O'Donnel is (to my knowledge) a respected journalist, I now suspect that it was Rove who revealed Plame's name to Cooper. (No comment on legality.)

Crackmonkey, I'm going to give you an opportunity to demonstrate confidence in your assesment of the evidence as "flimsy". I propose a monetary wager -- the proceeds will go to jref. If you are preliminarily agreeable, we can hammer out the terms here (if permissible under the new, stricter moderation) or else here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57439).

Well?

[davefoc]

I am a little surprised that nobody has noted that this case deals with national security and that other high profile shield law cases generally haven't.

Even strong advocates of journalist shield laws have recognized the necessity for certain exceptions and national security is usually one of those exceptions.

Of course this speculation is to some degree moot because a federal journalist shield law is not in effect, but it is also important to some degree because it is a shield law exception that would probably have overwhelming popular support. Especially as regards a straightforward issue like the identification of a spy.

So, I suspect Time folded its tent because it could see little likelyhood of winning either legal or popular support for not revealing the source in this case. I think the prosecutor is probably feeling like he is in a fairly strong position with the likelyhood of winning both a legal and a popular victory. I would be mighty scared right now if I was those reporters. Even the normal support of fellow journalists that usually surfaces in these cases doesn't seem to be in this case. Could it be, that because most journalists realize that outting spies is a big deal and they are not going to use up personal credibility to protect those who do it?

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by varwoche
Until O'Donnel's revelation, I had no opinion as to who leaked. Because O'Donnel is (to my knowledge) a respected journalist, I now suspect that it was Rove who revealed Plame's name to Cooper. (No comment on legality.)

O'Donnel may be respected, does he actually have a good track record on making early calls? Not that I'm aware of.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121630/
So what, exactly, does O'Donnel have, other than that Cooper and Rove talked? Doesn't seem like he's got anything. And I think even he knows that. Which is why, as Kaus points out in my link above, he himself may be choosing his words carefully: O'Donnel says that Rove is the source Cooper has been protecting, but avoids saying what, exactly, he was the source of. He implies that Rove leaked Plame's identity, but does not say so. So just like with Novak's original phrasing (which so few people seemed to be able to parse correctly as being ambiguous), I'm left with the distinct impression that I'm watching a magic trick: the hand that moves is not the hand that holds the secret.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by davefoc
I am a little surprised that nobody has noted that this case deals with national security and that other high profile shield law cases generally haven't.



Actually I had NOT considered that aspect. Probably because it was reported in such a way cross-media that Plame was really not the 'undercover' operative some where making her out to be; it was common knowledge what she did.

I took that story at face value but your assertion, if true, puts a dent in that story/excuse. A small dent, but a dent. You may be on to something.

[gnome]

I have seen a couple of comparisons to the Deep Throat case here, and I wanted to ask, why anyone thinks they are even remotely similar morally...

In the Plame case it seems as though a Bush administration official leaked the information out of spite for recent criticism of policy.

In the DT case the "anonymous source" was blowing the whistle on criminal wrongdoing. Perhaps spitefully as well, but the fact remains they were uncovering a crime.

How is that the same?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
O'Donnel may be respected, does he actually have a good track record on making early calls? Not that I'm aware of.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121630/ Your link shows that O'Donnel failed to predict election results correctly. If his revelation about Rowe is merely a prediction -- as opposed to a statement based on factual knowledge -- then I will think less of his credibility as a journalist. So what, exactly, does O'Donnel have, other than that Cooper and Rove talked? As I read it, he isn't merely claiming that they talked -- he has strongly inferred, if not stated outright, that Rove is Cooper's source for Plame's identity. O'Donnel has not offered proof that I'm aware of, so all we have for now is his word. (If I were the prosecutor, or on the jury, this would have no weight.)

If later we learn that Rove did not out Plame, but that O'Donnel is correct anyway based on micro-parsing his statement, then again, O'Donnel's credibility will suffer in my view, and I will lose the (not yet accepted) wager.

Doesn't seem like he's got anything. And I think even he knows that. Which is why, as Kaus points out in my link above, he himself may be choosing his words carefully Maybe so. I still suspect Rove, based on O'Donnel's revelation, and if Crackmonkey declines the wager I'll give you first right of refusal.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by varwoche
Your link shows that O'Donnel failed to predict election results correctly. If his revelation about Rowe is merely a prediction -- as opposed to a statement based on factual knowledge -- then I will think less of his credibility as a journalist. As I read it, he isn't merely claiming that they talked -- he has strongly inferred, if not stated outright, that Rove is Cooper's source for Plame's identity. O'Donnel has not offered proof that I'm aware of, so all we have for now is his word. (If I were the prosecutor, or on the jury, this would have no weight.)

If later we learn that Rove did not out Plame, but that O'Donnel is correct anyway based on micro-parsing his statement, then again, O'Donnel's credibility will suffer in my view, and I will lose the (not yet accepted) wager.

Maybe so. I still suspect Rove, based on O'Donnel's revelation, and if Crackmonkey declines the wager I'll give you first right of refusal.

Before you complete this wager, you might want to consider that O'Donnell appears to be backtracking. (http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2005/07/03/pacifica-is-the-real-thing-not-air-america/)

Today he [Ian Masters of Pacifica Radio] had on Lawrence O’Donnell, whose weaselly backtracking from his McLaughlin Group comments was highly entertaining. O’Donnell said that (a) he didn’t think Rove had violated the law in his discussions with TIME Magazine, and that (b) he didn’t think Rove lied to the Grand Jury.

Or maybe that source's characterization of O'Donnell's comments is incorrect.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Before you complete this wager, you might want to consider that O'Donnell appears to be backtracking. (http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2005/07/03/pacifica-is-the-real-thing-not-air-america/) Hmm. It gives me pause, but not enough to withdraw the (as yet unconsumated) wager.

[crackmonkey]

I just saw this, but I'm a bit confused... you're asking me if I want to wager whether the innuendo that Rove was the source of the leak was flimsy? Absolutely - it's flimsy as hell. It's one person's account of something that happened to someone else. It doesn't get much flimsier than that.
That's not to say that it couldn't be true... something I never said. I merely commented on your triumphant proclamation that the rumor that Rove did the leaking - because he has admitted to talking to Cooper - was just about the most trivial factoid that could be labeled 'evidence', you joyful end-zone dancing notwithstanding.
Now who's going to judge whether hearsay is considered flimsy evidence?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I just saw this, but I'm a bit confused... you're asking me if I want to wager whether the innuendo that Rove was the source of the leak was flimsy? No -- that's a matter of opinion. The wager, as I've already stated, involves whether Rove was Cooper's source for Plame's identity.

If I win, you pay for my jref membership. If you win, I pay for yours. If you are confident that the evidence "doesn't get much flimsier than that" you can demonstrate that by agreeing to the wager.

If this is generally agreeable we can refine the terms. What do you say? I merely commented on your triumphant proclamation ... end-zone dancing My entire statement consisted of... Some supporting evidence... Is this the triumphant end-zone dance you are referring to?

[crackmonkey]

This is what you posted...
Crackmonkey, I'm going to give you an opportunity to demonstrate confidence in your assesment of the evidence as "flimsy".

I'm absolutely certain that it's flimsy, yes. As to whether Rove is the source, I have no idea and I suspect you don't either.
And the source of the leak - whether Rove or not - is in no way related to the strength of the evidence presented. Rove may have leaked the name weeks before he spoke to Cooper. Rove may have talked to Cooper for hours, but never leaked the name.
I have no basis to determine whether Rove was a likely leaker or not, but I'll take you up on your original offer as to whether the evidence you waved like a flag was flimsy. It was.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I'm absolutely certain that it's flimsy, yes. As to whether Rove is the source, I have no idea and I suspect you don't either. I don't get your point.

1) There have been long-standing, unsubstantiated rumours that Rove was the leaker (to which I assign very little weight -- your mileage may vary)
2) Several days ago, O'Donnel revealed that Time revealed to the feds that Rove divulged Plame's name to Cooper. (The subject of this thread.)
3) Subsequent to O'Donnel's revelation, Rove's attorney conceded Rove was in contact with Cooper the week of the leak.

#1 is old news. #2 and #3 are new news.

The reason I suspect that Rove leaked Plame's name is because O'Donnel is a serious journalist and I don't see why he would make this up. Rove's admission of contact with Cooper is supporting evidence. (To be clear, I do not hold this up as proof.)

So, if #2 and #3 are so amazingly flimsy, why won't you wager? Is this based on the flimsiest evidence of all -- #1?

Are you holding out some juicy facts that implicate Rove?

If no, I will take this to mean that you, like me, are suspicious that Rove leaked, and that apparently the evidence is not so flimsy that you will enter into a wager that would benefit you and jref. And I will remain unclear what your point is.

[Mark]

Been away for a few days and just read this thread. It makes me very sad. It is a fact that someone in the Bush administration OUTED a CIA operative---in time of war!--- for petty political payback and the Bush apologists are prepared to excuse even that.

I mean, my god, what won't these people excuse? Rape? Murder? Where is the line if treason is acceptable?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Mark
Been away for a few days and just read this thread. It makes me very sad. It is a fact that someone in the Bush administration OUTED a CIA operative---in time of war!--- for petty political payback and the Bush apologists are prepared to excuse even that. Actually, the main thrust of this thread is whether or not Rove is that someone. Given that he has means, motive, and apparently opportunity, I don't think it looks too good for Rove and, by association, the administration.

But, one thing at a time. First, we need to see what evidence there actually is supporting the claim. I don't suppose it's been released anywhere online that we could take a look at it?

[Mark]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Actually, the main thrust of this thread is whether or not Rove is that someone. Given that he has means, motive, and apparently opportunity, I don't think it looks too good for Rove and, by association, the administration.

But, one thing at a time. First, we need to see what evidence there actually is supporting the claim. I don't suppose it's been released anywhere online that we could take a look at it?

That doesn't change my point: this is (or should be) the biggest scandal to hit Washington in decades. Even bigger than a blowjob (sarcasm noted). Someone in the Bush administration outed a CIA operative during wartime! That fact is NOT in dispute. And yet it is being treated like a parking ticket.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/07/06/1428238
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0507/S00063.htm

[crackmonkey]

Varwoche:

You seem to be confusing the weight of a type of evidence and probability of guilt. The fact that Rove talked to Cooper puts him in just as much jeopardy as anyone else who talked to Cooper. There is no confirmation that Rove even knew Plame worked for the CIA, so we don't even know if Rove belonged to your set N. As such, the fact that he talked to Cooper is the flimsiest of evidence.
This has no bearing as to whether he is guilty, though, and I don't understand why this is so confusing to you. There may be some weighty evidence that has yet to be made public against Rove. There may be some weighty evidence against someone else that has yet to be made public. All I've said is the mere fact that Rove spoke to the reporter is essentially meaningless in implicating him.

[Mark]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Varwoche:

You seem to be confusing the weight of a type of evidence and probability of guilt. The fact that Rove talked to Cooper puts him in just as much jeopardy as anyone else who talked to Cooper. There is no confirmation that Rove even knew Plame worked for the CIA, so we don't even know if Rove belonged to your set N. As such, the fact that he talked to Cooper is the flimsiest of evidence.
This has no bearing as to whether he is guilty, though, and I don't understand why this is so confusing to you. There may be some weighty evidence that has yet to be made public against Rove. There may be some weighty evidence against someone else that has yet to be made public. All I've said is the mere fact that Rove spoke to the reporter is essentially meaningless in implicating him.

Her husband royally angered Bush and his people and you want to believe that "There is no confirmation that Rove even knew Plame worked for the CIA." Be serious.

[davefoc]

Varwoche and crackmonkey,
You seem to be engaged in a bit of a semantic discussion about the exactly what evidence means. I think you are both right, but I tend to think Varwoche is more right.

Prior to the recent revelations I had seen some rumors about the possibility it was Rove. I gave them very little weight. Rove's got lots of enemies and it didn't seem to me the rumours added up to more than idle speculation with maybe a little wishful thinking thrown in on the part of the anti-Bush crowd. But the recent revelations which IMHO constitute evidence are enough for me to greatly increase my personal appraisal of the chances that it is Rove.

Of course, what has been released is still far from proof and as such I still think there's a good chance it wasn't Rove. On this point, I think almost everybody that has posted in this thread agrees with.

My own thought is that in the end this turns into something of a non-story. I think Manny's scenario is probably about right and in the end it turns out that the reporters had, through a combination of guessing and small clues from various individuals, guessed that Wilson's wife was involved with the CIA. They provided Rove the opportunity to ambiguously confirm the situation and he did. His words though were probably ambiguous enough that the idea that he could be found guitly of anything is pretty remote. And of course he may just chose to lie about it which will probably provide enough obfuscation that nobody will ever no exactly what happened.

[Mark]

Originally posted by davefoc
Varwoche and crackmonkey,
You seem to be engaged in a bit of a semantic discussion about the exactly what evidence means. I think you are both right, but I tend to think Varwoche is more right.

Prior to the recent revelations I had seen some rumors about the possibility it was Rove. I gave them very little weight. Rove's got lots of enemies and it didn't seem to me the rumours added up to more than idle speculation with maybe a little wishful thinking thrown in on the part of the anti-Bush crowd. But the recent revelations which IMHO constitute evidence are enough for me to greatly increase my personal appraisal of the chances that it is Rove.

Of course, what has been released is still far from proof and as such I still think there's a good chance it wasn't Rove. On this point, I think almost everybody that has posted in this thread agrees with.

My own thought is that in the end this turns into something of a non-story. I think Manny's scenario is probably about right and in the end it turns out that the reporters had, through a combination of guessing and small clues from various individuals, guessed that Wilson's wife was involved with the CIA. They provided Rove the opportunity to ambiguously confirm the situation and he did. His words though were probably ambiguous enough that the idea that he could be found guitly of anything is pretty remote. And of course he may just chose to lie about it which will probably provide enough obfuscation that nobody will ever no exactly what happened.

I think it is very likely it was Rove, but I admit it has not been proven. But I would like to see a serious investigation into this cowardly, petty act of treason---and I would like to see at least as much spent (adjusted for inflation) on the investigation as was spent on all the trumped up charges against the Clintons (which found nothing).

An act of treason was committed by someone in the Bush White House. That fact is NOT in dispute.

[crackmonkey]

An act of treason was committed by someone in the Bush White House. That fact is NOT in dispute.

Oh, I don't think so at all. There is zero proof that the White House had anything to do with it.

I largely agree with davefoc. If Rove did discuss the Plame matter with Cooper, I imagine he did it in a way similar to davefoc's scenario. I can't imagine Rove being naive enough to go out on a limb and divulge the name, but I can see him confirming the name that Cooper got from from someone else. Which would mean Rove wasn't the leaker, per se. He would be someone that confirmed what another leaker said.

[Rob Lister]

Breaking: Matt Cooper agrees to testify.

[Mark]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Oh, I don't think so at all. There is zero proof that the White House had anything to do with it.

I largely agree with davefoc. If Rove did discuss the Plame matter with Cooper, I imagine he did it in a way similar to davefoc's scenario. I can't imagine Rove being naive enough to go out on a limb and divulge the name, but I can see him confirming the name that Cooper got from from someone else. Which would mean Rove wasn't the leaker, per se. He would be someone that confirmed what another leaker said.

According to Novak (a staunch Bush supporter) it definitely was someone in the Bush Administration:

Soon after Wilson disclosed his trip in the media and made the White House look bad. the payback came. Novak's July 14, 2003, column presented the back-story on Wilson's mission and contained the following sentences: "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 allegation.

Unless you think Novak is lying to make Bush look bad (hardly likely).
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=823

[varwoche]

Originally posted by davefoc
Varwoche and crackmonkey,
You seem to be engaged in a bit of a semantic discussion about the exactly what evidence means. I think you are both right, but I tend to think Varwoche is more right. Yes, especially the part I underlined. The proposed wager is a fun way to counter (what I view as) hyper-semantic argumentation.

(I'm serious about the wager however, from the standpoint that I pay my bets and expect the same.)

[crackmonkey]

As I've said, I have no idea if Rove leaked the info or not. I can speculate, but I have no more information than anyone else and it would basically be a coin toss.
I absolutley stand behind my assessment of the 'evidence' made public by O'DOnnell that is (in the eyes of some) damning to Rove. It is nothing more than hearsay that Rove talked to Cooper. It doesn;t get much flimsier than that.
The flimsiness of evidence has no bearing on Rove's guilt or innocence, though - it just means that anyone putting any real weight on it is misguided.
I never said Rove was innocent, and indeed I have no way to determine this. I have maintained all along that the evidence put forth by O'Donnell is just about useless in implicating him. I'll wager whatever you like on this point.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
You seem to be confusing the weight of a type of evidence and probability of guilt. The fact that Rove talked to Cooper puts him in just as much jeopardy as anyone else who talked to Cooper. And I think that you're confused. Funny how it often seems to work that way. ;)

Whatever words that you and I use to characterize the evidence (correction: I didn't characterize the evidence -- only you did), apparently we arrived at the same conclusion: Both of us actually suspect that Carl Rove leaked Plame's name to Cooper. Otherwise, if he was just one of N possible persons of vague interest, where N could be in the dozens or even hundreds, surely you would accept an even-money bet. Right?

Assuming I'm correct so far, what exactly is the basis for your suspicion of Rove? Is it the same "flimsy" evidence upon which I base my suspicion?

If this question comes across to you like "When did you stop beating your wife?" then I retract the question and replace it with: Why won't you agree to my wager?

[Mark]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
As I've said, I have no idea if Rove leaked the info or not. I can speculate, but I have no more information than anyone else and it would basically be a coin toss.
I absolutley stand behind my assessment of the 'evidence' made public by O'DOnnell that is (in the eyes of some) damning to Rove. It is nothing more than hearsay that Rove talked to Cooper. It doesn;t get much flimsier than that.
The flimsiness of evidence has no bearing on Rove's guilt or innocence, though - it just means that anyone putting any real weight on it is misguided.
I never said Rove was innocent, and indeed I have no way to determine this. I have maintained all along that the evidence put forth by O'Donnell is just about useless in implicating him. I'll wager whatever you like on this point.

So do you think Novak lied?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I never said Rove was innocent, and indeed I have no way to determine this I hope and expect it will become public knowledge in the reasonably near future whether Time has in fact named Rove as the source for outting Plame, or if O'Donnel is hallucinating.

If Time comes out and publicly names Rove as the source, is that acceptable to you? Or will you hold out the possibility that Time is engaged in a bizarre conspiracy involving false identification of sources?
I have maintained all along that the evidence put forth by O'Donnell is just about useless in implicating him. I'll wager whatever you like on this point. I decline your wager because I agree, the information is probably useless from a legal standpoint (because it's probably hearsay). Also, I prefer to place bets on hard facts (or at least harder).

I explained why I declined your wager. Will you explain why you declined mine? Are there logical reasons for you to decline a 50/50 bet, when all that exists is unbelievably flimsy evidence? Do you have other evidence that you are withholding?

[Renfield]

It seems unlikely that rove would communicate directly with someone from the press like that. Not that he would reveal Plume's identity, but that he wouldn't at least protect himself by using intermediaries. Then again, they are an arrogant bunch, Bush's inner circle. Maybe that's lead them to get careless.

[Mark]

We are not (yet) in a court of law with this. The issue is whether or not there is enough evidence to justify a full scale investigation. Clearly there is. Investigations of this kind to not start after the perp is convicted!

A MAJOR crime was committed here---one for which, if any of us here had done it, we would very likely spend the rest of our lives in prison. Not to mention the idea that we have someone in the White House who is perfectly willing to ruin a person's life (and even endanger it!) over petty political revenge.

That doesn't seem to bother conservatives, but it sure as death bothers me.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Renfield
It seems unlikely that rove would communicate directly with someone from the press like that.

Not unlikely at all. He did. What he said is unknown.

[Manny]

Mark, you seriously have the most apt user icon on these forums. Just sayin', is all.

[Mark]

Originally posted by manny
Mark, you seriously have the most apt user icon on these forums. Just sayin', is all.

Thank you for the insult.

A major criminal act was committed by someone in the Bush administration; the only question is who. I get it: you don't care, and never will.

[crackmonkey]

Originally posted by varwoche
I hope and expect it will become public knowledge in the reasonably near future whether Time has in fact named Rove as the source for outting Plame, or if O'Donnel is hallucinating.

If Time comes out and publicly names Rove as the source, is that acceptable to you? Or will you hold out the possibility that Time is engaged in a bizarre conspiracy involving false identification of sources?
I decline your wager because I agree, the information is probably useless from a legal standpoint (because it's probably hearsay). Also, I prefer to place bets on hard facts (or at least harder).

I explained why I declined your wager. Will you explain why you declined mine? Are there logical reasons for you to decline a 50/50 bet, when all that exists is unbelievably flimsy evidence? Do you have other evidence that you are withholding?

I don't understand yourinferences at all. All I've said on this thread was that the 'evidence' revealed by O'Donnell is just about useless. That's all. I haven't weighed in on ROve's likely guilt or innocence. He may have leaked, he may not. I have no way of knowing, and I'm not interested in gambling on something utterly unknown to me. I don't gamble, period...

Why would you think I'd accuse Time of some conspiracy? Why chaarcterize me as some kind of Rove apologist, or someone who is too biased to accept actual evidence? ALl I've said all along was that O'Donnell's rumor was basically nothing. That's it.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Why would you think I'd accuse Time of some conspiracy? I merely asked a question. If the answer is no, as you seem to infer, then I assume that if/when Time states that Rove outted Plame, that you would accept this as convincing evidence that Rove outted Plame. Correct?

[Manny]

Originally posted by Mark
A major criminal act was committed by someone in the Bush administration; the only question is who. I get it: you don't care, and never will. No, you don't get it at all. I am simply, as I said before, persuaded at this point by the opinion of 36 major news organizations, including both "Reuters" and Fox News, that it hasn't been established that a crime has been committed at all (their amicus brief (http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s10News/FileUpload44/10159/Amici%20Brief%20032305%20(Final).PDF)). I'm certainly open to the possibility that those news organizations are in error and I am awaiting further developments. Until then, I simply find it funny as all heck to imagine your posts said hysterically and with a Daffy Duck lisp.

'It'th treathon! Can'th you thee? It'th treathon I thay! Buth ith Hitler!'

[Cylinder]

Originally posted by manny
'It'th treathon! Can'th you thee? It'th treathon I thay! Buth ith Hitler!'

Could we have a workplace warning next time please? Thanks.

The indicators that I have seen seem to point away from Rove. For instance, Cooper's comments (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/reporters_contempt) today:

“I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions� for not testifying, Cooper said. But he told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance, he had received “in somewhat dramatic fashion� a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source’s identity secret.

IMO, this doesn't mesh well with the fact that WaPo has already reported (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR2005070201043.html) Rove signing a waiver for Time to discuss his interviews with the grand jury and the fact that Time did not shield his involvement from the grand jury at a time that they were sheilding the source's identity.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Cylinder
Could we have a workplace warning next time please? Thanks.

The indicators that I have seen seem to point away from Rove. For instance, Cooper's comments (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/reporters_contempt) today:



IMO, this doesn't mesh well with the fact that WaPo has already reported (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR2005070201043.html) Rove signing a waiver for Time to discuss his interviews with the grand jury and the fact that Time did not shield his involvement from the grand jury at a time that they were sheilding the source's identity.

Yes, a workplace warning would be nice, even if you're at home.

Your post, taken in total, seems to exclude exclude Rove.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Cylinder
WaPo has already reported (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/02/AR2005070201043.html) Rove signing a waiver for Time to discuss his interviews with the grand jury I must be going blind. Where does it say that in the article?


Note: I had originally posted this when I was accidently signed in using the TestBot account. I deleted that post and reposted it under my own account. My appologies for any confusion.

[Mark]

Originally posted by manny
No, you don't get it at all. I am simply, as I said before, persuaded at this point by the opinion of 36 major news organizations, including both "Reuters" and Fox News, that it hasn't been established that a crime has been committed at all (their amicus brief (http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s10News/FileUpload44/10159/Amici%20Brief%20032305%20(Final).PDF)). I'm certainly open to the possibility that those news organizations are in error and I am awaiting further developments. Until then, I simply find it funny as all heck to imagine your posts said hysterically and with a Daffy Duck lisp.

'It'th treathon! Can'th you thee? It'th treathon I thay! Buth ith Hitler!'

Please show me where anyone has said that outing a CIA operative in a time of war is not a crime. That the news services may not be guilty of a crime---by virtue of shield laws--- is being debated; but the person who outed Plame is most definitely guilty of a crime; I don't know of anyone who has suggested otherwise.

If you think otherwise, I suggest you "out" an undercover law enforcement officer yourself and see what happens to you.

But, by all means, keep the insults flying if they make you feel better.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Your post, taken in total, seems to exclude exclude Rove. :con2: How?

I must be working too hard. I didn't get that at all from Cylinder's post.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I must be going blind. Where does it say that in the article?
[/size]

YOu're not going blind. It was the wrong link. Newsweek said it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/

more specifically, they report Rove's lawyer said he signed it.

Not quite as good.

[Manny]

Originally posted by Mark
Please show me where anyone has said that outing a CIA operative in a time of war is not a crime. That the news services may not be guilty of a crime---by virtue of shield laws--- is being debated; but the person who outed Plame is most definitely guilty of a crime; I don't know of anyone who has suggested otherwise.That's because you didn't open the amicus brief. The news organizations argue the very strong possibility of exactly and precisely that beginning on page 28 of the .pdf file. Specifically, they argue that Ms. Plame was not a covert operative as defined by statute and give several convincing (to me) reasons why that is the case. Among the most persuasive to me is that Mr. Novak called the CIA prior to publishing her name and that the CIA did not follow its usual procedures for dissuading him from publishing the information.

The document isn't formatted to allow picking up text (or maybe my Adobe Reader needs updating), and I'm not going to retype it for you.

But, by all means, keep the insults flying if they make you feel better. Yourrrrrr'e dethpicable.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
YOu're not going blind. It was the wrong link. Newsweek said it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/Thank you. Much better.
more specifically, they report Rove's lawyer said he signed it.

Not quite as good. Yep. I'm afraid we'll just have to wait to see how this plays out. To Mark's point, someone leaked this information to Cooper and Novak. It was waaaay too convienent for it to not be someone acting primarily for the political benefit of the Bush Administration. If it wasn't Rove, we really need to find out who it was, especially if the Bush Admin isn't aware of what this person is doing.

If it is Rove (and time will tell), the man needs face the full consequences of his actions, given his position.

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by manny
Among the most persuasive to me is that Mr. Novak called the CIA prior to publishing her name and that the CIA did not follow its usual procedures for dissuading him from publishing the information. This sounds very reminiscent of Newsweek's reporters running the "Koran abuse" story past some DoD guy who didn't dissuade them from running it. Just a thought.

[Cylinder]

Yea, I worded that a bit awkwardly. The point I was trying to make is that at the time of the WaPo story:

a) Cooper was protecting the name of the source; and

b) Cooper had named Rove as one of the sources in the story

Rove is identified in Cooper's notes from that time period, which Time turned over Friday to special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald -- under court order. Fitzgerald is investigating whether senior administration officials leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to reporters in July 2003 as retaliation after her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly accused the Bush administration of twisting intelligence to justify a war with Iraq.

Rove had apparently already signed a waiver to release Time from its confidentiality agreement. Couple that with Cooper commenting (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/reporters_contempt) today:

Earlier, Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, in an about-face, told Hogan that he would now cooperate with a federal prosecutor’s investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame because his source gave him specific authority to discuss their conversation. “I am prepared to testify. I will comply� with the court’s order, Cooper said.

Cooper took the podium in the court and told the judge, “Last night I hugged my son goodbye and told him it might be a long time before I see him again.�

“I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions� for not testifying, Cooper said. But he told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance, he had received “in somewhat dramatic fashion� a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source’s identity secret.

It's not bulletproof, but it does go some way toward casting doubt on Rove as the source of the leak.

Just my $0.02

[CapelDodger]

Originally posted by manny
Specifically, they argue that Ms. Plame was not a covert operative as defined by statute and give several convincing (to me) reasons why that is the case.But a special prosecutor was appointed. If Plame wasn't a covert operative, surely that would have been established before the special prosecutor was appointed? It's not as if there's a shortage of lawyers in US government circles.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Cylinder
Yea, I worded that a bit awkwardly. The point I was trying to make is that at the time of the WaPo story:

a) Cooper was protecting the name of the source; and

b) Cooper had named Rove as one of the sources in the story



Rove had apparently already signed a waiver to release Time from its confidentiality agreement. Couple that with Cooper commenting (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/reporters_contempt) today:



It's not bulletproof, but it does go some way toward casting doubt on Rove as the source of the leak.

Just my $0.02

Fox is reporting that both Miller and Cooper have personally and very recently received signed waviers by their source(s?) about this very subject. I have yet to verify this.

Cooper caved but Miller is now in jail.

[Manny]

But a special prosecutor was appointed.

Well of course the special prosecutor was appointed after the anguished cries of the MSM, led by (heh) The New York Times (I wonder if Ms. Miller and Paul Krugman are on speaking terms). Now their claim, according to the brief, is that this whole thing is a CYA mission by a CIA which was embarrassed that they didn't do anything to protect their covert asset (for example, they didn't get Wilson to sign a confi, and he went out and published an article in (heh) The New York Times about a mission he did which was not in his traditional area of expertise but which was in his wife's specific area).

Here's the thing that really stands out for me. According to the brief, Novak called the CIA for confirmation of Plame's identity. They confirmed it and failed to offer what the brief called "a serious objection" to publishing the information.

Seriously, if you've got broadband take a look at the brief. Again, it's only one side of the equation and the special prosecutor may have facts which, when brought to light, will change my view. But for now I find it pretty convincing that no crime occurred in the disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity. I'm betting that the special prosecutor has abandoned that and is going after an obstruction dealie.

[Mark]

Originally posted by manny
Well of course the special prosecutor was appointed after the anguished cries of the MSM, led by (heh) The New York Times (I wonder if Ms. Miller and Paul Krugman are on speaking terms). Now their claim, according to the brief, is that this whole thing is a CYA mission by a CIA which was embarrassed that they didn't do anything to protect their covert asset (for example, they didn't get Wilson to sign a confi, and he went out and published an article in (heh) The New York Times about a mission he did which was not in his traditional area of expertise but which was in his wife's specific area).

Here's the thing that really stands out for me. According to the brief, Novak called the CIA for confirmation of Plame's identity. They confirmed it and failed to offer what the brief called "a serious objection" to publishing the information.

Seriously, if you've got broadband take a look at the brief. Again, it's only one side of the equation and the special prosecutor may have facts which, when brought to light, will change my view. But for now I find it pretty convincing that no crime occurred in the disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity. I'm betting that the special prosecutor has abandoned that and is going after an obstruction dealie.

As I said before, if you are so certain that no crime was committed, then I suggest you go and "out" an undercover law enforcement officer and see what happens to you.

I will concede your point that someone is making the argument that no crime was committed. It is stupid, hypocritical, and self-serving, but it does appear that someone is indeed making that argument.

Of course, we were also told by these people that Iraq had WMDs.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Mark
Of course, we were also told by these people that Iraq had WMDs.

Yes. I seem to remember John Kerry saying that. What are you going to do when the leak turns out to be a democrat?

I doubt that will happen but it might.

[Manny]

Originally posted by Mark
As I said before, if you are so certain that no crime was committed, then I suggest you go and "out" an undercover law enforcement officer and see what happens to you.
Joe Pithtone was an undercover FBI agent beth known for his infiltrathion of New York'th Bonanno crime family.

[hgc]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Yes. I seem to remember John Kerry saying that. What are you going to do when the leak turns out to be a democrat?

I doubt that will happen but it might. Lots of people the world over who got their information from the Bush administration and its operatives claimed that Iraq had WMD's. This is not about Kerry, this is about Bush. He's the president, not Kerry. He's the one who made the decision to wage war on a lie, not Kerry.

Bush is the one protecting a traiter in the White House, not Kerry.

I would bet my bottom dollar that all the people in this thread doing backflips to imagine away this emence crime cried "full steam ahead" to impeach Clinton for lying about his girlfriend in a deposition. Apologetics extraordinaire.

(Mostly not aimed at you, Rob) ;)

[curi0us]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
YOu're not going blind. It was the wrong link. Newsweek said it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/

more specifically, they report Rove's lawyer said he signed it.

Not quite as good. Rove is still a possibility. There was an old general waiver that Cooper’s source signed but Cooper didn’t honor it (?) but he just got a specific waiver which he will act upon. The detail that Rove previously signed a waiver is actually evidence that he may be Cooper’s source.

From the Newsweek article:

He did say that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him.

What Cooper said today:

Mr. Cooper told the judge today while he had been told his source had signed a general waiver of confidentiality, he would only act with a specific waiver from his source, which he said he got today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/politics/06cnd-leak.html?pagewanted=2

[curi0us]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Before you complete this wager, you might want to consider that O'Donnell appears to be backtracking. (http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2005/07/03/pacifica-is-the-real-thing-not-air-america/)


Or maybe that source's characterization of O'Donnell's comments is incorrect. I listened to a good portion of the broadcast, O'Donnell didn't seem to be backtracking on his claim that Rove was Cooper's source but he did express (multiple) doubts about whether or not Rove had committed a crime.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Mark
As I said before, if you are so certain that no crime was committed, then I suggest you go and "out" an undercover law enforcement officer and see what happens to you.


Where does the statute say anything about police officers?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Covert_Agent_Identity_Protection_ Act

[Mark]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Yes. I seem to remember John Kerry saying that. What are you going to do when the leak turns out to be a democrat?

I doubt that will happen but it might.

You are making the very incorrect assumption that I am a Democrat. If the perp turns out to be a Democrat, throw the book at him/her!

That's the difference between us...I have no party affiliation and don't make excuses based on party. Someone outed a CIA agent and that was WRONG.

[Mark]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Where does the statute say anything about police officers?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Covert_Agent_Identity_Protection_ Act

Man, I sure would love to know what Republicans would have done if the Clinton White House had pulled this stunt! But, in any case, I said law enforcement officers, a more all inclusive term. I am not a lawyer but there is (at least):

Outing a CIA agent is indeed a felony. During wartime, it can be considered treason by virtue of endangering national security in a time of war. Plus:

Interfering with an investigation.

Obstruction of justice.

Lying to a grand jury (Rove).

The Federal Treason Statute.

It just staggers me that Republicans are trying to deny there was even a crime here. But lying about a blowjob is a crime. Good God.

[crimresearch]

Hmmmmm...


Try reading the US Constitution.

"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

OR USC Title 18:115
Section 2381. Treason

" Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war
against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and
comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason
and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five
years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and
shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."


Are you making the argument that the US government was at war with Novak at the time someone gave him that information.?

BTW.... CIA agents cannot be LEOs.

[Mark]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Hmmmmm...


Try reading the US Constitution.

"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

OR USC Title 18:115
Section 2381. Treason

" Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war
against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and
comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason
and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five
years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and
shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."


Are you making the argument that the US government was at war with Novak at the time someone gave him that information.?

BTW.... CIA agents cannot be LEOs.

There have been all sorts of ammendments and federal laws passed since the Consitution was ratified in the 1700s. You may have even heard about some of them; it was in all the papers.

Edited to add:
Here is an interesting article reviewing a lot of the laws, rulings, etc. regarding this topic. To imply that the original constitution is the only source is disengenuous, even for someone trying to excuse Bush and his cronies from their own actions.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/accp/it0466/less1.html

[Manny]

I must have missed the one that goes "treason shall be defined as that person who posts to the JREF message board with the handle Mark chooses." Could you please point it out?

Oh, so far there have been no bad consequences of my outing of undercover FBI agent Joe Pistone. I'll keep you informed if I get a warm beer or too much mayo on my tuna sandwich or something.

[crimresearch]

And of course they are all Sooper Sekrit ones that you can't possibly provide a link to.
:rolleyes:

You could read the actual current laws that I cited if you are interested in finding out exactly what crime may have been commited.

Or not, feel free to choose ignorance.

[Mark]

Originally posted by manny
I must have missed the one that goes "treason shall be defined as that person who posts to the JREF message board with the handle Mark chooses." Could you please point it out?

Oh, so far there have been no bad consequences of my outing of undercover FBI agent Joe Pistone. I'll keep you informed if I get a warm beer or too much mayo on my tuna sandwich or something.

You didn't "out" Joe Pistone. I can't even begin to understand your intent in making such a silly claim. If you had, he would probably be dead, and you would very likely have been tried as an accessory at the least.

[Mark]

Originally posted by crimresearch
And of course they are all Sooper Sekrit ones that you can't possibly provide a link to.
:rolleyes:

You could read the actual current laws that I cited if you are interested in finding out exactly what crime may have been commited.

Or not, feel free to choose ignorance.

I posted a link to an article summing up these laws. But thanks for the insult.

[Mark]

But even if the White House was not initially involved with the leak, it has exploited it. As a result, it may have opened itself to additional criminal charges under the federal conspiracy statute.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20031010.html

Section 371. Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States. If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=371

This elegantly simple law has snared countless people working for, or with, the federal government. Suppose a conspiracy is in progress. Even those who come in later, and who share in the purpose of the conspiracy, can become responsible for all that has gone on before they joined. They need not realize they are breaking the law; they need only have joined the conspiracy.

What counts as "fraud" under the statute? Simply put, "any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful function of any department of government." (Emphasis added.) If telephoning reporters to further destroy a CIA asset whose identity has been revealed, and whose safety is now in jeopardy, does not fit this description, I would be quite surprised.

You may want to reapply the "ignorant" label, Crimesearch. Or change your avatar name to CrimeCoverup.

[crimresearch]

No..you did NOT provide any such link.

You did try to pass off a private security guard company manual as federal law and Constitutional amendments, while repeatedly refusing to look at the current laws cited..

"Edited to add:
Here is an interesting article reviewing a lot of the laws, rulings, etc. regarding this topic. To imply that the original constitution is the only source is disengenuous, even for someone trying to excuse Bush and his cronies from their own actions.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...0466/less1.html"

"As a Counterintelligence (CI) Agent involved in highly sensitive investigations, you must be thoroughly knowledgeable of both the military and civilian concepts of jurisdiction as defined by the Court of Military Appeals and the US Supreme Court. Although not required to be a subject matter expert, you are nevertheless required to have the basic skills necessary to collect and present evidence. In addition, you must be aware of the provisions of the Delimitations Agreement and how they apply to all phases of an investigation. An effective agent is one who has a thorough knowledge of all the basis legal ramifications."


Did you really think that anyone is going to believe that 'CI' at the 'Global Security' Company is the same thing as the CIA?
Or that security guard's rule books supercede the word 'ONLY' in the Constitution?

This is a skeptic's forum... how in the world did you think you could slip that one past without being busted?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Mark]

Originally posted by crimresearch
No..you did NOT provide any such link.

You did try to pass off a private security guard company manual as federal law and Constitutional amendments, while repeatedly refusing to look at the current laws cited..

"Edited to add:
Here is an interesting article reviewing a lot of the laws, rulings, etc. regarding this topic. To imply that the original constitution is the only source is disengenuous, even for someone trying to excuse Bush and his cronies from their own actions.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milit...0466/less1.html"

"As a Counterintelligence (CI) Agent involved in highly sensitive investigations, you must be thoroughly knowledgeable of both the military and civilian concepts of jurisdiction as defined by the Court of Military Appeals and the US Supreme Court. Although not required to be a subject matter expert, you are nevertheless required to have the basic skills necessary to collect and present evidence. In addition, you must be aware of the provisions of the Delimitations Agreement and how they apply to all phases of an investigation. An effective agent is one who has a thorough knowledge of all the basis legal ramifications."


Did you really think that anyone is going to believe that 'CI' at the 'Global Security' Company is the same thing as the CIA?
Or that security guard's rule books supercede the word 'ONLY' in the Constitution?

This is a skeptic's forum... how in the world did you think you could slip that one past without being busted?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Give me a break, CrimeCoverup. And read the statute above, which superceded the "only" you are clinging to so desperately.

[Manny]

Originally posted by Mark
You didn't "out" Joe Pistone. Dingdingdingdingding! You got it. It is the claim of the 36 major news organizations which you insist on referring to as "Republicans" that for purposes of the relevant statute no one "outed" Ms. Plame. She was, "Republicans" such as CBS News, CNN, The New York Times and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press claim, already out. Just like Mr. Pistone was already out when I mentioned his name.

[Mark]

Originally posted by manny
Dingdingdingdingding! You got it. It is the claim of the 36 major news organizations which you insist on referring to as "Republicans" that for purposes of the relevant statute no one "outed" Ms. Plame. She was, "Republicans" such as CBS News, CNN, The New York Times and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press claim, already out. Just like Mr. Pistone was already out when I mentioned his name.

Nice try, I'll give you that. But I never said the newspeople were guilty of a crime (although they were certainly immoral, IMO). It is the people in the White House who are guilty of a crime...just as is described in the statute I listed above.

But, seriously, nice try.

[crimresearch]

How can a 'statute' from a security guard handbook supercede the US Constitution? Do you even know what an amendment is? Of how the legal system works?

Or are you just going to post a bunch of transparent untruths like that, and then hide behind a flurry of name calling?

[Mark]

Originally posted by crimresearch
How can a 'statute' from a security guard handbook supercede the US Constitution? Do you even know what an amendment is? Of how the legal system works?

Or are you just going to post a bunch of transparent untruths like that, and then hide behind a flurry of name calling?

*sigh*

This is NOT from a "Security Guard Handbook." And you started the name calling. Why the double standard? I'll stop if you will.

United States Code/
Title 18-Crimes and Criminal Procedures/
Part I-Crimes/
Chapter 19-Conspiracy
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=371

[Manny]

Originally posted by Mark
But I never said the newspeople were guilty of a crime (although they were certainly immoral, IMO). It is the people in the White House who are guilty of a crime...just as is described in the statute I listed above. You didn't-- that's true. But what you keep evading is that the claim by the news organizations is not that the newspeople didn't commit a crime but rather that the leaker did not commit a crime.

As to John Dean's speculation, for conspiracy to attach there must be an underlying crime planned. If Ms. Plame was indeed not covert as defined by statute there could be no underlying crime about which to conspire. Under that scenario "conspiring" to release Ms. Plame's identity would be no different from "conspiring" to put ketchup on a hotdog. It might be wrong, but it is not illegal.

[crimresearch]

You will 'stop the double standard' by claiming that 'Conspiracy to commit fraud' is exactly the same as 'Treason'?

And by falsely claiming that your earlier Global Security links were NOT from a security company handbook?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/accp/it0466/less1.html

And by falsely claiming that I started calling you names? Is that your private definition for anyone who posts facts that prove you wrong?

Give us a freakin' break will you?

Would it kill you to stick to some facts and stop playing these games?

[Mark]

Originally posted by manny
You didn't-- that's true. But what you keep evading is that the claim by the news organizations is not that the newspeople didn't commit a crime but rather that the leaker did not commit a crime.

As to John Dean's speculation, for conspiracy to attach there must be an underlying crime planned. If Ms. Plame was indeed not covert as defined by statute there could be no underlying crime about which to conspire. Under that scenario "conspiring" to release Ms. Plame's identity would be no different from "conspiring" to put ketchup on a hotdog. It might be wrong, but it is not illegal.

If you will read the statute I quoted (twice) above, I think you will agree that a crime was definitely committed by people in the White House when they outed Plame. I will concede that whether or not that crime was treason is open to debate; but it most certainly was a crime under federal law.

[crimresearch]

So calling it a violation of 'Da Federal Treason Statute" is your way of saying it might not have been Treason at all?

Riiiiight...

:rolleyes:

[Mark]

Originally posted by crimresearch
You will 'stop the double standard' by claiming that 'Conspiracy to commit fraud' is exactly the same as 'Treason'?

And by falsely claiming that your earlier Global Security links were NOT from a security company handbook?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/accp/it0466/less1.html

And by flasely claiming that I started calling you names? Is that you private definition for anyone who posts facts that prove you wrong?

Give us a freakin' break will you?

Would it kill you to stick to some facts and stop playing these games?

You are the one who called me ignorant.

I never claimed that one of the links was NOT to a Security Handbook (and it certainly does have some interesting legal observations). But you are the one ignoring the official federal statute that I also linked to.

As far as fraud, felony, or treason, as you can see above, I concede that "treason" is open to debate. That a federal crime was committed is NOT open to debate. Not that makes any sense, anyway; I suppose you are free to continue ignoring the statute...

[Manny]

Originally posted by Mark
If you will read the statute I quoted (twice) above, I think you will agree that a crime was definitely committed by people in the White House when they outed Plame.How can I make this any clearer?

If Plame's not covert, the statute's inert.

Does that help?


I will concede that whether or not that crime was treason is open to debate; but it most certainly was a crime under federal law. Actually, it's not open to debate at all. It's a wholesale fiction bleated by lefty blogs.

[Mark]

Originally posted by manny
How can I make this any clearer?

If Plame's not covert, the statute's inert.

Does that help?


Actually, it's not open to debate at all. It's a wholesale fiction bleated by lefty blogs.

So...first the claim is that no law exists. I prove that wrong (with yet another federal statute mentioned below) and the claim then becomes Plame was not even a covert agent. What can I say? It's absurd and you know it is absurd, but you make the claim anyway.

:Sources said that some of the other journalists who received the leak did not use the information because they were uncomfortable with unmasking an undercover agent or because they did not consider the information relevant to Wilson's report about Niger.
Maybe they were uncomfortable outing someone who was not covert?!?!?!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A11208-2003Sep27&notFound=true

Btw, in the same article, here is mention of yet another federal law violated:

The Intelligence Protection Act, passed in 1982, imposes maximum penalties of 10 years in prison and $50,000 in fines for unauthorized disclosure by government employees with access to classified information.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A11208-2003Sep27&notFound=true

[chulbert]

Originally posted by manny
Here's the thing that really stands out for me. According to the brief, Novak called the CIA for confirmation of Plame's identity. They confirmed it and failed to offer what the brief called "a serious objection" to publishing the information. Is it fair to infer that while the CIA may or may not have offered a "serious" objection, they did, in fact, offer an objection of some measure?

[Mark]

Originally posted by chulbert
Is it fair to infer that while the CIA may or may not have offered a "serious" objection, they did, in fact, offer an objection of some measure?

Not to mention the fact that (correct me if I am wrong) the neither CIA, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, nor anyone else in the administration have tried to make the claim that she was not a covert agent.

If they have, I hope someone will provide the quote. I am not saying it hasn't happened...merely that I have not seen it.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Mark
So...first the claim is that no law exists. I prove that wrong (with yet another federal statute mentioned below) and the claim then becomes Plame was not even a covert agent. What can I say? It's absurd and you know it is absurd, but you make the claim anyway.



No, I posted the relevant statue showing that such a law exists, not you...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by crimresearch
Where does the statute say anything about police officers?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Covert_Agent_Identity_Protection_ Act
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In fact you argued repeatedly that it didn't apply, and tried to pass off general conspiracy to defraud laws as the 'Federal Treason Statute', then claimed that the US Constitution's defintion of treason had been amended, and you promoted the claim that giving a name to Novak was treason...every bit of which is as bogus as your claim above to have been the one who posted the statute.

Why the constant obfuscation?

[Mark]

Originally posted by crimresearch
No, I posted the relevant statue showing that such a law exists, not you...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by crimresearch
Where does the statute say anything about police officers?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Covert_Agent_Identity_Protection_ Act
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In fact you argued repeatedly that it didn't apply, and tried to pass off general conspiracy to defraud laws as the 'Federal Treason Statute', then claimed that the US Constitution's defintion of treason had been amended, and you promoted the claim that giving a name to Novak was treason...every bit of which is as bogus as your claim above to have been the one who posted the statute.

Why the constant obfuscation?

Whre do I start?

a) A crime was committed...of that there is no question and I listed 2 statutes. That you say I did not is, well, bizarre to say the least.

b) I do think Novak committed treason, however, I have also admitted that that subject is open to debate. I have also said that he (and others) are protected by the shield laws. And, to be honest, a free press being crucial to our way of life, I suppose that is as it should be. I still think he committed treason...but a free press is more important, I have to admit. That does NOT excuse the leakers in the Bush Administration, though.

c) I said law enforcement officers. And, again, there are any number of local, state, and federal laws dealing with that.

Your claim that the original Constitution is the only law in this matter is absurd. The CIA didn't even exist then.

[davefoc]

Assuming that outing Ms. Plame was done for political reasons how was it beneficial to the group that the leaker belonged to. Assuming that the leaker was part of the Bush administration how was it beneficial to the Bush administration to out Plame?

Is the contention that by outing her she would be subject to personal risk and the administration wouldn't mind if she was harmed?

Or does somehow outing Plame undermine Wilson's credibility?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by hgc

I would bet my bottom dollar that all the people in this thread doing backflips to imagine away this emence crime cried "full steam ahead" to impeach Clinton for lying about his girlfriend in a deposition. Apologetics extraordinaire.

(Mostly not aimed at you, Rob) ;)

Lying before a federal grand jury is a crime. Obstruction of justice is a crime. You sir are an apologetics extraordinaire. You take a clear-cut crime and turn into "lying about his girlfriend in a deposition". If we don't hold the powerful accountable, then power becomes absolute.

Bill Clinton made a mistake. He lied in a way that was by US justice standards criminal. Some feel that Bush knowingly lied about Iraq's WMD capacities. They make a very strong case. What they don't have is a criminal act even if the lie is very obvious (much like clinton's).

People who try to makes an apples-apples comparison of these situations and then use their subjective viewpoint as authority to declare others hypocrits are tiresome. These people are either ignorant of the facts of the Clinton case, deluded, or dishonest.

I like Bill Clinton. I wish Bush would nominate him to the supreme court. The UN would be better off with Bill Clinton in charge. Did Clinton screw the pooch by lieing before a grand jury? Yes he did. Can a person believe he was wrong for that and still think Clinton can be a great leader? Yes.

Do aholes who make what they think are original and sly references pointing out the disparity in "fibbing about a BJ" and "fibbing and getting a thousand men killed" deserve to be flogged with J. Edgar Hoovers Sunday hosiery? Yes.

[Manny]

Originally posted by chulbert
Is it fair to infer that while the CIA may or may not have offered a "serious" objection, they did, in fact, offer an objection of some measure? More than fair. I apologize that I've long since lost the links and the will to look 'em up again, but there was one after-the-fact interview with Novak in which he specifically stated that they offered some objection and another in which he stated the standard of seriousness he used in this case and in prior instances.


Originally posted by Mark
Btw, in the same article, here is mention of yet another federal law violated:

The Intelligence Protection Act, passed in 1982, imposes maximum penalties of 10 years in prison and $50,000 in fines for unauthorized disclosure by government employees with access to classified information. Congratulations. You've just made it crystal clear that you have not read the amicus brief, that you know literally nothing about this case and that you have no interest in learning anything about it. That's not yet another law, THAT'S THE ED-DAMNED LAW WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE WHOLE TIME.


Originally posted by Mark
Not to mention the fact that (correct me if I am wrong) the neither CIA, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, nor anyone else in the administration have tried to make the claim that she was not a covert agent.

If they have, I hope someone will provide the quote. I am not saying it hasn't happened...merely that I have not seen it.That's fascinating since you've been claiming throughout this thread that "Republicans" have been claiming that no crime occurred when the only cite to that claim was to a group of news organizations.

You're trolling. We're done here.

[Manny]

Originally posted by davefoc
Is the contention that by outing her she would be subject to personal risk and the administration wouldn't mind if she was harmed?

Or does somehow outing Plame undermine Wilson's credibility? The theory is that it was a slightly less sinister version of the first of those ideas. It's not so much that she'd be put at personal risk but that her career would be seriously damaged because she could no longer be put at risk. The alleged benefit to the Bush administration would be that the disclosure would serve as a warning to any other potential leakers that the gloves were off.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by manny
The theory is that it was a slightly less sinister version of the first of those ideas. It's not so much that she'd be put at personal risk but that her career would be seriously damaged because she could no longer be put at risk. The alleged benefit to the Bush administration would be that the disclosure would serve as a warning to any other potential leakers that the gloves were off.

Your last sentence: I never considered that aspect. Plame, by advancing her husband's goals -- goals she well knew -- found a way of "leaking*" information neither she nor her husband could do independently. Her position at the CIA make it impossible to publically declare that which she believed to be true. Her husbands lack of 'official' accessability (and therefore lack of credibility) to the information made it impossible for him to publically declare what he too believed to be true. Am I off base interpreting your presumptions?



*'Leak' is a bad word. 'Outing' would be a better word but it's more a combination of the two. ETA: whistleblow is the best word but it's not quite that either. 2ETA: 'Embarassing outing/whistleblow of a political flub that might otherwise have gone unnoticed' might be the best word but it's got too many letters. :)

3ETA: My analysis of your interpreted presumption does not assume you hold the position, just that this is your assumption that this is the position the detractors hold.

[Manny]

Ooh. Ugh. Yeah, that's not what I was trying to say and "leaker" was a terrible word to use. I apologize for that. Substitute "in-government opponents of administration policy who are thinking of making their objections public" for "leakers." And to be clear, I'm not implying that those who believe this theory would ascribe any motives at all to Ms. Plame herself. It's pretty clear that they believe Mr. Wilson was the presumed target of the leak and that Ms. Plame's career was collateral damage or perhaps the instrument used to get at Wilson.

For myself, I don't think that's what happened. I think journalists asked why a guy with close ties with the former administration and no WMD experience, a guy whom the administration was now trying mightily to discredit, was sent to Niger. Something to the effect of 'geez, you say this guy is full of it, so how did he get the gig in the first place?' And the answer was 'his wife recommended him,' nothing more sinister than that. I was merely trying to provide a fair picture of what those who believe that Ms. Plame's name was leaked for some 'purpose' believe in response to davefoc's question.

Sorry I screwed that up, davefoc, and thanks Rob for the opportunity to correct.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by manny
Ooh. Ugh. Yeah,

I was editing my post when you wrote that. Read the edit. I get you perfectly.

[Manny]

You did indeed. But I appreciate the opportunity to be more clear nonetheless, particularly since I was trying to capture fairly a belief I don't share. It's all good. :)

[Mark]

Originally posted by manny

That's fascinating since you've been claiming throughout this thread that "Republicans" have been claiming that no crime occurred when the only cite to that claim was to a group of news organizations.

You're trolling. We're done here.

I was not aware that the people I mentioned were the only Republicans in this country. How odd...I guess they really did hijack the last two elections then.

[hgc]

Originally posted by corplinx
Lying before a federal grand jury is a crime. Obstruction of justice is a crime. You sir are an apologetics extraordinaire. You take a clear-cut crime and turn into "lying about his girlfriend in a deposition". If we don't hold the powerful accountable, then power becomes absolute.

Bill Clinton made a mistake. He lied in a way that was by US justice standards criminal. Some feel that Bush knowingly lied about Iraq's WMD capacities. They make a very strong case. What they don't have is a criminal act even if the lie is very obvious (much like clinton's).

People who try to makes an apples-apples comparison of these situations and then use their subjective viewpoint as authority to declare others hypocrits are tiresome. These people are either ignorant of the facts of the Clinton case, deluded, or dishonest.

I like Bill Clinton. I wish Bush would nominate him to the supreme court. The UN would be better off with Bill Clinton in charge. Did Clinton screw the pooch by lieing before a grand jury? Yes he did. Can a person believe he was wrong for that and still think Clinton can be a great leader? Yes.

Do aholes who make what they think are original and sly references pointing out the disparity in "fibbing about a BJ" and "fibbing and getting a thousand men killed" deserve to be flogged with J. Edgar Hoovers Sunday hosiery? Yes. I don't disagree with much of what you said (except the part where you call me an apologist). I know Clinton committed a crime.

I don't have any reason to believe that Bush committed a crime in this case. I do think that someone in the White House committed a crime, and call me crazy, but it's a hell of a lot worse one than Clinton's -- by many orders of magintude. I do think that Bush isn't doing anything to root out the traitor in the White House. Just my opinion.

My point was to point out the hypocrisy of those who are bending over backwards, forwards and sideways to try to disappear this monstrous crime from reality -- because the alternative is politically inconvenient, distasteful.

Impeachment is a political, not a criminal, proceding. I don't think Clinton or our country deserved impeachment for his crimes. I do think we all deserve Bush's impeachment for leading us into this war on a batch of cooked up "evidence" from Ahmed Chalabi -- even if no known statute was violated. That he has the gall to shelter the traitor in the White House is just ... galling.

[davefoc]

Manny wrote:For myself, I don't think that's what happened. I think journalists asked why a guy with close ties with the former administration and no WMD experience, a guy whom the administration was now trying mightily to discredit, was sent to Niger. Something to the effect of 'geez, you say this guy is full of it, so how did he get the gig in the first place?' And the answer was 'his wife recommended him,' nothing more sinister than that....

I find this conjecture together with some of your previous conjectures completely plausible. I suspect that your conjectures may be about as close to the truth of the situation as we get. I don't expect real candor from anybody involved and the closest we will ever get to the truth is a guess based on what we choose to believe of the information that makes its way into the public media.

Corplinx wrote:
Bill Clinton made a mistake. He lied in a way that was by US justice standards criminal. Some feel that Bush knowingly lied about Iraq's WMD capacities. They make a very strong case. What they don't have is a criminal act even if the lie is very obvious (much like clinton's)..

This, I think, is exactly the situation. The consequences of Bush's actions with regard to Iraq are enormous compared to Clinton's actions with regard to Ms. Lewinsky. None the less, Clinton committed a crime and Bush appears not to have. Lying, making decisions for political reasons, and being wrong in ways that result in the death of thousands are not crimes for a US president even if it could be proved that he did those things.

Corplinx wrote:I like Bill Clinton. I wish Bush would nominate him to the supreme court. The UN would be better off with Bill Clinton in charge. Did Clinton screw the pooch by lieing before a grand jury? Yes he did. Can a person believe he was wrong for that and still think Clinton can be a great leader? Yes.

The thought has occurred to me that the country might have been far better off with another term or two from Clinton than with Bush. I can even buy into the idea a bit that the lies in Lewinsky affair were not bad enough to serve as a justification for an overall negative view of Clinton. But that is not all there is. Besides miscellaneous stories of questionable judgment there is the clear cut fact of the pardons at the end of his presidency. It is amazing to me that you would even consider for the Supreme court somebody that had done something like that.

Incidentally, I agree that he lied in front of the grand jury, The fact is that I don't think he ever told the truth with respect to this affair unless there existed overwhelming evidence that left him no choice but to do so. But I don't think lying before the grand jury was ever proved. If it had been I suspect some Democrats would have voted against him in the impeachment trial.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by davefoc
Besides miscellaneous stories of questionable judgment there is the clear cut fact of the pardons at the end of his presidency. It is amazing to me that you would even consider for the Supreme court somebody that had done something like that.

I have no idea how involved he was in some of the more unsavory pardons other than signing them. He has a big staff and its likely most were brought before him for a rubber stamp by people he trusted.

To be honest, I am not the most informed person to pass judgement on this. I do remember wondering why the hell he pardoned Rich.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by corplinx
I have no idea how involved he was in some of the more unsavory pardons other than signing them. He has a big staff and its likely most were brought before him for a rubber stamp by people he trusted.

To be honest, I am not the most informed person to pass judgement on this. I do remember wondering why the hell he pardoned Rich.

How 'bout if we just nominate Bill Clinton as head of the UN instead. I actually think he'd do a fine job. Even if Hillary becomes the next U.S. president there will be no conflict of interest since they really don't appear to like each other.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by corplinx
He has a big staff Oh?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by varwoche
I merely asked a question. If the answer is no, as you seem to infer, then I assume that if/when Time states that Rove outted Plame, that you would accept this as convincing evidence that Rove outted Plame. Correct? Bump for crackmonkey.

Rove has been identified, and since we're both on record (by inference) as not being conspiracy theorists, do you accept this as a closed matter? That is, had you accepted my wager, would you be paying up?