Rove implicated in Plame outing

[robprunzit]

Re: Rove implicated in Plame outing

Hmmm, wonder if Rob still thinks that republicans don't defend themselves or attack anyone else?

Well, its about time. And they needed to speak up on this apparently. Looks like to me, the democrats are only trying to dig up dirt in whatever way they can, and this one will not stick either.

I really haven't been keeping up with it much lately, but some of the points I have heard are that there is a web site ( anyone know of it? ) which had stated that she worked for the CIA, and it was mentioned on this web site well before Rove did or said whatever he may have said. Also, he apparently didn't break any laws by what he said, or did.

Well, forgive me, I'm a bit ignorant on this one, as I am having some harddrive sticking computer problems, and my time has been devoted elsewhere this week.

[robprunzit]

Re: Rove implicated in Plame outing

the only way Rove leaves the WH is if he's indicted.

Doubtful, at least based upon what is in the public eye. As a tangent, I've been listening to some conservative talk radio over the last couple days on this topic, and the focus seems to be on two points:

1. That all signs suggest that Rove didn't actually break the law because he didn't use Plame's name.

2. That Plame's identity was well-known and that she wasn't really all that undercover anyway.

To the first point, I say big fucking deal. Whether or not what Rove did was technically illegal within the terms of a pretty tightly worded statute is a red herring. The disclosure of information that would make it easy to discover her identity is what is really at issue.

To the second point, I'm calling bullshit. I've yet to hear anyone provide anything to back up this suggestion at all -- just bald statements by people that, I suspect, had never heard the name Valerie Plame before all of this broke way back when...

Bush would be smart to suck it up and fire Rove. Keeping him on will only fuel the fire.

For example, McClellan got whipped during his daily briefing again today:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0050712-4.html

Well, toasty, I give you credit ( and the others for the opposing views posted in the above thread ) for even showing some of the discussion out there at this time.

Bush will not lie down to these attacks, he won't fire Rove unless someone can come up with credible evidence of his wrong doing.

If her job was not secretive, and it was well known by others, and it had been mentioned on a website earlier, I really wonder what the big deal is?
Apparently she went to Langley daily. Doesn't sound to top secret to me.

But again, I haven't been keeping up with it much, so forgive me.

[pacific493]

Re: Rove implicated in Plame outing

Hmmm, wonder if Rob still thinks that republicans don't defend themselves or attack anyone else?

Well, its about time. And they needed to speak up on this apparently. Looks like to me, the democrats are only trying to dig up dirt in whatever way they can, and this one will not stick either.

I really haven't been keeping up with it much lately, but some of the points I have heard are that there is a web site ( anyone know of it? ) which had stated that she worked for the CIA, and it was mentioned on this web site well before Rove did or said whatever he may have said. Also, he apparently didn't break any laws by what he said, or did.

Well, forgive me, I'm a bit ignorant on this one, as I am having some harddrive sticking computer problems, and my time has been devoted elsewhere this week.

Rob,

I think you're one of the only people who thinks that the republicans are just getting around to going on the attack.

There have been rumors floating around that Plame's identity was known prior to Rove's conversation with Cooper, but nothing has been substantiated. My understanding is that Andrea Mitchell was one of the main sources.

Whether he broke any laws remains to be seen. There has been a lot of dissembling by republicans on this point (i.e. he didn't violate the statute because he didn't say her name, he didn't call Cooper, he didn't etc. etc.). Fitzgerald will have a hard time proving a violation of the secret identity statute...if Rove is indicated, my money is on an obstruction or perjury charge.

[pacific493]

Re: Rove implicated in Plame outing

If her job was not secretive, and it was well known by others, and it had been mentioned on a website earlier, I really wonder what the big deal is?
Apparently she went to Langley daily. Doesn't sound to top secret to me.

It's been mentioned on a lot of partisan conservative websites, but I've yet to see any good credible evidence of it. Just lot's of speculation and conjecture.

[toasty]

Re: Rove implicated in Plame outing

If her job was not secretive, and it was well known by others, and it had been mentioned on a website earlier, I really wonder what the big deal is?
Apparently she went to Langley daily. Doesn't sound to top secret to me.

Again, I heard a lot of reference to this, particularly early on, but I haven't heard it from any credible source and haven't seen any evidence to back it up of any sort. I suspect that this was the drum beat initially, but as it became apparent that it didn't hold any water, the right stopped harping on it as much and shifted the focus to the current position, that Rove didn't commit a crime and that he was just trying to prevent Cooper from printing an incorrect story.

To the world, Valerie Plame worked for Brewster-Jennings & Associates as an energy consultant, an energy company now known to be a CIA front. According to Larry Johnson, a classmate of hers at the CIA, she was what is known as "non-official cover," which means that she was not acknowledged by the US Government as an employee, did not travel with a diplomatic passport (as "official cover" operatives do -- it protects them if caught) and would be executed if caught.

Of course, Larry is pretty pissed that she was outed, is one of the folks at the CIA who pushed for the investigation of the source of the leak, and now appears regularly as a source for "liberal" blogs and talk shows (although he wasn't an openly partisan person before all of this, having served under Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43) on this topic, so I suspect most Rove-apologists discount everything he has to say, but there you go.

Here's a way to fairly easy cut through the haze, though -- there has been a criminal investigation ongoing for many months now over whether a crime has been committed. Of the elements of the crime, whether Valerie was or was not classified as a covert operative offers the least wiggle room in terms of subjectivity and area for discussion. Either she was or she wasn't, and the answer to that question would almost certainly be answered at the very outset of the investigation. Moreover, you wouldn't expect the CIA, whose interests are obviously very much aligned with those of the country and the administration, to needlessly insist on an investigation of the outing of someone who was openly working for the CIA. That the investigation has reached this point makes it pretty clear to me that the argument that she wasn't really covert lacks credibility.

Sounds to me like more of the work of the RNC misinformation and propaganda machine -- make a suggestion without support or evidence (that maybe she wasn't covert), get people talking about it, and the more people talk about it, the more credibility it gets. Eventually, people assume it is true because there's so much discussion about it, even through there isn't a shred of evidence to back it up. Credit where credit is due, it works for them, but I'm hoping that the masses finally wise up this time and start looking behind the sound bites.

[toasty]

Evidently, Bloomberg is planning on running a story, probably later today, that indicates that Rove's testimony that he learned Plame's identity from Robert Novak, "differs" from Novak's testimony on that point, although who knows what "differs" means. Scooter Libby's testimony that he learned Plame's identity from Tim Russert, however, was flatly denied by Russert.

Interesting to see how this develops -- I'll try to find the story and post it once it breaks...

[toasty]

Re: Rove implicated in Plame outing

Here it is:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...8&refer=us

Highlights:

Rove, Libby Accounts on Plame Differ With Reporters'

July 22 (Bloomberg) -- Two top White House aides have given accounts to a special prosecutor about how reporters first told them the identity of a CIA agent that are at odds with what the reporters have said, according to people familiar with the case.

Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first learned from NBC News reporter Tim Russert of the identity of Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador and Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, one person said. Russert has testified before Fitzgerald that he didn't tell Libby of Plame's identity, the person said.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove told Fitzgerald that he first learned the identity of the CIA agent from syndicated columnist Robert Novak, according to a person familiar with the matter. Novak, who was first to report Plame's name and connection to Wilson, has given a somewhat different version to the special prosecutor, the person said.

These discrepancies may be important because Fitzgerald is investigating whether Libby, Rove or other administration officials made false statements during the course of the investigation. The Plame case has its genesis in whether anyone violated a 1982 law making it illegal to knowingly reveal the name of a covert intelligence agent.

not much more detail, but there ya go...

[thesightless]

Re: Rove implicated in Plame outing

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/laws/iipa.html

that should help. 1982 law on protecting secret information and those who leak it.