Karl Rove called Matt Cooper and told him about Valerie Plame.
One of the reporters at the center of the investigation into the leak of the identity of an undercover CIA officer, says he first learned the agent’s name from President Bush’s top political advisor, Karl Rove.
Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper also said today in an interview with “Good Morning America,” that the vice president’s chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, confirmed to him that Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was a covert CIA operative.
…
“There is no question. I first learned about Valerie Plame working at the CIA from Karl Rove,” Cooper said.
Libby has since claimed that he heard the Plame rumors from other reporters. Cooper disputed that version of events. “I don’t remember it happening that way,” he said. “I was taking notes at the time and I feel confident.”
Carpetbagger, who provided the first link, via many others, also suggests that Standard Form 312 could be a problem:
Question 19: If information that a signer of the SF 312 knows to have been classified appears in a public source, for example, in a newspaper article, may the signer assume that the information has been declassified and disseminate it elsewhere?
Answer: No. Information remains classified until it has been officially declassified. Its disclosure in a public source does not declassify the information. Of course, merely quoting the public source in the abstract is not a second unauthorized disclosure. However, before disseminating the information elsewhere or confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, further dissemination of the information or confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.
Maybe, just maybe Gonzo will step in and enforce this particular bit of bureaucratic paperwork. In which case, thanks to Cooper, the case for disciplining Rove and almost certainly relieving him of his clearance looks pretty cut-and-dried. And just maybe, winged monkeys will fly out of my butt.
***Update***
Via Kleinman, the dynamite here was Cooper’s assertion that Libby knew Plame was covert, which disagrees with his original account in Time.
Did Cooper misspeak? Was he misquoted, or was the original article wrong? We won’t know until somebody coughs up a tape. Odds are good that Crooks and Liars will have it first.
stickler
I’m betting on the monkeys.
Otto Man
Heh. Indeed.
Blue Neponset
I agree with you that Rove should be fired, but Bush and his supporters will argue that Libby and Rove didn’t know Valerie Wilson’s status was classified. Why should Bush bother to act like a real leader when he can parse his way out of it?
Sojourner
Then they are way too stupid to be entrusted with national secrets. The bottom line is that anyone who has ever had a DOD or DOE security clearance knows that ignorance will get you absolutely nowhere. Your ass is grass regardless. This is certainly the minimum standard that should be applied to those with much higher clearances than a basic security clearance.
p.lukasiak
I’ll need a transcript/video link before I start breaking out the champagne, because I find this particular sentence questionable…
Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper also said today in an interview with “Good Morning America,” that the vice president’s chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, confirmed to him that Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was a covert CIA operative.
On another part of the ABC website, it says that Cooper has said that ‘Libby…confirmed Wilson’s wife’s connection to the CIA, but also….did not mention her status as a covert operative.”
So either Cooper is changing his story, or somebody has gotten the “old” or “new” information wrong.
Lines
Bush/Cheney 2000: Restoring Honor and Integrity to the White House, because the ends justify the means.
Caroline
Has it occurred to any of you that the more we learn, the more confusing it is as to what went on? I’m sure we’ll eventually learn but until then, I guess we will just have to stay confused.
Is breaking Standard Form 312 prosecutable? I would think so but then I’m not a lawyer either.
Geek, Esq.
Form SF-312 is especially relevant here because anyone who signs it admits several elements necessary for an Espionage Act conviction.
p.lukasiak
The key here is whether or not Libby knew that Plame’s employment status at the CIA was classified. We KNOW that he was told it was by at least one source (when Cheney told Libby that Plame worked for the Counter-Proliferation Division, a dead giveaway that Plame was in “operations” and not “analysis” and thus a “secret” agent.) The problem is that Libby testified under oath that he forgot that particular conversation.
And the problem for Libby is that his claim that he forgot that specific conversation is drawn into question by what Libby actually claimed, which was that when Russert told him about Wilson’s wife, he was hearing about it as if for the first time. Libby originally testified that Russert was his original source, then (obviously) amended his testimony after being confronted with his notes of the Cheney conversation. But there is a mountain of evidence that shows that Libby was fully aware from numerous sources of Wilson’s wife CIA employment, including evidence that Libby acted on that information.
So, while its glaringly obvious that Libby is lying about “hearing it as if for the first time” from Russert, we can’t say “beyond a reasonable doubt” with the information we have at hand that Libby did not forget the specific conversation where he found out about Plames “covert” status.
Paul L.
Clinton/Gore 1992: “I will have the most ethical administration in history.”
Krista
That would be picturesque…
Mike S
Then they should have checked. IIRC there was a story out that said someone, Cheney I think but could be wrong, told a reporter that something was going to be declassified soon germain to the case. My memory is vague on this point so it could be nothing.
The larger point is that if you are not sure if something is or isn’t classified then you should assume that it is until shown otherwise. My father worked on some classified things in Vietnam in the early 60’s. When I asked him what he did back then in 1994, just before he died of cancer, he told me he couldn’t say because it was classified. I doubt he could have been sure that it was still classified but in case it was he wasn’t going to answer.
Caroline
Geek, Esq.
Thank you for answering my question. Do you think that the form could cause add on indictments for Libby? Perhaps Fitz might be using Libby’s signature on this form to hold over his head to get him to flip?
It’s been reported that Libby tried to work out a plea bargain before the indictments but his lawyer and Fitz could not come to an agreement.
This form certainly raises some thoughts. As I understand it, everybody has to sign this form. I guess it could put a whole lot more people in legal jeopardy. Is Fitz responsible for prosecuting these violations? Or would it have to be someone else?
JoeTx
Gee, I thought the parsing had reached all time heights in Clintons time! To see the right-wing try and twist the facts of this case is just criminal in itself. They are doing a hell of a job spinning misinformation to muddy the water so the average citizen can’t make heads or tails of the conspircy.
Fritz isn’t through, so I’ll just sit back and wait for the other shoe to drop. There is enough info in the indictment to convict more than just Libby, Fritz is just tightening the screws right now.
My only fear is that Libby has been promised a pardon by Bush, so he is emboldened not to cooperate with Fritz and turn on Cheney and Bush…
OCSteve
Long article in the WaPo today.
It sure sounds like Fitz was ready to indict him last week until that Tuesday meeting when Luskin discussed new information that gave Fitzgerald “pause.”
That evening, Fitzgerald’s investigative team called Adam Levine, a member of the White House communications team at the time of the leak. An investigator questioned Levine about an e-mail Rove had sent Levine on July 11, 2003 — the same day Rove discussed Plame with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, according to Dan French, Levine’s attorney.
…
A source familiar with the discussion between Rove and Fitzgerald said the Tuesday meeting was about a lot more than “just an e-mail from Levine.”
The rest of the article sounds bad for Rove and ends:
Fitzgerald’s original grand jury was released from service Friday, after its term expired. Courthouse officials said he is likely to “borrow” a grand jury already convened to investigate additional crimes if needed, and could wrap up his investigation in less than two weeks. It is not uncommon for a prosecutor to quickly present his case to a new grand jury and ask for an indictment, they said.
So it reads to me:
-Fitz announced the endictments that were solid as he released his grand jury.
-Rove was going to be indicted as well but threw a wrench into it late Tuesday.
-Fitz is still following it up and can easily endict Rove without getting a new grand jury.
I think he is toast, even though I think they were right to try to counter Lie’n Joe. I still have not seen where the CIA has proven to the grand jury that his wife’s status was actually classified at the time, but it’s now about Cooper’s memory (and notes) vs. Rove’s.
RA
The NYT outed the Air Carrier that the CIA used for covert operations. This information was clearly classified. This put real agents at risk. We need a special prosecutor to go after the NYT and their leak.
Leftwing American hating liberals are allowed to be outright traitors. Yet politics is criminalized for Republicans.
Its time to crack down on the American hating left and this blog would be a good place to start.
Andrei
Grow up or go queer one of John Cole’s threads. Please. For the love of God.
slide
the right wing talking heads that were all over the airwaves this weekend telling us in essence that Fitz’s investigation is over were either very deluded or engaging in wishful thinking. Today’s Wahsington Post’s story where Rove’s own people are indicating that Rove is clearly not out of the woods, in an of itself,contradicts the pundits.
Clearly Fitz took what happened very very seriously. He said so in his press conference. He is the type of guy that will get to the bottom of it all even if the sand thrown in his eyes has slowed him down a bit. A trial, and the jockeying before a trial, will go a long long way to clearing a lot of sand in one’s eyes. Cheney is up to his eyeballs. Big time. And it is just silly to think that we will not find out more as the weeks go by and we get closer and closer to a very damaging trial in which Fitz has already showed that he wants Cheney to testify under oath.
slide
Its not illegal for the press to release classified information. If it were so that treasonous scumbag Novak would be making small rocks out of big rocks.
Blue Neponset
Where should we report for re-education, RA?
Geek, Esq.
Parapgraph 2(b) refers to LIBBY’s signing of form SF-312.
Geek, Esq.
That’s paragraph 1(b) of the Indictment, rather.
p.lukasiak
I still have not seen where the CIA has proven to the grand jury that his wife’s status was actually classified at the time,
Try paragraph 1F (on page 3) of the indictment, which states:
******************************
The NYT outed the Air Carrier that the CIA
if you want to change the subject and you want to be this obvious about it, why not just talk about Natalee Holloway?
We need a special prosecutor to go after the NYT and their leak.
nice try. It wasn’t a crime for Bob Novak to publish what he had been told, it was a crime to tell Bob Novak what he eventually published. Like most wingnuts, you aren’t interested in pursuing the culprits, merely trying to change the subject to irrelevancies that only an idiot would consider germaine to the discussion at hand.
Otto Man
Funny. The only places I can find that quote referenced are right-wing blogs. Sounds like an urban legend.
In any case, Clinton sure did look more ethical than any of the other administrations of the modern era. The Reagan administration holds the record. By the end of his term, 138 administration officials had been convicted, indicted, or the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of the overall number of officials involved, the record of the Reagan administration was the worst ever.
Maybe this is why the administration got involved in the leak. Bush is once again trying to live up to his hero’s standards.
Ancient Purple
Wow. Talk about cranky.
Were they out of cookies at your Bund meeting again?
Otto Man
You’ve got that backwards — Republicans are politicizing crime.
OCSteve
Sorry – I wasn’t clear. I’m going to intent – was it proven to the grand jury that:
-Her status was classified? (yes)
-Libby knew it was classified? (this is what I have not seen as proven)
There is plenty around about how little of a secret it really was, but if it was classified it was classified. What’s left I think is intent.
Also from the indictment:
So the key question to me is, did the senior officer of the CIA also tell Libby at this time that her status was classified? Fitz interviewed this senior officer one assumes. If it was clear this senior officer also told Libby at the time her status was classified, why is that not in the indictment? It is left as:
I don’t think they were wrong to discredit Lie’n Joe. I don’t think they knowingly outed a covert agent. If Rove was involved in a cover-up, lying to the GJ, and/or obstructing, I think he should follow Libby out the door.
My bet is he is gone within 10 days.
Then – can we get an investigation about the most serious issue here? That would be the CIA trying to influence policy and discredit a sitting president via selective leaks. That should scare the hell out of anyone more than the totality of what Libby/Rove did.
DecidedFenceSitter
Note: This post appeals to fallacy of authority, for I am a assistant security manager for a DoD Contractor. In fact, I just had a new employee sign the SF-312 Non-Disclosure agreement.
The SF-312 is prosecutable. I don’t know if this link will work, but here is a link to the SF-312 form.
And to have access to the classified information, there must be two tests. 1) Authority for that level of classification. 2) Need-to-know. If you don’t have the need, it doesn’t matter if the information is Confidential and you have a Top Secret (TS), you don’t get to know it. Even if it becomes common knowledge available for download, it is still classified.
Therefore, if Plame’s job was classified, then someone done fucked up.
Kimmitt
Man, I gotta stop reading conservative blogs while drinking coffee. Took three paper towels.
Derek Flint
DougJ?
…Can we get back to the winged monkeys?
Mike S
Don’t worry about that anymore. Now that Goss is in charge the CIA’s mission has been changed to make sure that what the admin wants the admin gets.
Mike S
Sorry, forgot the link.
Tim F.
Glad to see you back, Mike S.
Mike S
Thanks. I’m trying to avoid flame wars so I’m moderating myself. If I see a post that pisses me off I’ll be leaving the thread instead of adding heat by posting a pissed off response.
Last week I went off on Darrell for no reason at all which made me look at myself in a less than flattering light. I’m not all that fond of that Mike S.
p.lukasiak
-Libby knew it was classified? (this is what I have not seen as proven)
Libby knew (at one point) that she worked for the Counter-proliferation division of the CIA, which is part of “Operations”, which is ALL classified. Given Libby’s job description and overall familiarity with intelligence matters, it would be very difficult for him to argue that learning that Plame worked for CPD didn’t mean to him that her employment was classified. (And certainly within the discussion of Form 312, the knowledge that Plame worked in Operations required him to determine her status BEFORE talking about her.)
So, we know that Libby knew at some point that Plame was “covert”. The problem is that Libby testified under oath that he had forgotten this particular conversation — thus it is impossible to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that at the time he disclosed Plame’s employment with the CIA to reporters, he was unaware that her employment was classified.
There was “probable cause” to indict on the outing charge, but its obvious that FitzG wanted an indictment document that went well beyond “probable cause” into “beyond a reasonable doubt” territory. Including the “outing” charge — and the necessary additional accompanying perjury charge — would have diluted the indictment, and given Libby some “daylight” in which to manoevre. Fitzgerald decided to play hardball with Libby — and signal to Libby that unless FItzG gets what he wants, Libby is going to jail for a very long time.
As I’ve predicted elsewhere, FitzG is also going to accept a plea arrangement with Libby if he provides FitzG with co-oborating evidence against other parties (Cheney and Rove, for starters) AND Libby pleads guilty to an “outing” charge (Libby would want to drop the perjury and obstruction charges—a confessed perjuror/obstructor doesn’t exactly inspire confidence as a witness….
OCSteve
Mike:
How about a link with that? It helps in evaluating it to know:
-It is a very partisan publication. Can’t get the link to embed but it is here:
http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewPrint&articleId=10472
-The author:
Leslie
Mark A. Kleiman appears to be pulling back on this “new” info.
“So what are we to make of the ABC report that Cooper told GMA that Libby confirmed that VPW was covert?
1. Cooper is now changing his story in an important particlar.
2. Cooper misspoke.
3. ABC news misinterpreted something Cooper said.
I haven’t seen the GMA tape. If anyone else has, please let me know.”
OCSteve
Mike: I see you provided the link while i was typing. Thanks.
BumperStickerist
Guys-
There’s a distinction between someone’s job being ‘classified’ and their being ‘covert’.
The ‘secret agent’/former NOC part of the Plame Scandal is not the issue here with regard to Libby. That piece of information came out from Wilson.
Also, Plame’s status as a FORMER covert agent should still have been protected by ‘need to know’ provisiions within the CIA. It’s likely that other people Plame worked with in the CIA IN Operations did not know Plame was a former NOC.
It’s more likely that Rove / Libby / Cheney would not have known that Plame was a FORMER undercover agent.
.
Gratefulcub
Can we agree on a certain set of facts.
1) Fitz’s indictment says she was covert
2) Rove and Libby both gave reporters information that Fitz says was classified
3) Rove and Libby, through McClellan said they had nothing to do with the leak
Isn’t that enough for a resignation. They claimed that no one in the administration had anything to do with it. They did. What am I missing?
Geek, Esq.
Here’s a cheat sheet for folks:
When you see the word “covert” think IIPA.
When you see “classified” think Espionage Act.
ppGaz
RA must be placed on DougJ Alert Watch. Does anyone have information that he/she is a real person?
Sojourner
I’ll leave Libby’s status up to the court. As to Rove, at the very least he demonstrated incredibly poor judgment. Given his access to some seriously secret stuff, he should resign.
Vladi G
There’s always a reason to go off on Darrell. Don’t be so hard on yourself. Even if you don’t think you can find a reason tha the had it coming, trust me, he had it coming.
OCSteve
BTW – I have no problem with that. Their mission is to provide information and analysis, period. They should support the current (whatever the party) administration and they most certainly should never identify with, support, or champion opposition to the administration or its policies.
If you see a real problem with the administration you can not get corrected, then you resign and go public. You don’t selectively leak crap to the press to attempt to influence policy.
p.lukasiak
There’s a distinction between someone’s job being ‘classified’ and their being ‘covert’.
No there isn’t. “covert” means that their employment is secret, same as “classified”.
A CIA employee, regardless of the nature of their “cover” whose job is classified is “covert.” They can’t go around telling people what they actually do for a living, because its a secret. That makes them “covert”.
You are trying to draw a distinction between “NOC” (non-official cover) and other forms of cover (particularly, diplomatic cover) that, in terms of the law, is not relevant. Outing an agent with “diplomatic” cover is just as much of a crime as outing someone with NOC.
Mike S
I disagree with Darrell on almost everything. There are times when he pisses me off to the extreme.
But this time I went off on him just because I saw his name and it had nothing to do with what he said. That might be OK for some people but it’s not OK for me. It’s not how I was raised and it’s not how I want to be.
I appoligised to him but it gave me a look at myself that I was not at all happy with.
Vladi G
…that he…
Mike S
Their mission should be apolitical. I don’t know if you have a problem with the admin misusing their info but I do.
Right. We’ve seen how well anyone who has resigned and gone public have been treated in the press.
VictorRay
There’s a couple points to be made here:
(1) No one knew who Scooter Libby was until Friday. This isn’t like Lewinksy where the president himself was the one doing the lying.
(2) Fitzgerald said explicitly that there was no underlying crime and no conspiracy. In effect, this exonerates the Bush administration.
Well, look, though, I don’t blame those who hate Bush for acting the way that you are. Fitzgerald gave you lemons and you’re trying to make lemonade. Good luck now trying to get the public to drink it.
Mike S
But what was his position in the White House? If he was a janitor you might have a point.
Talking points personified. The fact that they are totally untrue appearently doesn’t matter.
Vladi G
I don’t know if you realize this, but most people would read that to mean “if impartial analysis of the data would lead to conclusions that don’t support administration policy, it should be ignored, or at the very least, downplayed. It should not be identified with, supported, or championed. In other words, if the administration is hell bent on attacking Iraq, and we have intelligence that shows that Iraq is no threat, then that intelligence should probably be ignored.”
ppGaz
DougJ: You are annoying people now.
VictorRay
I sincerely hope that there is a public trial for Libby. It will just go to show that the Bush administration exhibited an unprecedented level of cooperation with inquiry. Compare that with the way Clinton treated the Whitewater, Lewinksy, and Travelgate investigations. My fear is that Libby will plead guilty — for fear of being bankrupted by legal fees — and that the liberals won’t have to shut up about all their scandal-mongering.
Mike S
Maybe that is DougJ. Most real people wouldn’t call lying to investigators and the GJ “an unprecedented level of cooperation.”
p.lukasiak
When you see the word “covert” think IIPA.
When you see “classified” think Espionage Act.
sorry, but this is not a distinction.
The purpose of the “espionage act” is, as its name implies, to provide criminal penalties for “spying”, i.e. disclosing classified information to foreign powers, etc. It was, as FitzG pointed out, not intended to be the American version of the “Official Secrets Act.”
The IIPA was passed in response to the outing of numerous covert CIA agents by Philip Agee. Because what Agee did was release the names of these agents publicly (rather than to a foreign power) the Espionage Act did not apply per se. The IIPA was passed to fill in the “gap” in the law — its basically a “mini-Official Secrets Act” that concerns itself only with protecting the identity (and the safety) of “secret agents.”
(Agee’s betrayal of the identities of covert agents was contemporaneous with the nation finding out about excessive secrecy in and various wrong-doing by the intelligence community. This is why the IIPA is so specific and restrictive — at the same time that we wanted to protect our agents, there was also controversy over wrong-doing by the CIA that had been covered up by making it “top-secret.” The tension between the two competing priorities resulted in a law that is practically impossible to enforce.)
VictorRay
There is no evidence that either the Espionage Act statute or the “Agee law” were broken, however. Not by anyone in the administration at least. Sandy Berger is another story…
ppGaz
Well, it’s either him or some other spoofer.
p.lukasiak
I think I have figured out (part of) DougJ’s modus operandi…
all his troll names rhyme with “DougJ”…
RA, Victor Ray….
OCSteve
Not saying that data should ignored, downplayed, or not be identified with, supported, or championed – to the administration.
I am saying you do your best to present objective data to the administration. Policy is not defined based solely on what the CIA is sending over and the CIA has no business attempting to set policy, especially by selective leaks.
Where we are now – Libby/Rove should be frog-marched out the door for (possibly inadvertently) leaking 1 piece of classified info. Yet the CIA which has been leaking like a sieve in an attempt to influence policy for years gets a pass.
In our system, voters elect a president and legislators. They determine policy. CIA, NSA, FBI and the other 3 letter acronyms provide data, ideally neutral data. Foggy bottom implements (foreign) policy. None of these groups have the authority to make policy, but more and more seem inclined to do just that via backdoor means.
I would, but I have not seen this case made. How do you define misusing? Again, what the CIA provides is one piece of the puzzle, not the end-all. And if it did occur – then the proper response is for the top man to resign in protest.
Davebo
p.lukasiak
I think that comes from having Pig Latin as your native language.
Davebo
A start is taking raw CIA intel, shipping it off to the WHIG, and then having amatuer political appointees derive analysis from said raw intel that is diametrically opposed to the analysis reached by the professionals with years of experience.
Then claiming that your information is based on CIA analysts.
VictorRay
Yes, that’s part of the point here. There are leaks all the time and this was one was relatively harmless as leaks go.
By contrast, the CIA’s numerous leaks about the war have had a disastrous effect. This has become a pissing contest, one which the CIA will certainly lose, though they don’t seem to know that yet.
Ancient Purple
This is a flat out lie.
Fitzgerald said very clearly that he was being blocked from discovering if there was a crime or conspiracy by Libby’s lies, and, therefore, he was obstructing justice. If he can’t see the evidence, that doesn’t mean a crime or conspiracy hasn’t been committed.
VictorRay
But it certainly means that he can’t prosecute it, which means that for all, intents and purposes, there was no crime.
Paul L.
I vaguely remember Clinton’s 1992 campaign. I recall that ethics (after Iran contra) was a theme. I also vaguely remember hearing the quote from Bill Clinton himself on talk radio.
DAVID SANGER (The New York Times) recollections seem to agree with me.
How many convictions? Indictments and being the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations does not prove they are guilty of anything.
Karl Rove/Matt Cooper/July Miller/Tim Russert/Robert Novak were the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. But that does not prove they are guilty of anything.
I did not want to get in a “Clinton did this” argument but Lines posted a Bush campaign theme “Restoring Honor and Integrity to the White House” and I responded with the Clinton quote to show that if the previous administration had ethics problems their opponents will claim they are more ethical. However this may not be true.
p.lukasiak
Did Cooper misspeak? Was he misquoted, or was the original article wrong? We won’t know until somebody coughs up a tape.
hey, how about some credit for pointing out very early on the contradictions in the two accounts?
Best guess — ABC’s newswriters misunderstood what Cooper was saying in the interview. Its highly doubtful that Cooper would have lied in his own account of his interaction with the grand jury, then start telling the truth now that the indictment has been made public.
Indeed, what we are probably looking at is very similar to what happened with the original Kristof and Pincus pieces that were based on conversations with Wilson. The reporter, who knows additional relevant information, incorporates that knowledge when reporting on a conversation with a source.
p.lukasiak
But it certainly means that he can’t prosecute it, which means that for all, intents and purposes, there was no crime.
geez, Dougie, you are really going off the deep end with “Victor” here.
slide
There’s a distinction between someone’s job being ‘classified’ and their being ‘covert’.
Actually, legally there is a difference. Lots of things are classified. Plames name and identity was classified as Fitzgerald clearly stated. Covert on the other hand is a defined term under the Identities Act and means more than just classified. Some of the requirements that have to be met in order to be considered covert are that the agent had served outside of the United States within the last five years and that the government was taking affirmative actions to keep the identity secret. Much has been made of the five year requirement by right wing pundits, but the law didn’t say LIVE overseas for five years but serve. Periodic trips by Plame to meet with and work with her network of spys might very well meet that requirement.
scs
John, you have a typo there. The ABC article you linked to just said that the line was just a “CIA operative” – no “covert” in there – changes the whole meaning! Balloon Juice conspiracy?
OCSteve
Almost no-one sees raw intel beyond the requisite analysts. Means and sources. WHIG was a strategy group (you can cross that out and insert propaganda/spin group and I won’t disagree too much). But they certainly did not derive analysis from raw intel. Did they use output of the intel community to further administration goals? Sure – it was their mission statement from the start.
VictorRay
Scs, it certainly doesn’t sound like she was very covert, does it? If she was really covert, then why did so many of their friends seem to know she worked for the CIA? The whole thing is fishy.
scs
Anyway, it all doesn’t matter anyway. It doesn’t matter, legally, if Rove or Libby told this reporter or that reporter if Plame was at the CIA or even if she was covert. If you all heard Fitzgerald, you have to prove INTENT to HARM. You have to have it somewhere that Libby blabbed SPECIFICALLY to harm. And it will be also impossible to prove circumstantially, given that the info was given to reputable reporters with no history of violence or plotting against the US, and in conjunction with background about a news story, Joe Wilson. Face it, the case about the outing, short of any bombshell new evidence, is over.
slide
ABC must have removed the word covert from their story because that word was definitly there this morning. I remember because I thought to myself that that was the first time I heard Cooper say that anyone used the word covert in a conversation with him. I found that very strange as it would have been BIG news if that were the case.
slide
DougJ enough already.
VictorRay
Scs, the bombshell here is that there was no “treason” no intent to harm, just an overzealous staffer at worst, and a guy with a foggy memory at best. When you compare it to the Clinton scandals, it really pales. I guess with an ethical administration, this what passes for a scandal. I guess I can’t blame the reporters, they’ve got to find stories somehow.
scs
I wasn’t making any theoretical statement. I meant that John Cole had an ACTUAL TYPO on his excerpts. Check it out on the linked article for yourselves. Luckily I caught it for ya’ll. I do believe she was covert at some time though and that her friends didn’t know about it.
scs
Yes I agree Slide. I thought that was pretty extreme too when I saw the “c” word. So was ABC just mistaken, or just afraid of lawsuits?
slide
Not true. There is no INTENT TO HARM in the IIA required. You have to have an INTENT TO DISCLOSE not an intent to harm.
Here is the act:
scs
Victor, you are slipping. You have to at least make a semi-coherent argument to fool. Go back to Elinor.
p.lukasiak
John, you have a typo there. The ABC article you linked to just said that the line was just a “CIA operative” – no “covert” in there – changes the whole meaning! Balloon Juice conspiracy?
that’s not a typo. The word “covert” was in the original when it first appeared on the web.
ABC screwed up, and appears to be continuing to screw up, because Cooper’s original account makes no mention of the word “operative”, and it is that specific word that was the “outing” of Valerie Plame. If Novak had just said “employee of the CIA” its possible that her cover could have remained intact (by explaining that she did some consulting work for the CIA, etc….)
Sojourner
Bullshit. Their loyalty is to the country, not the administration.
scs
Okay. But here is another problem:
How do you PROVE that that Libby KNEW there was affirmative steps taken to conceal her “intellegence relationship”? You would first have to prove that Libby said she was “covert”, and so far I haven’t seen that, and not that she just worked at the CIA as an agent, and also you would have to prove Libby had specific knowledge that the CIA was trying to actively conceal her identity. And I haven’t seen that either, given that her covertness, so to speak, was on hold for a few years, and so the “activeness” of concealment was up for debate.
p.lukasiak
As to the question of whether Plame met the definition of “covert” found in the IIPA…
since the CIA would be the agency in the best position to determine whether Plame met that definition, and because the CIA wanted the Justice Department to investigate what they saw as a possible violation of IIPA, anyone who thinks that Plame did not meet the definition is a moron…
I
slide
I think they are just sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. Mind boggling when the whole case revolves around whether or not Libby and Rove knew Plame was covert or not, so to throw the word “covert” in their story inaccurately is just the worst kind of sloppy journalism imaginable.
ppGaz
Says Charlie Tuna.
ppGaz
I can’t believe you guys are arguing over this. Fitzgerald said, Friday, that her “cover was blown” by these potatoheads. What did we think he meant by that?
p.lukasiak
How do you PROVE that that Libby KNEW there was affirmative steps taken to conceal her “intellegence relationship”?
by proving that Libby knew that her employment was “classified”. “Classification” is an “affirmative step taken to conceal”.
p.lukasiak
I can’t believe you guys are arguing over this.
hey, I’m not arguing. I’m engaging in ad hominem attacks on those who are so stupid that they think the point is arguable. :)
scs
I don’t know if I agree with that as there are tons of classified stuff all over the place. It would have to be more than that.
slide
I agree. The CIA must have thought she was covert or why refer to Justice Dept. The Ashcroft Justice Dept then conducted a preliminary report the results of which convinced them a crime may have been committed. Remember the Justic Department submitted questions to the CIA regarding Plame’s status. I imagine they were trying to determine if she met the definition of covert as defined in the law. The bottom line. They continued with an investigation bringing in Fitz when it was clear Ashcroft had a conflict of interest.
It would have been easier if Fitz had just answered that question definitively. Why not? What other damage could be done if Fitz had just said, one way or the other, what the determination was regarding her status? The public has a right to know so we can evaluate our public officals. Can’t imagine any harm would be done to our national security at this point by revealing what has been debated about for months.
BumperStickerist
No, really – there’s a distinction between Plame’s post-marriage to Joe Wilson work assignemnt at Langley which was ‘classified’ and her mid-90’s work for the CIA when she was covert.
Per the indictmetn Libby disclosed classified information when he mentioned Plame’s SPECIFIC job assignment within the CIA. Libby said that Plame worked at Counter-Proliferation at the CIA.
That’s a no-no.
And, you know, Libby might/could/should go to jail for doing that.
However, that disclosure of classified is absolutely not the same thing as doing what Joe Wilson did when he disclosed that Valerie was a former NOC.
Neither Libby nor Rove disclosed (or, I’d bet, knew or even suspected) CIA employee Plame’s status as a FORMER undercover agent.
.
by way of disclosure, I held a TS-SCI clearance while enlisted with the USAF and was posted at one point to NSA as an analyst.
OCSteve
BS back at ya’. Their loyalty of late is to the Democratic party.
They are not an independent branch of government, 3 of those is enough thank you.
I’ll bet you that when one of them leaks classified information they think exactly that. It’s justified because My loyalty is to the country, not the administration, and I know what’s best for the country.
The funniest part? For years the CIA was the boogieman of the left. Now the left is comfortably with the CIA making policy decisions.
scs
Well p.lukasiak, you obviously think Fitzgerald is stupid too, as he obviously thought that he could not prove the intent on Libby’s part or whether the CIA was actively concealing Plame or he would have brought charges already. I believe you are the stupid one who thinks this point is settled. You like easy answers I guess.
ppGaz
I know, my remarks are directed at them.
Whether or not Plame’s cover was blown has never been in question, except by the noise machine. There’s no question about it, never has been. What’s in question is whether a chargeable crime can be made of it. The fact that a case can’t be proven in court doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. That would be like saying, well, we can’t prove a murder charge here, so therefore the deceased cannot be declared legally dead.
Making even such non-subtle distinctions is not beyond these assholes … the reason they pretend not to get this is to bamboozle the people who really don’t get it. It’s called a smokescreen, a deflection. A lie. In short, the standard modus operandi of the lying cocksuckers in the White House.
scs
Duh. That’s what we’re arguing about.
ppGaz
Fitzgerald: Her cover was blown when Novak’s published his story.
That’s what he said Friday.
What part of that is ambiguous?
Her cover was blown by these lying assholes. So far they’ve succeeded in blurring the truth of the events well enough to prevent making a solid case against anyone for the original misdeed. Now they want to turn THAT blur into “No charge, no foul.”
Fuck these lying sons of bitches. The case isn’t closed and if there’s justice, the lying bastards will get what they deserve. They aren’t fooling anyone but their own choir, and a few incompetants in the punditocracy. They’ve blown the veneer of trust they had going for them with ordinary people. They’ve blown the war issue. They thought they could fool the prosecutor and a grand jury; so far, their odds of success aren’t looking that good.
ppGaz
No, that’s what you’re arguing about. The fact that you are arguing doesn’t mean the issue isn’t settled.
slide
No, the funniest part is how the right wing that calls everyone slightly to the left of Atilla the Hun, unpatriotic and treasonous, seem to accpet government officials damaging US interests by revealing classified information.
Current NOC or former NOC makes no difference to me. Her contacts, those that SPIED for the USA at great risk to themselves, were betrayed by the Vice President and other high officials in our government. Anyone even thinking about spying for us is going to think twice about doing that in light of this whole shitty episode of UNPATRIOTIC behavior. The more the right makes excuses for this crap the better as far as I am concerned. America is getting a good whiff of what kind of patriots these guys really are.
ppGaz
OCSteve = yet another FUCKING spoof by DougJ.
scs
Listen to the man, he knows what he’s talking about. So apparently, you have to prove more than just Libby knew she was classified to get him under the act, you have to prove he knew the CIA was ACTIVELY concealing her identity. Just read the law. Probably you have to prove he knew things like she CURRENTLY had a fake identity, CURRENTLY working at a shell company, keeping a low or secret profile. As a woman who presumably was a well-known figure in the DC party scene, that would be hard to prove, cause apparently none of that was even happening at the time. You would have to prove he saw specific info from the CIA that showed what specific steps the CIA was taking to conceal her identity, and I doubt he ever received that or if any of that even existed at the time.
Skip
I was in the Guards in Georgetown last night and, even though it was Halloween, I found no one who believed the Administration would “welcome” the opportunity to clear the air at a Libby trial. No one.
This in a bar closely associated with former owner, Reagan honcho Deborah Gore Dean. This in a bar that on any given night probably contains half the (non-compted) readership of the Weekly Standard.
scs
Yes, but we, or I, are arguing about whether you can charge LEGALLY for the act (which of course you can’t so far, or Fitz would have done it) Without legal charges, it will be harder to make polical hay over it.
Sojourner
No, their loyalty is to their country as indicated by their desire to expose the lying sacks of shit who lied the US into a war and outed one of their colleagues.
Sorry but not everyone is stupid enough to display the unthinking, unremitting loyalty to those assholes that you feel they should.
Andrei
Oh for fuck’s sake again.
The reason Fitz is prosectuing Libby at all is to attempt to get Libby to tell him the truth on what really happened or send him off to prison for obstructing justice and perjury. If Libby is innocent, he will be given a verdict in accordance to that, although every expert out there says the case against Libby is very strong. If Libby doesn’t flip during the trial, then Fitz made it very clear his hands are tied and there’s not much he can really do about the case. As the boy scout sort of prosecutor he is, if he can’t find evidence, he can’t and won’t prosecute a crime. But he also stated he was being blocked to finding the truth by Libby’s lying and obstruction of justice. Fitz made it very clear that he was not able to get to the truth due to being blocked. The sand thrown in his analogy he used during the press conference last Friday.
I am SO FUCKING SICK OF PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY WHO PREFER TO THINK OF POLITICS AS SOME SORT OF GAME YOU WIN INSTEAD OF AS A WAY TO GOVERN AND SET LAWS SO WE ***ALL*** CAN LIVE OUR LIVES FREELY AND IN THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS PROMISED TO US BY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS. WE ALL LIVE IN THIS COUNTRY TOGETHER SO WAKE THE FUCK UP ALREADY AND QUIT WITH THE BULLSHIT PARTISAN HACKERY.
Fitz made it very clear what was happening. He’s acting in sctrict accoradance to the laws and is proving as straight a shooter as he was promoted to be by all who know him personally. Take him at face value already. And as much as I think this administration did a lot of illegal things in the run up to war, if Fitz can’t get the evidence, I’ll have to live with it and accept it. That’s that. But to think this thing is over is complete and utter horseshit.
And yes… I meant to write that middle part in all caps. Sue me.
OCSteve
Slide & ppGaz:
What do you folks want from me? If you read back through this thread you will see that I said:
-I think he is toast (Rove)
-if it was classified it was classified
-My bet is he is gone within 10 days. (Rove)
Then I called for some accountability for CIA leaks as well. If it is illegaly for one side in this dispute to leak why is it OK for the other side?
slide
Wrong. Many NOC’s don’t use fake identies.
Both were operable. She still was “working” for Brewster Jennings as far as anyone knew. And as Fitz said quite clearly, despite the LIES of Cliff May and others, no one outside of the intelligence community knew she worked for the CIA. Not her friends. Not her neighbors.
How about the State Department memo on Air Force One that mentions her name and is stamped all the fuck over it SECRET. NOT FOR FOREIGN EYES. SECRET. Too subtle for you?
scs
One day Soj, I want to get into it more about what SPECIFICALLY you feel the admin lied about, as I’m still not completely sure what the beef is, but I don’t have much time to rebut today. Maybe next time, as it should be interesting.
slide
Andrei amen.
ppGaz
That’s Fitzgerald’s question to answer, not yours. On Friday, unless you can extract something I don’t find from the transcript, he basically said that the crime was committed, but because these guys are making up what he termed “fantasy” versions of the story, it’s hard to pin down the details well enough to construct a court-ready charge. Which is why he is still working on it. When he’s finished, then we’ll all know whether the potatoheads were successful with their coverup.
Davebo
OCSteve
Sorry, my bad. I meant to refer to Feith’s Office of Special Plans.
This was the custom made intel culling office created by Rumsfeld that indeed did take raw CIA and attempt to discredit the analisys by the CIA on what the intel meant.
And as the Senate intelligence committee’s Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq noted, this group
Fortunately today we know that the CIA was right and the OSP was basically pushing disinformation.
scs
Yes but you would have to also prove Libby knew that! And as for “SECRET. NOT FOR FOREIGN EYES. SECRET,” obviously not enough, or Fitz would have charged. Like he said, we have no “Secrets Act” like England has.
Davebo
ppGaz
It would appear that Fitz has Scooter nailed on the Perjury, Obstruction, lying to investigators charge so I think, short of another admin witness who may have cut a deal, it may all hinge on how long Libby is willing to spend in jail in an effort to continue obstructing the invetsigation.
slide
Kudos to Senator Reid for shutting down the Senate and holding a secret session. Something that he vowed to do every fucking day until we get some answers as to why the second part of the Intelligence investigation was never done as promised. Hope the Dems are taking Bill Clinton’s recent advice and are willing to fight. Fight, motherfuckers, fight for what you belive in. People like fighters. Don’t be so damn timid. Shut the damn Senate down. Show these bastards what will happen if they invoke the nuclear option. If they want to play dirty, get down in the mud with them. Use ever damn trick in the book if necessary. Fight.
Andrei
Wow… read the statement Reid made to boot.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/11/1/144647/999
Simple questions: If the GOP can stand by their positions, they require simple, complete and thorough answers. No more bullshit.
slide
Ok scs, done debating the issue. Around and around we go. Legal or not it sucked what they did. Leagal or not, it was reprehenibly unpatriotic what they did. Legal or not it was disgraceful that the VP was involved. Legal or not, it has damaged the United States and in a time of war, doubly so. So if it comforts you to hang your hat on these tiny technicalities, the meaning of is is, fine. Enjoy your treasonous administration.
Davebo
Slide
I can already hear Pat Roberts claiming that we can’t launch the second promised investigation into manipulation of prewar intelligence now because it would be too close to the 2006 midterm elections.
scs
Hey, I’m not saying I approve of what they did. I’m just responding to these ideas on here that there will be so many more legal charges out of this, which I find doubtful at this point. Politically of course, the sky’s the limit.
ppGaz
Fitzgerald created no room for doubt that the activity was illegal. What he said was that while the activity was wrong, it may or may not be possible to prove that a particular person or persons committed the crime. As I said earlier, you don’t need a conviction to know that you have a dead murder victim. You don’t even need a charge. You don’t even need a suspect. Nowadays, with advanced forensics, you don’t even need a body to know that a murder was committed. You don’t need a rocket scientist to know that an agent’s cover was blown here, and to top if off, Fitzgerald said that her cover was blown in his news conference. Blown by the publication of Novak’s story.
Fitzgerald had the professionalism to stay “within the four corners of the indictment” (his phrase). The GOP noise machine immediately wants to run around outside those four corners and spout a bunch of lying bullshit.
Fuck them. I don’t see the point in letting this forum be used by them for that purpose, do you?
Andrei
Doubtful? That’s not anywhere near the type language you have been using in this thread. Not even close. You have been using language that is most accurately described as “cocksure.”
scs
You know what I’m thinking. I’m thinking Rove DID hatch this plot to get Wilson as part of his hardball style. Especially after I heard Rove leaked to Novak before. He hatched this knowing that since he didn’t have “specific” knowledge about Plame covert status, he would be legally in the clear and could get away with it. He’s probably thinking about Libby right now “you dufus! you messed it all up”, because Libby couldn’t handle himself in front of the Grand Jury like Rove could. Hey, maybe it was Rove’s plot to get rid of Libby! (jk).
scs
Okay, fine, I’m cocksure. Hard to prove specific knowledge, short of any new bombshell, that is. On that note- off to do my daily tasks.
ppGaz
Well, in your defense, that only means that you meet the requirements for posting here ;-)
BumperStickerist
So, a “Mitchell Said” quote surfaces, and – since I was one who claimed to have heard this, though I thought I caught the exchange on Imus.
Tim F.
Bumper stickerist,
That quote has made the rounds of the rightwing internet, with each site referencing the last one. Until somebody produces the original transcript we have to assume that it’s bogus.
Contrariwise, we have this bit:
All of the reporters who have testified so far have claimed that they did not know about Plame’s status. Her neighbors have testified the same thing. All of which points to the simplest answer, that her identity was in fact secret and the quote is bogus.
Gary Farber
“Karl Rove called Matt Cooper and told him about Valerie Plame.”
I just used “find,” so maybe I missed it, but ABC retracted the story.
“This update corrects two errors in an earlier version of the story, which referred to Nigeria instead of Niger, and stated that Libby in his conversations with a Time reporter referred to Valerie Plame as a covert CIA operative. ABC News regrets the error.”
HTH.
Gary Farber
Possibly you might want to update your front page on this, John.
Although I have to confess to a bit of amusement at seeing 126 comments of impassioned fury expended on prematurely buying into an error. (My own gut and brain said: wait for confirmation, of course; but that’s only because I am, of course, a completely superior mutant being. ;-))
Gary Farber
Apparently I am a complete moron, because I now realize that I misreact that correction. I could have sworn I read a different retraction yesterday, but I can’t find it. Thus first presumption. Apologies.