Karl Rove might be in serious trouble...

[Red Harvest]

This is interesting... Was Karl Rove behind the CIA agent leak?

But Bush's spokesman wouldn't repeat any of those assertions Monday in the face of Rove's own lawyer saying his client spoke with at least one reporter about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified in a newspaper column.

Rove described the woman to a reporter as someone who "apparently works" at the CIA, according to an e-mail obtained by Newsweek magazine.

Wouldn't surprise me. It fits in with the "total war" approach Dubya has used against political rivals, even in his own party.

[Proletariat]

*tearfully runs upstairs and rips her Karl Rove poster off her wall*

How could he?!

[Don Corleone]

Judas Priest. This almost too stupid to be true. The Sith lord Darth Rove has a horde of underlings he could have ordered to send the email. I'm amazed he'd be dumb enough to do it himself. More importantly, I'm really amazed the White House has been swearing up one side & down the other Rove had nothing to do with it, with this email (which isn't very secure) floating around out there...

Should be an interesting next couple of weeks... stay tuned sports fans.

Edit: Btw, for all those that claim Fox is under orders from Bush & Rove, you should be interested to note that they're running the story too.

[Proletariat]

So what if Rove committed perjury in front of a grand jury. We have the precendent for that, all he has to do is apologize and surrender his law license, and be done with it. On to the book deals. Right leftists? Or do we have a double standard?

(Even before the Rove stuff started to come out, I never really understood the significance of this story. The woman was, as previously noted, an analyst and not a covert operative. It isnt covered under the statute.)

[Red Harvest]

I'm not really sure about the statute aspect of it. Since her husband did his work internationally, the revelation posed a serious threat to her in travel. If it is not covered under the letter of the law, it must certainly have been within the spirit. As such, I have a hard time not seeing it as a treasonous act. Comparing it to lying about a personal matter in a civil case seems quite the mismatch. (Particularly since the Supreme Court should not have allowed the Witch Hunt in the first place--the laughable bit in the decision about defending oneself in a civil trial not being an undue distraction to the Presidency--which was very shortly proven 1000% wrong.)

But it is all speculation at the moment. We have to wait to see what the real evidence is.

If it does turn out to be true, then I want to know if Bush already knew but has continued to try to shield and deny...well, that seems a lot more important than a BJ to me.

As to significance: it is a clear abuse of power, by an administration that seems to relish wielding the stick against political enemies.

[Proletariat]

Nice analysis here:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/mai...ove_and_t.html

Did the various editors at the Times, the WaPo, and Time magazine really sit on evidence that would have incriminated Karl Rove all through last fall's campaign? What happened to the public's right to know? ...Either they are awfully dumb (possible!), or the story is not there. Or both.

[Xiahou]

*tearfully runs upstairs and rips her Karl Rove poster off her wall*

How could he?!

That's priceless.

(Even before the Rove stuff started to come out, I never really understood the significance of this story. The woman was, as previously noted, an analyst and not a covert operative. It isnt covered under the statute.)

I second that lack of understanding. It was widely known in DC circles that she was a CIA agent. Some reporter even reluctantly admitted to that in an interview.... I'll try to find a link.

The email from Rove was a note of caution to a reporter. Basically saying that don't try to hitch Wilson to the Bush admin, because it was his wife, not them that chose him for the job. At least, that's what I got out of it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Its really funny this whole thing started because a conservative wouldnt give up his source so unlike what happens when a liberal does this the media went after him and then one of their own winds up in jail. I find it very amusing.

[sharrukin]

Valerie Plame was not simply an analyst or a data cruncher. Intelligence officials said Plame worked on the spread of missiles and nuclear, biological and chemical arms, collectively known as weapons of mass destruction. She was a CIA operative dedicated to tracking person's or nation's that might try to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

Larry Johnson - a former CIA and State Department official who was a 1985 classmate of Plame's in the CIA's case officer-training program at Camp Peary, Va., known as "the Farm" - predicted that when the CIA's internal damage assessment is finished, "at the end of the day, (the harm) will be huge and some people potentially may have lost their lives."

Ray McGovern, who was for 27-years a senior analyst for the CIA, further confirms the status of Plame within the CIA. "I know Joseph Wilson well enough to know," said McGovern in a telephone conversation we had today, "that his wife was in fact a deep cover operative running a network of informants on what is supposedly this administration's first-priority issue: Weapons of mass destruction."

She operated as an energy analyst for the CIA’s Directorate of Operations. The Directorate of Operations is the CIA's covert arm. In 1990 and 1991, Plame was attached to an American embassy somewhere in Europe, according to address records, suggesting she may have operated under official cover for a time. The exact embassy she worked for is not being revealed, for obvious reasons. Her name doesn't appear in State Department telephone and embassy directories from that period. They may have been removed or she may have been operating under a cover name.

She used a front company, Brewster-Jennings & Associates. The purpose of such a front is the monitoring, not only of WMD, but also ARAMCO, Saudi Arabia with their oil production and it's internal politics. The Bin-laden family also being part of the internal political makeup of Saudi Arabia. The usefullness of Brewster Jennings ended the moment Plame's identity was revealed. Brewster-Jennings & Associates was a well-established CIA proprietary company, and any other NOC (non-official cover) agents, associated with the company, along with their contacts and sources are now exposed as well.

Within hours of her name becoming common knowledge every intelligence apparatus in the world, friendly or hostile, would immediately begin investigating her, the front company, and anyone associated with it, in addition to any of her known contacts. Her sources, or indeed anyone she met with could be in danger now. Anything that Plame was involved with, any operation, any company she was supposed to be working for, any people she worked closely with, are possibly CIA assets, or at least work with CIA. They also now know to steer clear of them.

Good luck in attempting to recruit new sources, and operatives in areas where they could be threatened by such leaks.

This is treason.

[Hurin_Rules]

The woman was, as previously noted, an analyst and not a covert operative. It isnt covered under the statute.

I was under the impression that she WAS an operative. Not trying to cause trouble, but can you confirm that she was only an analyst? Perhaps with a link?

[Xiahou]

Within hours of her name becoming common knowledge every intelligence apparatus in the world, friendly or hostile, would immediately begin investigating her, the front company, and anyone associated with it, in addition to any of her known contacts. Her sources, or indeed anyone she met with could be in danger now. Anything that Plame was involved with, any operation, any company she was supposed to be working for, any people she worked closely with, are possibly CIA assets, or at least work with CIA. They also now know to steer clear of them.

I find that hard to believe if the fact that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent was already public knowledge in DC.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Now heres an article with a bit more meat to it.

Plame, By Any Other Name

By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, July 11, 2005; 1:21 PM

There is no longer any question that top presidential adviser Karl Rove is a key player in the Valerie Plame case.

In fact, what Rove told Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper about Plame is apparently one of the last things special prosecutor Patrick J.Fitzgerald is trying to determine before he wraps up his investigation into whether Plame was illegally outed as a CIA agent.


Newsweek yesterday described e-mails from Cooper relating his July 2003 interview with Rove. Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, told The Washington Post yesterday that his client spoke to Cooper, but did not identify Plame by name. Luskin also said Fitzgerald has told him that Rove is not a target of the probe.

But let's look at what we can conclude from all this

LINK

Draw your own conclusions.

[Byzantine Prince]

Ahem. Karl Rove did what he did to punish Joe Wilson for saying the Bush admin. was wrong. To deny that is naive.

Furthermore the fact that she might be an analyst or whatever else is meaningless, if you consider the motive of Rove in getting her name in print. I'm sure he didn't do it for nothing, and I'm sure he won't be persecuted for publishing information already 'out there'. That's a stupid argument.

[Don Corleone]

Ahem. Karl Rove did what he did to punish Joe Wilson for saying the Bush admin. was wrong. To deny that is naive.

Furthermore the fact that she might be an analyst or whatever else is meaningless, if you consider the motive of Rove in getting her name in print. I'm sure he didn't do it for nothing, and I'm sure he won't be persecuted for publishing information already 'out there'. That's a stupid argument.

I had no idea you were on his hotline and had insight into his thought process. What's naive is you assuming that because you want to nail Rove, the whole story must be true. Do you really think the Prince of Darkness, as you on the Left like to refer to him, the evil genius who convinced the country to vote for that schlep, Bush, not once but twice, would be dumb enough to send an email to a reporter for Time Magazine saying "Psst! Joe Wilson's wife is a spy. But don't tell anyone I'm the one who told you!"

[econ21]

Do you really think the Prince of Darkness, as you on the Left like to refer to him, the evil genius who convinced the country to vote for that schlep, Bush, not once but twice, would be dumb enough to send an email to a reporter for Time Magazine saying "Psst! Joe Wilson's wife is a spy. But don't tell anyone I'm the one who told you!"

I don't know much about the specifics of this case, but in some ways it reminds me of some of the shenanagins that our New Labour "spin doctors" have got up to in the UK. Our own "Prince of Darkness", Peter Mandelson, managed to get himself sacked twice for seemingly "dumb" actions. They are only human, working under a lot of pressure in a very fast moving environment. They are used to operating under the cloak of anonymity and perhaps to cutting corners to get things done. Those perceived to have a lot of power like Mandelson and Rove may perhaps be prone to delusions of grandeur.

[ichi]

Rove is clearly responsible for outing a deep cover agent.

and he did it in a show of force, to hurt a perceived enemy and remind others who might oppose the current admin that they, too, could be hurt.

He will escape criminal prosecution (what he did doesn't qualify as a crime under the law due to several factors, none of which can be proved intentional criminal behavior).

Bush owes him too much (and he knows too much about Bush and his *coughs* laundry *cough*) to ever be ousted.

In this episode I think we will see the lack of responsibility and accountability in this admin.

If Rove is 'let go' it'll prolly be a sham where in reality he goes to work plotting the Jeb's election in 2008.

ichi

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I tend to think your right about eerything except this

If Rove is 'let go' it'll prolly be a sham where in reality he goes to work plotting the Jeb's election in 2008.

Jeb aint a gona run yet. The country wouldnt elect another Bush so soon.

[ichi]

George Herbert Walker Bush still has one term he could legally serve

or maybe they'll reanimate Reagan

Tom DeLay clearly isn't human, so he's out

Teh Arnold is too left coast

OMG, Laura??!!

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Jeb already said he won't.



I'm telling you, clone Teddy Roosevelt. I think he'd be a great Republican candidate.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

OMG, Laura??!!

Could you Imagine Laura Bush vs Madame Hillary? I know where my vote would go.

[ichi]

Could you Imagine Laura Bush vs Madame Hillary? I know where my vote would go.

I would have to go with you, or move to Canada

Gah!

I will not sleep well tonite

[Papewaio]

Independent of who leaked the information what should the penalty be?

Just pretend it was Hillary Clinton for those on the right...

[sharrukin]

I find that hard to believe if the fact that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent was already public knowledge in DC.

It was considered to be of sufficient concern to the CIA that they referred the matter to the Justice Department. Do you have a source for this "public knowledge"?

[Don Corleone]

Independent of who leaked the information what should the penalty be?

Just pretend it was Hillary Clinton for those on the right...

Depends on what her role was. If she was a field agent, the leaker (whomever it is) should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If she was an internal analyst, that's not protected information. I'd say no penalty in that case.

[bmolsson]

It's a little bit of a hype everytime somebody tells government secrets in US. Maybe it's time for the US government to abandon the "secret policies" and just have everything public in the first place ?

[Lemur]

If we assume the worst, there are two defenses that spring to mind for Mr. Rove:

(1) He never uttered Mrs. Plame's full name. I seriously doubt that will stand the laugh test.

(2) He knew she was a C.I.A. employee, but he didn't know she was a covert asset. The law only covers covert operatives, and if he didn't know, or can plausibly deny that he knew, he might be able to save his bacon.

That's all I can think of on short notice. Didn't we used to have a couple of lawyers rolling around the Backroom? They might have more light to shed on the subject.

[Hurin_Rules]

Well, I still haven't seen any evidence to support the assertion that she was just an analyst, not an agent.

The fact that a criminal investigation has been launched would seem to suggest that she was of such a status that outing her would be a crime. Why else would an investigation be warranted?

[t1master]

democratic penis envy...

and about two years too late guys...

thank you drive through...
:OP

[Proletariat]

Scott McClellan getting murdered up there today:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1000977098

Q: Does the president stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in a leak of the name of a CIA operative?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked related to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point.

And as I’ve previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it.

The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren’t going to comment on it while it is ongoing.

Q: I actually wasn’t talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the president said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak to the press about information. I just wanted to know: Is that still his position?

MCCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that’s why I said that our policy continues to be that we’re not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium.

The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium....

Q: Scott, if I could point out: Contradictory to that statement, on September 29th of 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one to have said that if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then, on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation, when the president made his comments that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you’ve suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, 'We’re not going to comment on an ongoing investigation'?

MCCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. And that’s something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow.

And that’s why we’re continuing to follow that approach and that policy. Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And, at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.

Q: So could I just ask: When did you change your mind to say that it was OK to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it’s not?

MCCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry’s question at the beginning. There came a point, when the investigation got under way, when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be — or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing.
I think that’s the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.

Q: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than: We're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

Q: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this"?

MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.

Q: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?

MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation...

Q: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.

Q: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?

MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

Q: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began.

Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?

MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that.....

And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.

I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

Q: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven't.

MCCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I'm just not going to respond to them.

Q: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?

MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.

Q: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

Q: Well, we are going to keep asking them.

Where's Ari Fleischer at these days?

[Lemur]

The fact that a criminal investigation has been launched would seem to suggest that she was of such a status that outing her would be a crime.

Correct. Publicly outing an analyst is not a crime. Airing the identity of a covert asset is a crime. For those who assert that Mrs. Plame was an analyst, I am curious about how they've arrived at that conclusion.