quote: Cooper, according to an internal Time e-mail obtained by Newsweek magazine, spoke with Rove before Novak's column was published. In the conversation, Rove gave Cooper a "big warning" that Wilson's assertions might not be entirely accurate and that it was not the director of the CIA or the vice president who sent Wilson on his trip. Rove apparently told Cooper that it was "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip," according to a story in Newsweek's July 18 issue.
Rove's conversation with Cooper could be significant because it indicates a White House official was discussing Plame prior to her being publicly named and could lead to evidence of how Novak learned her name.
Although the information is revelatory, it is still unknown whether Rove is a focus of the investigation. Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, has said that Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has told him that Rove is not a target of the probe. Luskin said yesterday that Rove did not know Plame's name and was not actively trying to push the information into the public realm.
posted
Kayla, I read the original link. It said he "gave information" to the reporter. You wanted to know how he could make the statement that he never knowingly divulged classified information or told anyone that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. I told you... that we didn't know what information he gave, based on the first link. Your second link (which I have not read) appears to have more info, but I haven't read it yet...
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Rove did not mention her name to Cooper," Luskin said. "This was not an effort to encourage Time to disclose her identity. What he was doing was discouraging Time from perpetuating some statements that had been made publicly and weren't true."
is plausible, but indicates a level of trust of reporters that is significantly bad security. What it looks like is that it wasn't a leak in the sense that people like to talk about leaks (i.e. a deliberate divulgence of information) but that Rove let out unclassified information which enabled the reporter to deduce classified information...which may not be illegal but, IMO, he should have his clearence revoked and maybe be fired.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I predict he maybe gets told to "not let anybody find out about that sort of stuff in the future", in private.
And in public, there's an insistence he did nothing wrong, or if there's enough of an outcry, a fake apology which says its really all somebody else's fault if they think they can get away with it, combined with some reduction in something or other which isn't really a reduction/doesn't matter.
I will be very surprised happy if he does have something happen to him commensurate with his clear violation of security.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're probably right Fugu. That's assuming he'll even get the warning. But I highly doubt we'd even get a halfway sincere apology out of the "do no wrong" administration.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note that the warning has two interpretations -- talking about the information going to reporters, or talking about people finding out about the information going to reporters Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Monday's White House press briefing is fun: link
quote:Q Does the President stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak of a name of a CIA operative?
MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked relating 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 Excuse me, but I wasn't actually talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the President said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak, to press of information. And I just want to know, is that still his position?
MR. 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. And so that's why we are not going to get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation, or questions related to it.
Q Scott, if I could -- if I could point out, contradictory to that statement, on September 29th, 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one who said, 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 is when the President made his comment 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"?
MR. 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. 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.
[snip]
Q Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliott 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" -- do you stand by that statement?
MR. 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, I mean, just -- I mean, 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 decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?
MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, 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 Why are you choosing when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?
MR. 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 out 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?
MR. McCLELLAN: David, there will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.
Why don't people understand that when you don't let the White House Press Secratary tell you baldfaced lies, you're helping the terrorists?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Q Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, 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 decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?
MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, 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 Why are you choosing when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?
MR. McCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish --
Q No, you're not finishing -- you're not saying anything.
quote: I'm trying to imagine a credible scenario that has Rove issuing a denial days before giving permission to Cooper to testify. I can't come up with one.
Is it any easier today?
quote: The Newsweek weekly quoted Rove lawyer Robert Luskin as confirming that Rove was the source who gave information to Time reporter Matt Cooper under a pledge of confidentiality, and last week released him to testify about that conversation to a grand jury
posted
I doubt that that excuse will even hold up in court, name or no name. He still exposed an agent, active or not, by leaking information illeglly.
posted
Rove's get out of jail card will likely be "I didn't know it was classified". I think it's nigh impossible to prove that he willfully leaked the info when he knew it was classified.
Interesting, that was clearly classified information, even without the name. It may not be illegal so far as intentionally revealing it with malicious intent, but I'd think that would be at least a little illegal; is classification just a "suggestion system" the government follows that's only illegal to violate under a few circumstances involving intent and usually malice?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The reporter who said that was CBS's John Roberts. I highly doubt they would kick out a veteran reporter like that, especially someone so well respected and high up in the organization.
It was MUCH more fun to see live on the Daily Show. They really hammered away at McClellan.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:From Rove's email, as quoted in the Newsweek article: "wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency (the CIA) on wmd (weapons of mass destruction) issues who authorized the trip."
quote:Intelligence Identities Protection Act (1982) s 421 (a) Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
The Act makes it quite clear that leaking ANY classified information that leads to the outing of an agent is against the law. So Rove didn't mention Plame by name... do the Republicans really expect us to believe that "wilson's wife" is somehow more ambiguous? Gimme a break.
As for the classified nature... umm, hello? The only reason this investigation took place in the first place was because of Plame's covert status. Not to mention Bush and McClellan's unambiguous statements, on separate occasions, that the leaker, if found, would be fired. So much for consistency (to say nothing of honesty).
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very true. After making the pledges they did (well, Bush, McClellan's pledges are by nature worthless, him lacking power to fulfill them), once it became clear Rove was the leaker he should have been confronted, and if he confessed fired, and if he denied and it later could be proved he had lied, fired and denounced.
Waiting only demonstrates that Bush was just posturing.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me the only possibly legitimate justification Bush could have for not firing Rove after this recent revelation is that he doesn't believe the email is authentic or believes it is authentic but deliberately and deceptively targetting Rove.
This seems like it's still a case of he-said, she-said in terms of what actual proof we've got.
Both of those options are razor-thin as far as substance in my opinion, and my mediocre opinion of President Bush is dropping further still. The very least he should've done was suspend Rove, or something similar. I'm not sure what that would be for a chief political advisor (is he being paid by the President? Who would be the one to stop writing the checks?) but what's actually happened definitely isn't it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would seem, though, that somehow the reporter inferred something more than that plain statement.
I wonder how he came to reach that inferrence?
So now Rove is only the guy if he said, "This person, standing right next to me, is in fact a covert employee of the Central Intelligence Agency of the USA."?
posted
And incidentally, Jim-me, presuming your very generous interpretation of what was said is accurate...
How do you account for the timing of the leak of non-classified information?
And what possible reason could there be for Rove even benignly to be talking to reporters about employees of the CIA? He's the White House's political advisor, he's not supposed to be involved with intelligence-gathering at all.
But since he is, after all, a political advisor it makes one wonder if his discussion about employees of the CIA had a political motive.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
oh, and you forgot--"...is doing covert work right at this minute."
The question seems to be, is her employment at the CIA confidential information, or must it be her covert status.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It would seem, though, that somehow the reporter inferred something more than that plain statement.
Or did further research. Good intel operatives and good reporters often put together several pieces of openly availible information to make very good guesses at what is secret. That's their job.
As to how it came up... that's in the article and Rove's legal comments on the issue: Cooper was, in an off the record conversation, making much hay out of Wilson's statements regarding (edit, stupid me) Nigeria. Rove said not to give too much credence to those statements because Wilson was not there on the authority he claimed to be, but rather on the orders of his own wife. That also accounts for the timing of the divulgence.
Now, trusting a reporter not to go digging with this is bad security, but there is a difference between bad security and actually disclosing classified info.
I have a friend who is an intel officer. She regularly has to tread the line with what she can tell me and what she can't, trying to judge which information that she is allowed to tell me is *ok* to tell me because she knows I am analytical and capable of making deductions based on unclassified information. I'm sure that officials with access to classified information have to do the same thing all the time when talking to reporters and there's just no way to prove Rove's intent based on what he and Cooper are saying took place.
Which is why, IMO, there will not be a criminal prosecution, but Rove should be punished for poor security practices.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:As to how it came up... that's in the article and Rove's legal comments on the issue: Cooper was, in an off the record conversation, making much hay out of Wilson's statements regarding Ethiopia. Rove said not to give too much credence to those statements because Wilson was not there on the authority he claimed to be, but rather on the orders of his own wife. That also accounts for the timing of the divulgence.
Your conclusions are one set possible that fit the facts we know about. But knowing what I do about Rove's political methods and all-around craftiness and cunning, it's just too much of a stretch for me to believe such a benign set of conclusions.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and let's be clear... Plame worked at Langley the last few years... her life was not in danger. she was an active field agent in the sense that she could be sent out to the field again, but not in the sense that she was in the field at the time.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know that. It only means Rove has not endangered someone's life (that we know of), in my opinion.
Just their value to the CIA as well as possibly ruining any intelligence she has gathered in the past.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
the part you quoted is not my conclusion but simple fact as agreed on by the pieces of information we have. It came up in conversation because Rove and Cooper were discussing the reliability of Wilson's information. Because that was a present subject, it comepletely accounts for the timing of the discussion. Any other reasons for it are supposition at this point, which is fine to make your political decisions by, but not for criminal prosecution.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
She's not valueless to the CIA, though obviously she's much less useful. I'm not sure how this ruins her past intel... explain please?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, let's say she gathered some intelligence from or about a foreign nation, covertly. Let's say that nation didn't know about this gathering, and possibly still didn't know.
Now everyone who has interacted with her in the past will re-examine their dealings with her, and possibly realize that she was the source of information we learned, or they might realize we learned something we shouldn't have.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm curious, though, why isn't anyone mad at Novak? It seems, from what Rove and Cooper have said, that the information was not intended for publication... again, saying this because I am aware of no principal testimony to the contrary.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You mean, she had worked at Langley the last few years except when she went on a mission to South Africa? And of course the CIA would actually make public what she's been up to other than what's already been revealed *rolls eyes*.
quote:it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.
These would be the same WMDs we'd been ferociously refusing to turn over our actual evidence on, and Rove casually assumed that Wilson's wife, an agent of the CIA going to South Africa to apparently investigate them, was okay to reveal? "Wilson's wife" is uniquely identifying information, after all, even if no reporter had tracked down the name (which they obviously would).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl Rove told a reporter about it in order to prevent that reporter from making (incorrect, but only because they lacked this evidence) damaging statements about the administration. Then once the evidence was out, Rove launched a massive (admitted) smear campaign against both Wilson and Plame: http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2004/03/waas-m-03-08.html
Also, unless Rove made it explicitly clear there wasn't to be a reveal of the information, you bet your last dollar a reporter would sieze on a juicy tidbit like that, and one can't blame him for it. Plus, since Rove is a high ranking white house official with presumably high security clearance, I would bet most reporters consider getting it from such an official absent such a restriction permission to publish (under whatever conditions were set), since, y'know, Rove isn't supposed to reveal stuff like that unless its okay to.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and I don't like Novak for other reasons, but unless some more information comes out, he seems to have acted pretty reasonably.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also take into account that any double agents or informants that Plame might have created in past jobs are also compromised.
The entire career of a CIA operative, from their first field assignment until literally their death depends upon secrecy. Like Rakeesh said, every country that has ever had her or her husband as a guest will now be looking over every past interaction, and they will be doubly scrutinizing any particular person she may have come into contact with, looking for more spies.
The danger to her is almost zero, but the danger to other operatives in the field could be deadly. And for that matter, the intelligence we might lose from whatever agents are compromised mighht save lives, and therefore you cannot put a value on it.
Maybe he didn't do anything officially or legally wrong, but his judgement seems to be incredibly faulty. At the very least he shouldn't have a security clearance of any kind anymore, not that he ever should have had one in the first place as a political consultant. And I believe he should be fired. Especially by this administration, which has been safety, security and intelligence the bedrock of it's agenda.
As for Novak, he too is highly irresponsible, but I suppose you can't expect much better from a political pundit these days can you?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course it's also possible that her career as an employee for the CIA is not in any way compromised. There are many possibilities-she could have been only a link in a chain, something like that. But that's not the point.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
According to sources inside the Grand Jury testimony (which I am always skeptical of just because they AREN'T supposed to talk at all) Rove says he found out from Novak. Not sure what this implies yet... but it would seem to make Rove a closed communication loop and not the source. It also seems to absolve him from any criminal guilt because he found out from an unclassified source... IOW, the info was not presented to him as classified. It also answers a question I saw elsewhere about whether or not Rove was even cleared to know the information.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not true at all, Jim-Me. It clears him of the clearance issue, but it doesn't make a bit of difference where he found out, he STILL confirmed her existance, which is STILL a direct violation of the law.
I always sort of admired him, even though I am not a Bush supporter, becaue he was very, very good at a difficult job. But this has wiped all he has done out, and I would not be suprised if he is charged.
At the least he should be fired. He, as a senior White House official, leaked (or confired) the identity of a CIA operative. It was at the very least immoral, and I still believe that it was politically motivated, to say the least. It is not a conicidence that this happened when it did, and the man doing it was Bush's political advisor.
posted
First, he didn't confirm her as an operative... lots of people work for the CIA without being operatives.
But isn't Novak the one who published the info? Also, I'm not clear, what is the relationship between Cooper and Novak?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I don't get this latest round of information. Novak was Rove's source, so Rove is in the clear because even though he disclosed the information to Cooper, it was Novak that disclosed it to him?
Also, at this point and time, why isn't the jailed reporter being charged with more than contempt? Obstruction of justice? Hindering a criminal investigation? Hell, at this point and time, I'd probably tell her that I'm ready to give immunity to the actual leaker just so I can get him to testify at her trial for aiding and abetting.
This whole thing really pisses me off. Somebody better be charged with something.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
