SilverNRed Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Link For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real "whistleblower" in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He's the one who warned Time's Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson's credibility. He's the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn't a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign. On the "no underlying crime" point, moreover, no less than the New York Times and Washington Post now agree. So do the 36 major news organizations that filed a legal brief in March aimed at keeping Mr. Cooper and the New York Times's Judith Miller out of jail. "While an investigation of the leak was justified, it is far from clear--at least on the public record--that a crime took place," the Post noted the other day. Granted the media have come a bit late to this understanding, and then only to protect their own, but the logic of their argument is that Mr. Rove did nothing wrong either. "Interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD [Counterproliferation Division] employee, suggested his name for the trip," said the report. The same bipartisan report also pointed out that the forged documents Mr. Wilson claimed to have discredited hadn't even entered intelligence channels until eight months after his trip. And it said the CIA interpreted the information he provided in his debrief as mildly supportive of the suspicion that Iraq had been seeking uranium in Niger. About the same time, another inquiry headed by Britain's Lord Butler delivered its own verdict on the 16 words: "We conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that 'The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa' was well-founded." In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission. The media and the Kerry campaign promptly abandoned him, though the former never did give as much prominence to his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know. No rush to reply to this since everyone already knows where everyone else stands. I find it interesting that more than half of the full story is being ignored by the talking heads on TV these days... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 You see it really depends on how you define the word "is". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 He is never going to be convicted of violating the law on the "outing of a CIA" agent. He did, of course, break the spirit of the law but not the technicality of the law. He could, however, be in legal trouble depending on what he said to the grand jury, a perjury charge. But i doubt that will happen either. In other words, he will skate, and the only thing that will come of it is the fact that he will be "outed" in public as the scumbag that he is. Granted, he is absolutely brilliant at his job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 This is probably a better thread to discuss the actual case. What appears to be the case here is a carbon copy of the Martha Stewart fiasco. It's becoming apparent that no one in the White House, or outside broke any laws wrt naming Plame, outing her, giving a her bad haircut for the Fanity Fair spread, etc. I think this is the paramount reason no one is going after Novak's notes. What seems to be driving this crazy train is possibly Rove or someone else inside gave a different account to the special prosecutor then what was actually told to the reporters. Thus, Rove may be investigated and indicted for lying about a non-crime. Sweet justice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Thus, Rove may be investigated and indicted for lying about a non-crime. Sweet justice 380698[/snapback] It's funny how people never learn from history, that the coverup is usually what gets them in trouble, not the original act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 This is probably a better thread to discuss the actual case. What appears to be the case here is a carbon copy of the Martha Stewart fiasco. It's becoming apparent that no one in the White House, or outside broke any laws wrt naming Plame, outing her, giving a her bad haircut for the Fanity Fair spread, etc. I think this is the paramount reason no one is going after Novak's notes. What seems to be driving this crazy train is possibly Rove or someone else inside gave a different account to the special prosecutor then what was actually told to the reporters. Thus, Rove may be investigated and indicted for lying about a non-crime. Sweet justice 380698[/snapback] What doesn't hold water for me is the argument that Rove would have no idea that she was a covert agent. That's HIS fault and a huge problem. There seems to be only two possibilities: Either he knew she was a covert agent and he outed her anyway, or he knew she was a CIA agent and never bothered finding out if she was covert or not, because if he did, he would have known. That in and of itself is a problem. Face it, he outed her. He did it for revenge. He knew what he was doing. He did it in such a way as to probably not be in danger legally unless he also lied to the grand jury, for the simple reason that the law is very difficult to prove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Don't you libs even read threads? She was probably outed by Aldrich Ames at least 10 years ago. She is a desk jockey now, an analyst, not an active agent (= spy). Just because someone works for the CIA doesn't make them a spy. It was common knowledge in the press that she worked for the CIA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Don't you libs even read threads? She was probably outed by Aldrich Ames at least 10 years ago. She is a desk jockey now, an analyst, not an active agent (= spy). Just because someone works for the CIA doesn't make them a spy. It was common knowledge in the press that she worked for the CIA. 380831[/snapback] I know a few folks who work there. One's an accountant, a few are "admin specialists" (secretaries), a d-base administrator and a PR person. I don't think they've even been to the spy museum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Don't you libs even read threads? She was probably outed by Aldrich Ames at least 10 years ago. She is a desk jockey now, an analyst, not an active agent (= spy). Just because someone works for the CIA doesn't make them a spy. It was common knowledge in the press that she worked for the CIA. 380831[/snapback] I do not know what her job was. Why would Patrick Fitzgerald be put in charge of uncovering who outed the CIA agent if there was never the possibility of a crime? Certainly, it would not be illegal to give the name of just any person who worked for the agency who was just a desk jockey. There simply would not be an investigation. This isn't any official news sorce, just one of us geeks. Relevency of Aldrich Ames What exactly is the relevency of Aldrich Ames? Assuming he did compromise Plame's identity to the Russians, how does that change her covert status? Is it really your assertion that Fitzgerald has run an investigation (and put Judith Miller in jail) and that the CIA would request such an investigation if Plame was not covert? Thats a pretty fundamental factor in determining whether an investigation should occur. The legal definition of a covert agent in this case is: (4) The term "covert agent" means-- (A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency-- (i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and (ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or (B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and-- (i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or (ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or Most information seems to indicate that Valerie Plame qualifies under at least one of these defintions. She worked on WMD issues so its entirely possible she is covert under 4-B-ii. If she worked at all in the last five years outside the United States she qualifies under 4-A as she was under non-official cover and her identity was classified. Now perhaps they've had an extensive investigation at the request of the CIA, threatened jail time and subpoenaed some of the most powerful people in the Administration when the most fundamental foundation of the case - whether she was covert - was not known or known to be false. But I find it unlikely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 13, 2005 Author Share Posted July 13, 2005 I do not know what her job was. Why would Patrick Fitzgerald be put in charge of uncovering who outed the CIA agent if there was never the possibility of a crime? Certainly, it would not be illegal to give the name of just any person who worked for the agency who was just a desk jockey. There simply would not be an investigation. This isn't any official news sorce, just one of us geeks. 380872[/snapback] I've heard that Fitzgerald was put in charge of an investigation basically to make the story go away rather than turn into a circus (which, sadly, it is anyway). The idea being that if someone could find out exactly what happened, the truth would be a lot less exciting than what people were hoping for. I'd be interested in seeing what he discovers - though he isn't obligated to ever release any thing he finds (supposedly, again). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 I've heard that Fitzgerald was put in charge of an investigation basically to make the story go away rather than turn into a circus (which, sadly, it is anyway). The idea being that if someone could find out exactly what happened, the truth would be a lot less exciting than what people were hoping for. I'd be interested in seeing what he discovers - though he isn't obligated to ever release any thing he finds (supposedly, again). 380919[/snapback] Yeah, right, sure. What is more final and would stop more potential circuses than: "There was no crime committed. There was NO possibility of a crime committed. Valerie Plame was not a covert CIA agent. Even if someone intentionally and malisciously "outed" her, there was no foul play whatsoever." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 13, 2005 Author Share Posted July 13, 2005 Yeah, right, sure. What is more final and would stop more potential circuses than: "There was no crime committed. There was NO possibility of a crime committed. Valerie Plame was not a covert CIA agent. Even if someone intentionally and malisciously "outed" her, there was no foul play whatsoever." 380930[/snapback] So are you saying the Fitzgerald investigation is a sham to cover up the truth? What are you saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Furthermore, Judith Miller would NOT be in jail right now if this were a non-case. This is not the place or case the government would take a stand on if they knew there was no crime, or no possibility for a crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 So are you saying the Fitzgerald investigation is a sham to cover up the truth? What are you saying? 380938[/snapback] No, YOU were saying the Fitzgerald investigation was a sham. I was saying if there was no crime, and they wanted to do what you suggested, to make the story go away or stop it from becoming a circus, they would have just come out at the beginning and said ""There was no crime committed. There was NO possibility of a crime committed. Valerie Plame was not a covert CIA agent. Even if someone intentionally and malisciously "outed" her, there was no foul play whatsoever." Story goes away. No circus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Are you libs sure you don't secretly love Rove? Seems you guys have such a ha**-on for him I think that some of you may be in the closet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Are you libs sure you don't secretly love Rove? Seems you guys have such a ha**-on for him I think that some of you may be in the closet 380980[/snapback] Really they just want to win SOMETHING. It's been so darn long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 13, 2005 Author Share Posted July 13, 2005 No, YOU were saying the Fitzgerald investigation was a sham. I was saying if there was no crime, and they wanted to do what you suggested, to make the story go away or stop it from becoming a circus, they would have just come out at the beginning and said ""There was no crime committed. There was NO possibility of a crime committed. Valerie Plame was not a covert CIA agent. Even if someone intentionally and malisciously "outed" her, there was no foul play whatsoever." Story goes away. No circus. 380952[/snapback] Oops, I guess I wasn't clear. I'm saying the main reason they wanted an investigation is for the truth to come out rather than just let the rumors fly. And I don't think necessarily that they thought a crime WAS committed. Judith Miller is in jail because she won't reveal her source for the investigation but 'outing' a CIA agent is only a crime in very specific circumstances according to a 1982 law that was passed. This is why you can only convict someone if they knowingly outed a CIA agent. So I guess the idea I'm floating is that the investigation is most definitely NOT a sham, but that they expected to clear the whole thing up without sending a dozen people to jail. How it all ends is anyone's guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 13, 2005 Share Posted July 13, 2005 Oops, I guess I wasn't clear. I'm saying the main reason they wanted an investigation is for the truth to come out rather than just let the rumors fly. And I don't think necessarily that they thought a crime WAS committed. Judith Miller is in jail because she won't reveal her source for the investigation but 'outing' a CIA agent is only a crime in very specific circumstances according to a 1982 law that was passed. This is why you can only convict someone if they knowingly outed a CIA agent. So I guess the idea I'm floating is that the investigation is most definitely NOT a sham, but that they expected to clear the whole thing up without sending a dozen people to jail. How it all ends is anyone's guess. 381016[/snapback] So you're saying they are going to make a scapegoat out of Judith Miller, a high profile reporter for a high profile paper, and send her to jail (something they rarely do) because she won't give up the notes to a story she NEVER wrote, about a crime that NEVER existed, and could never have existed, and they knew it never existed? Like I said: Yeah, right, sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 13, 2005 Author Share Posted July 13, 2005 So you're saying they are going to make a scapegoat out of Judith Miller, a high profile reporter for a high profile paper, and send her to jail (something they rarely do) because she won't give up the notes to a story she NEVER wrote, about a crime that NEVER existed, and could never have existed, and they knew it never existed? Like I said: Yeah, right, sure. 381063[/snapback] From the link at the very start of this thread. To be prosecuted under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Mr. Rove would had to have deliberately and maliciously exposed Ms. Plame knowing that she was an undercover agent and using information he'd obtained in an official capacity. But it appears Mr. Rove didn't even know Ms. Plame's name and had only heard about her work at Langley from other journalists. On the "no underlying crime" point, moreover, no less than the New York Times and Washington Post now agree. So do the 36 major news organizations that filed a legal brief in March aimed at keeping Mr. Cooper and the New York Times's Judith Miller out of jail. JM isn't a scapegoat. She's in jail because she wouldn't disclose her sources (due to 'journalistic integrity' whatever the hell that is). At the end of the day, I doubt the investigation was designed to land people in prison. But it was time to clear things up or else the rumors would've never stopped and this thing would get bigger than it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 13, 2005 Author Share Posted July 13, 2005 BTW, are you a journalist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts