Karl Rove is going to jail...if he's lucky

[canis582]

Most of you probobly watch faux news so you will have no idea what I am talking about.

But Karl Rove has been named as the man who leaked the name of a covert CIA operative to Robert Novak for political gain.

We are at war folks, if you get caught giving aid or comfort to the enemy, you hang.

The Chimp will have to pardon him.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
Most of you probobly watch faux news so you will have no idea what I am talking about.

But Karl Rove has been named as the man who leaked the name of a covert CIA operative to Robert Novak for political gain.

We are at war folks, if you get caught giving aid or comfort to the enemy, you hang.

The Chimp will have to pardon him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Link?

[[censored]]

Not one of the 24 hr news organizations either on TV or the web is reporting this.

I suppose it should have been obvious from your post.

[Exsubmariner]

I've been waiting to sound off about this, so here I go. First of all Rove is not going to go to jail. I'll tell you what this is all about. The Liberal Elite Social Worker Legal Professor Media Complex (similar to the Eisenhower Industrial Military Complex only without testosterone) hates Rove. They hate Rove because Rove is like Regan in that he is a whole lot better than they are at their own game. They view this as simply an opportunity to remove a very effective political advisor from the cabinet of a President they want to undermine. I bet the people at Time have thought about this since day one. They have probably been hoping to lose the legal fights, just so they can have their revenge on Rove. Hell, what does it matter if you have to give up a little confidentiality privelege in an extraordinary case if you get to take out one of your political adversaries? This type of crap makes me sick.
If you have been paying attention, Rove corresponded with the journalist but did not reveal any names. This is according to statements I have read by Rove's lawyers. I would not be suprised if in the year or so Time has been sitting on this, evidence has not been changed/ altered to portray this scenario in the case of the contingency where the scotus did not back Time. I don't trust documentation provided by Time for an instant. If truth be known, it was probably Hillary who revealed the name.
X

[phage]

It has been reported on a number of blogs that Rove leaked the name. I haven't read the Isikoff article in newsweek so I don'ty know the extent of Rove's alleged involvement.
See the item approximately 1/3 of the way down this (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/) page.

[canis582]

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=21798&mode=nested&order=0

Dear ranter,
Why are you so angry? He clearly violated this law:

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."

You and the knee jerk repugs (hush bimbo, the lepracaun) have no choice but to play the victim here. That is the only card you have!

That and attacking the sources.

The hand is in the cookie jar, Roves lawyer even admitted that he did it, something that you are trying to deny.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
It has been reported on a number of blogs that Rove leaked the name. I haven't read the Isikoff article in newsweek so I don'ty know the extent of Rove's alleged involvement.
See the item approximately 1/3 of the way down this (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/) page.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. If it is true he deserves to be punished.

I wonder if The White House was betting that the reporters would not be compelled to testify or simply would not testify.

[jackdaniels]

I saw a bit of this on TV. What cought my attention was that Rove didn't deny leaking any information. He simply said that IF he did leak the info - it wasn't done on purpose. The law states that you must WILLINGLY and KNOWINGLY disseminate this kind of info for there to be a case against you.

Guess Rove is so good, he is setting the stage for his eventual defence.

[Felix_Nietsche]

.......Robert Novak's upcoming column where he will explain the situation after his role with the legal proceedings are over. Then we will no the truth.

I could care less of the gossip about Karl Rove. Why? because it is just gossip.

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
It has been reported on a number of blogs that Rove leaked the name. I haven't read the Isikoff article in newsweek so I don'ty know the extent of Rove's alleged involvement.
See the item approximately 1/3 of the way down this (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/) page.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, if he did do it, he should burn. It is inconsequential if the Time or Novak or whoever wanted to burn Rove. If he did it case closed.

-Gryph

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
Time's cowardly decision to break its promise to a confidential source has had one beneficial side effect: according to Newsweek, it indicates that Karl Rove himself made the call to Novak.

One might have expected Rove, the master White House political strategist who engineered Bush's 2000 coup d'état and post-9/11 permanent war public relations campaign, to have ordered a flunky underling to carry out this act of high treason. But as the Arab saying goes, arrogance diminishes wisdom.

[/ QUOTE ]
So your source is salivating and saying that it's great on intelligence agent was compromised since we get to skewer Rove and then goes on to quote an "arab saying." I guess I know where your loyalties lie.
X

[PorscheNGuns]

I'm fairly convinced that canis582 is one of those faux trolls used by a conservative, intended to make liberal talking points look completely idiotic. Decent job, too.

-Matt

[[censored]]

The trap here for conservatives is to be over the top in defense of Karl Rove. He isn't the President and this doesn't have to implicate The President. President Bush said that the source of the leak needed to be found and held accountable under the law. This is what then needs to happen and Karl Rove is not above the law.

I like Karl Rove but if this is true, he has only himself to blame. Outing what's her face gained no political advantage as most people were not concerned what her husband (known as what's his face) was saying. And if they were the leak only served to gain him credibility.

The best bet (again if true) is for him to immediately resign to that he may best serve his defence without being a distraction to The White House.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
.......Robert Novak's upcoming column where he will explain the situation after his role with the legal proceedings are over. Then we will no the truth.

I could care less of the gossip about Karl Rove. Why? because it is just gossip.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like Novak, in fact he's my favorite conservative pundit (maybe my favorite pundit, period). But after he speaks, I'm not convinced we will know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth based on his words alone.

-ptmusic

[ QUOTE ]
I've been waiting to sound off about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I've been waiting for? Blech.

Why is this such a complicated issue? Either he outed the identity of the agent or he didn't. If he did, he should go to jail. If he didn't, then he should be left alone.

[superleeds]

[ QUOTE ]
Robert Novak's upcoming column where he will explain the situation after his role with the legal proceedings are over. Then we will no the truth

[/ QUOTE ]

i doubt we will have the truth.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
The trap here for conservatives is to be over the top in defense of Karl Rove. He isn't the President and this doesn't have to implicate The President. President Bush said that the source of the leak needed to be found and held accountable under the law. This is what then needs to happen and Karl Rove is not above the law.

I like Karl Rove but if this is true, he has only himself to blame. Outing what's her face gained no political advantage as most people were not concerned what her husband (known as what's his face) was saying. And if they were the leak only served to gain him credibility.

The best bet (again if true) is for him to immediately resign to that he may best serve his defence without being a distraction to The White House.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post.

-ptmusic

[whiskeytown]

sending Karl Rove to jail or hanging him for treason IS good for America - plain as that...

RB

[Zeno]

Karl Rove is a Pirate. You should appreciate and revel in that most wonderous fact.

-Zeno

[BadBoyBenny]

I'm sure that it is still alleged and unclear. However, if the rumor turns out to be true, who told him? Do campaign advisers typically know who CIA agents are, or does Rove have some official post where he is allowed to know? If so, could someone tell me what his title is? If not, wouldn't there need to be somebody else who told Rove would would also be hung over this?

Thanks

[trippin bily]

I thought Rove was an evil, diabolical, sick genious.
Would he make it this easy ?
No wonder the CIA has had such bad intel.
Who didnt know this lady was CIA ?
Seems like everyone in washington knew it.

[PITTM]

lets hope we get a good ole fashion' lynchin for mr rovey. however, i see a long string of lies ahead of us leading the current administration to find a way to blame it on clinton.

rj

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
lets hope we get a good ole fashion' lynchin for mr rovey. however, i see a long string of lies ahead of us leading the current administration to find a way to blame it on clinton.

rj

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude that's a great idea. Ok I take back my previous post as this is obviously a former President Clinton's fault.

[shots]

Interesting article on this story.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/

[BonJoviJones]

[ QUOTE ]
If so, could someone tell me what his title is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Whitehouse Deputy Chief of Staff, I believe

[Felix_Nietsche]

That may be his CURRENT title but I'm more interested in his title at the time the leaked occurred.

[whiskeytown]

it's been his title the last 5 yrs - leak was two yrs ago...

RB

[BadBoyBenny]

OK, so if he did it, he'll be hung by his lonesome.

[whiskeytown]

no...

the new spin is that he's saying IF he did it, he doesn't recall doing it -

so they'll let him go with nothing - it'll be interesting to see if the reporter's notes actually have him getting info from karl rove or if they say he let it "slip out" by accident.

RB

[Cyrus]

I am curious to what trick you will use to change tack or disappear from this forum if, in the coming days, it comes out that indeed Karl Rove leaked the name of an active CIA operative to the media.

BTW, I enjoyed your rant. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

It has been my own personal little game to try 'n gauge the blood pressure of posters from the text they put up. I have you pegged at 16/8 -- if you got a good night's sleep last night. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[canis582]

You all think he is so smart and he won't get caught.

Arrogance breeds laziness. I am a great example

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
But Karl Rove has been named by some bozo who probably doesn't know what he's talking about as the man who leaked the name of a covert CIA operative to Robert Novak for political gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP. Lawrence O'Donnell is a moron. He's just in it to generate publicity for himself.

Do you really think all of these newsguys knew Rove was the mole all along and refused to divulge it??? During the campaign? Please.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
It has been my own personal little game to try 'n gauge the blood pressure of posters from the text they put up. I have you pegged at 16/8 -- if you got a good night's sleep last night.


[/ QUOTE ]
Your sample size is too small. /images/graemlins/grin.gif
X

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But Karl Rove has been named by some bozo who probably doesn't know what he's talking about as the man who leaked the name of a covert CIA operative to Robert Novak for political gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP. Lawrence O'Donnell is a moron. He's just in it to generate publicity for himself.

Do you really think all of these newsguys knew Rove was the mole all along and refused to divulge it??? During the campaign? Please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or you can look at this rationally. Reporters have, for decades, fought to maintain the anonymity of their "anonymous sources". They continue to do so in the face of a Supreme Court decision requiring that they disclose the information.

To think that they would blow the cover of such a source -- be it Karl Rove or anyone else -- for any reason, political or otherwise, is ridiculous.

While you're at it, though, why don't you share with us with what you know that supports your conclusory statements that Mr. O'Donnell is a "moron", and that he's "in it to generate publicity for himself".

[bobman0330]

Treason seems like a bit of a stretch for what he did, don't you think? Is Robert Novak "the enemy" these days?

[Sponger15SB]

[ QUOTE ]
But Karl Rove has been named as the man who leaked the name of a covert CIA operative to Robert Novak for political gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did anyone read this and think: Duh?

I thought that when this story first came out about the leak everyone "knew" who leaked it.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But Karl Rove has been named by some bozo who probably doesn't know what he's talking about as the man who leaked the name of a covert CIA operative to Robert Novak for political gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP. Lawrence O'Donnell is a moron. He's just in it to generate publicity for himself.

Do you really think all of these newsguys knew Rove was the mole all along and refused to divulge it??? During the campaign? Please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or you can look at this rationally. Reporters have, for decades, fought to maintain the anonymity of their "anonymous sources". They continue to do so in the face of a Supreme Court decision requiring that they disclose the information.

[/ QUOTE ]

That position is somewhat justifiable in "whistleblower" cases. This isn't a whistleblower case, though. The person who "leaked" the info wasn't letting the reporters know about some wrongdoing, the act of telling the reporter Wilson's wife's identity was the wrongdoing itself (I use the word "wrongdoing" instead of "crime" intentionally, since the identity of the leaker may determine if this is or is not a crime). Why, in this case, does the leaker deserve anonymity?

If Rove leaked to someone else and then that someone told the reporters, why wouldn't they name Rove while still protecting their source?

[ QUOTE ]
To think that they would blow the cover of such a source -- be it Karl Rove or anyone else -- for any reason, political or otherwise, is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Why?

[ QUOTE ]
While you're at it, though, why don't you share with us with what you know that supports your conclusory statements that Mr. O'Donnell is a "moron", and that he's "in it to generate publicity for himself".

[/ QUOTE ]

He's a pundit. Pundits routinely come up with wild ideas. They always present them as fact. That's how you survive in that business. O'Donnell specifically is (in)famous for his guarantee that Kerry would win all of the swing states. Good call.

[canis582]

"Crazy Legs" Ann Coulter would be proud of your shrill name calling.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But Karl Rove has been named by some bozo who probably doesn't know what he's talking about as the man who leaked the name of a covert CIA operative to Robert Novak for political gain.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP. Lawrence O'Donnell is a moron. He's just in it to generate publicity for himself.

Do you really think all of these newsguys knew Rove was the mole all along and refused to divulge it??? During the campaign? Please.

[/ QUOTE ]

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
"Crazy Legs" Ann Coulter would be proud of your shrill name calling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever. She's a moron, too. I guess anyone who doesn't think Karl Rove is the culprit is an administration stooge in your book.

[whiskeytown]

surprisingly, there are laws about libel and journalistic integrity still out there - Unlike the Drudge Report, some real journalists prefer not to base an entire story on "well, my cousin's barber heard...blah blah blah."

Karl has been the most likely culprit - this is the guy who said outing her was fair game, even if it was illegal - he had the access, he has the morals (or lack thereof) and he has a history of inappropriate campaign/election tactics -

SO, did he do it? - Time will tell - will he get nailed by the Grand Jury? - Maybe - will he be pardoned in a last act of kindness by GWB - hell yah....

The best part will be him trying to weasal out of it - you don't get 5th amendment protections in a Grand Jury - it'll be an issue of what he said vs. the notes of the reporters - and luckily, we have him on record saying that outing her was a good idea and fair game, so there's intent on the record even if he has a memory lapse later on the stand...

been waiting a long time to see the scalywag go down - this'll be fun..

RB

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That position is somewhat justifiable in "whistleblower" cases. This isn't a whistleblower case, though. The person who "leaked" the info wasn't letting the reporters know about some wrongdoing, the act of telling the reporter Wilson's wife's identity was the wrongdoing itself (I use the word "wrongdoing" instead of "crime" intentionally, since the identity of the leaker may determine if this is or is not a crime). Why, in this case, does the leaker deserve anonymity?

If Rove leaked to someone else and then that someone told the reporters, why wouldn't they name Rove while still protecting their source?

[ QUOTE ]
To think that they would blow the cover of such a source -- be it Karl Rove or anyone else -- for any reason, political or otherwise, is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? Assuming you are, the answer is because then nobody will give confidential information anonymously for fear of being identified. I would think this would be obvious.

[shots]

Rove isn't going to go down but it'll be fun to see how pissed the left is when the investigation is over and Rove isn't convicted of anything.

[ QUOTE ]
Rove isn't going to go down but it'll be fun to see how pissed the left is when the investigation is over and Rove isn't convicted of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bunch of crap. "The left" are Americans, just as "the right" are. Americans want to see this guy punished if he exposed the agent's identity. Americans don't want to see him punished if he didn't. Period. Are there people who want to see bad things happen to Mr. Rove no matter what? I'm sure there are. But to say that "the left" wants that to happen? Baloney.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To think that they would blow the cover of such a source -- be it Karl Rove or anyone else -- for any reason, political or otherwise, is ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? Assuming you are, the answer is because then nobody will give confidential information anonymously for fear of being identified. I would think this would be obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

But like I said, the leaker in this case didn't blow the whistle on anything. There's no reason to protect him or her. What the leaker leaked isn't really the story, it's the identity of the leaker. It's the complete opposite of the traditional whistleblower situation.

On top of that, I don't believe for one minute that the people invovled in this situation (besides Novak, who apparently DID cooperate with the grand jury) would hesitate at all given the opportunity to blow Rove out of the water.

[mmbt0ne]

Fixed your title

[mmbt0ne]

Oooooooooooooooooh

Matthew Cooper gave up his source to the grand jury after getting personal consent to do so. He's not going to jail. Unfortunately, he won't talk about it outside of the courtroom though.

Is there anyway to find out who he implicated? When/How will we ever know this?

[Exsubmariner]

A little quote from one of my favorite Liberal Elite Socialist Worker Legal Professor Media Complex basher....
[ QUOTE ]

RUSH: Let me say one thing about this Karl Rove business. Let me tell you how I know. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Rove is not the leaker. If Karl Rove were the leaker to Matthew Cooper of TIME Magazine, do you think they'd have kept that news private during the 2004 presidential campaign? This leak occurred in 2003. If Karl Rove engaged in criminal activity, do you not think that the media -- who claimed to know it all now -- would have not released that information during the campaign, given it to John Kerry or something and made it a huge campaign issue that the president's chief political advisor is a criminal?

We have all kinds of stuff leaked all over newspapers, folks. The war plan for Iraq was leaked for the New York Times and the Washington Post. We had all kinds of things leaked during the first term of the Bush administration. All kinds of secrets were let go that were intended to harm Bush. We had forged documents from CBS that were intended to affect the outcome of the election. Do you think if they really had proof that it was Rove that was the leaker of Valerie Plame's name, that the press would have kept that secret during the 2004 campaign? I don't. Why keep that secret? Why go to the trouble of making up and forging documents when you've got the one story here that could really rally people, maybe? Maybe it can't. I don't know how many people really care about this, that Valerie Plame's name was leaked, and I don't know how many people actually consider it a crime, but that was just my first reaction.


[/ QUOTE ]
Looks like Cooper is about to disappoint everybody with the truth....Apparently, the real leaker didn't like Karl getting all the credit and has given Cooper permission to reveal their identity.

Love,
X

[mmbt0ne]

Way to be 12 minutes late /images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Exsubmariner]

OK, you got me, but your post didn't include any rhetoric from anybody the lib's dispise intended to get them all rowled up, so nah nah nah nah nah..... /images/graemlins/laugh.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]

been waiting a long time to see the scalywag go down - this'll be fun..



[/ QUOTE ]

Well this is about all you have left. Enjoy.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
A little quote from one of my favorite Liberal Elite Socialist Worker Legal Professor Media Complex basher....
[ QUOTE ]

RUSH: Let me say one thing about this Karl Rove business. Let me tell you how I know. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Rove is not the leaker. If Karl Rove were the leaker to Matthew Cooper of TIME Magazine, do you think they'd have kept that news private during the 2004 presidential campaign? This leak occurred in 2003. If Karl Rove engaged in criminal activity, do you not think that the media -- who claimed to know it all now -- would have not released that information during the campaign, given it to John Kerry or something and made it a huge campaign issue that the president's chief political advisor is a criminal?

We have all kinds of stuff leaked all over newspapers, folks. The war plan for Iraq was leaked for the New York Times and the Washington Post. We had all kinds of things leaked during the first term of the Bush administration. All kinds of secrets were let go that were intended to harm Bush. We had forged documents from CBS that were intended to affect the outcome of the election. Do you think if they really had proof that it was Rove that was the leaker of Valerie Plame's name, that the press would have kept that secret during the 2004 campaign? I don't. Why keep that secret? Why go to the trouble of making up and forging documents when you've got the one story here that could really rally people, maybe? Maybe it can't. I don't know how many people really care about this, that Valerie Plame's name was leaked, and I don't know how many people actually consider it a crime, but that was just my first reaction.


[/ QUOTE ]
Looks like Cooper is about to disappoint everybody with the truth....Apparently, the real leaker didn't like Karl getting all the credit and has given Cooper permission to reveal their identity.

Love,
X

[/ QUOTE ]

It's so funny when Rush and Sean make statements like "I know 100% FOR SURE...." They both made MANY such statements with regards to WMD's. I clearly remember one such statement (paraphrasing, but very close): "I have it on the highest authority that it is a 100% lock that we will have some of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction in our possession by this time next week." (Sean Hannity, on his radio show, one week before nothing was found).

Rush stating that he knows something "beyond a shadow of a doubt" means absolutely nothing. Pundits are prone to exaggerate how sure they are.

-ptmusic

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Then we will no the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lot of this going on, on both sides. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[[censored]]

I know it won't mean anything to some of you but on Special Report with Brit Hume the entire panel thought there was virtually no chance that Rove would implicated in any criminal way.

[The once and future king]

You and I dont see the world through the same coloured spectacles.

However this made me laugh alot.

[ QUOTE ]
The Liberal Elite Social Worker Legal Professor Media Complex

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
I know it won't mean anything to some of you but on Special Report with Brit Hume the entire panel thought there was virtually no chance that Rove would implicated in any criminal way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love the way you phrased that! Also of note: they say he has no chance he would be "implicated", as opposed to saying there was no chance he was "guilty" of leaking the identity.

Anyway, you are right, what they say on the subject means very little to me.

-ptmusic

[kurto]

I think there's 2 questions.... did he do it and will he be held responsible. One may have no bearing on the other.

[whiskeytown]

Rush was once 100 percent sure drug abusers should be incarcated for long stretches -

didn't realize a guy that fat could backflip so easily when it got to his turn....LOL

RB

[BCPVP]

FWIW, here's a blurb from Powerline regarding why Rove is probably not guilty of anything. It's part of a larger article, so it wouldn't be a bad idea to read the whole thing for context; but here's the relevant part:

************************************************** **********

Schmidt:

The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials
provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover
CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an
investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To
charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure
of a covert officer was intentional.

Here is how Marshall thinks he has dispensed with that point:

Again, a conversation with a lawyer may have been more helpful than
one with a staffer.

There's no 'challenging the bona fides of a political opponent'
exception to the law in question. While Plame's alleged role may
have some political traction, it's legally irrelevant. Government
officials are not allowed to disclose the identity of covert
intelligence agents, whether they feel like they have a good reason
or not.

Really? The relevant law is the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, which identifies three levels of violation for disclosing the identity of a covert agent:

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had
access to classified information that identifies covert agent

(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of
covert agents as result of having access to classified
information

Note that parts (a) and (b) require that the leaker must have had access to classified information and must have *learned of the identity of the agent*, Ms. Plame, from that information; having learnt her identity at a D.C. cocktail party isn't good enough for prosecution.

The person that Marshall suspects is the leaker, or at least the person he accuses of violating the law after Novak's column was published, is Karl Rove... who almost certainly does not have access to any classified information that explicitly or implicitly identifies Valerie Plame as a covert CIA agent; his official title of Director, Office of Political Affairs certainly does not give him carte blanche to rummaged around in the CIA's personnel files. So let's look at the third and final part of this law:

(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of
activities intended to identify and expose covert agents

The scope of part (c) is made more explicit in the description of the crime (this entire code section is remarkably easy to follow, even for a layman):

Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to
identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that
such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence
activities of the United States, discloses any information that
identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such
individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United
States, shall be fined not more than $15,000 or imprisoned not more
than three years, or both.

Note the words that Marshall managed to miss... that this disclosure must be part of "a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents." Yet it Schmidt was right, this information was not leaked (by whoever leaked it) as part of any such pattern; it was leaked as a one-shot to show that Wilson was not the disinterested contract analyst he claimed to be but was acting in tandem with his CIA wife to commit politics in the name of national security.

And that most certainly would be a defense to this charge... contrary to Marshall's snide and contemptuous dismissal.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/007149.php#007149

[ptmusic]

I just had a fun laugh browsing through that blog. I can't take anything seriously since I saw their list of articles:

Racial Profiling

The Democrats' Cheating Heart

Silence of the Liberals

Gangs of Minneapolis

Income Inequality

Welfare Reform

Income Taxes

Clinton

The Cross-Examination of Hermann Goering

Lincoln

Arafat 1

Arafat 2

Kathy's Clowns

Affirmative Action

Bush Doctrine

Yale vs. JAG

Patriot Act Games

Third-Party Politics

Fritz '56: Campaign Finance Reform

Walter Mondale Loses It

Apocalypse Kerry


-ptmusic

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
A little quote from my favorite Raving Right-Wing Loonie and Total Ignoramus Rush Limbaugh.


[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

Notice I did not mention his brain damage from the drugs.

[BCPVP]

I suppose that's about what I expected from a lefty. Ignore the entire argument and get caught up in the most trivial aspect of the source.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose that's about what I expected from a lefty. Ignore the entire argument and get caught up in the most trivial aspect of the source.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a lefty (believe me - my left-wing friends think I'm a staunch conservative), but I found the left-bashing titles of those articles both funny and revealing about the bias of the website.

I don't find anything trivial about a source's bias. It means everything. Show me the argument from a more neutral source and I'll look at it more seriously.

-ptmusic

[BCPVP]

So it's not the argument, it's the people making the argument. I see. Don't you sound smart. And sorry, your friends being more liberal than you does not make you a conservative.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
So it's not the argument, it's the people making the argument. I see. Don't you sound smart. And sorry, your friends being more liberal than you does not make you a conservative.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say I was a conservative.

See - it IS the people making the argument that one should often pay attention to more than the argument itself; you are a perfect example.

-ptmusic

[BCPVP]

Do you realize how stupid this sounds? It sounds like you can't make any sort of arguement against what I posted so you've resorted to belittling the source.

[lastchance]

We're not as informed as many people, so when they make an argument that we don't understand, we must figure bias in.

You wouldn't trust Nixon during Watergate, right, even if you couldn't rebut his arguments...

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
We're not as informed as many people, so when they make an argument that we don't understand, we must figure bias in.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand the need to sort out facts from editorializing. However, that's not what ptmusic is doing. He's refusing to even read the argument because of percieved bias. I don't claim that Powerline is an unbiased source. But his statement that the arguement is less important than the person who makes it is ludicrous.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We're not as informed as many people, so when they make an argument that we don't understand, we must figure bias in.

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand the need to sort out facts from editorializing. However, that's not what ptmusic is doing. He's refusing to even read the argument because of percieved bias. I don't claim that Powerline is an unbiased source. But his statement that the arguement is less important than the person who makes it is ludicrous.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a difference between an argument and a fact. A fact's value has nothing to do with the person saying it. But an argument's value has everything to do with person saying it.

And again (for the third time in this thread), you are stating something wrong about me: I never said I refused to read the argument.

-ptmusic

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
And again (for the third time in this thread), you are stating something wrong about me: I never said I refused to read the argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then perhaps you could comment on the facts within the argument made rather than disparage the titles of irrelevant articles at the site. If you can't, then simply say so and move on.

[Drac]

I don't give a crap who leaked the info, B. Clinton or Bush, H. Clinton or Rove. They should fry for it. All of the people who work in intelligence gathering have a crap job and are highly valuable. To out one is just disgusting.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And again (for the third time in this thread), you are stating something wrong about me: I never said I refused to read the argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then perhaps you could comment on the facts within the argument made rather than disparage the titles of irrelevant articles at the site. If you can't, then simply say so and move on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can: there are two facts in the article. One is Karl Rove's official title, and the other is the wording of the law someone may have broken. It seems they got those facts right (although Rove has been promoted to a new title, but I won't quibble about that).

But the vast majority of the piece is opinion and argument. It presents one argument, then rebuts it. Both the presentation of the opposing argument and the rebuttal are suspect because of the source, as we have discussed.

For instance, "Karl Rove... who almost certainly does not have access to any classified information that explicitly or implicitly identifies Valerie Plame as a covert CIA agent; his official title of Director, Office of Political Affairs certainly does not give him carte blanche to rummaged around in the CIA's personnel files."

Is rummaging around the CIA's personnel files the only way Karl Rove could have access to classified material? And how does the author know what the clearance is for the position Karl Rove holds? He doesn't even address these issues; he just makes assumptions (and bad assumptions in my opinion).

Ok, that's enough. You asked me to comment on the facts in the argument, and I did.

-ptmusic

[ChristinaB]

http://holidaygraphics.com/bush/frove.gif

[BCPVP]

Ah, much better.

[ QUOTE ]
Is rummaging around the CIA's personnel files the only way Karl Rove could have access to classified material?

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you know of others? Simply hearing it from someone else is not good enough. He would have had to have access to the classified material listing Plame as a covert agent.

[ QUOTE ]
And how does the author know what the clearance is for the position Karl Rove holds?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why not ask him, not me? It doesn't make much sense for a political advisor to have access to NOC agents in the CIA. I could be wrong though. A few minutes of google have turned up inconclusive on whether or not Rove does have enough clearance.

Another thing to keep in mind (from wikipedia):
Rove's lawyer, however, asserted that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." Furthermore, Luskin said that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" (three times, according to the Los Angeles Times of 3 July 2005 ) and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him and that Rove "has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove#Valerie_Plame_leak

If Karl Rove is the leak, why would he release all reporters of their confidentiality regarding any interviews with him? Why would he be cooperating with the investigation if he was the leaker?

Anyway, I appreciate that you decided to actually comment on the content of the article instead of disparging irrelevant articles.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, much better.

[ QUOTE ]
Is rummaging around the CIA's personnel files the only way Karl Rove could have access to classified material?

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you know of others? Simply hearing it from someone else is not good enough. He would have had to have access to the classified material listing Plame as a covert agent.

[ QUOTE ]
And how does the author know what the clearance is for the position Karl Rove holds?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why not ask him, not me? It doesn't make much sense for a political advisor to have access to NOC agents in the CIA. I could be wrong though. A few minutes of google have turned up inconclusive on whether or not Rove does have enough clearance.

Another thing to keep in mind (from wikipedia):
Rove's lawyer, however, asserted that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." Furthermore, Luskin said that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" (three times, according to the Los Angeles Times of 3 July 2005 ) and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him and that Rove "has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove#Valerie_Plame_leak

If Karl Rove is the leak, why would he release all reporters of their confidentiality regarding any interviews with him? Why would he be cooperating with the investigation if he was the leaker?

Anyway, I appreciate that you decided to actually comment on the content of the article instead of disparging irrelevant articles.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's possible Rove was given access to the classified information illegally (perhaps he didn't know it was illegal in this scenario); it's also possible he had the clearance for this classified information.

As for why would release the reporters of their confidentiality and cooperate with the investigation? One possibility is so that this doesn't turn into a worse crime of a Watergate-like cover up, or so that it doesn't even have the appearance of a cover up.

All the above are just some of the possibilities that the author's argument didn't address.

Personally, I think the gauntlet is lowering on him, and he is simply trying to help himself from getting his head chopped off. I'm not sure if he committed a crime, but I am not convinced he didn't based on the article you posted. I am not convinced because the argument is flawed, and because of the source, which we have discussed.

-ptmusic

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
It's possible Rove was given access to the classified information illegally (perhaps he didn't know it was illegal in this scenario); it's also possible he had the clearance for this classified information.

[/ QUOTE ]
Before we go around throwing out accusations (especially of treason), perhaps you'd like a stronger case than "it's possible..."? Isn't it possible that Rove kicked in the door at Langley with an M-60 around his shoulder and demanded the files? I suppose, but that doesn't mean it happened, and the onus is on the accusers to show that Rove committed some wrongdoing.

[ QUOTE ]
As for why would release the reporters of their confidentiality and cooperate with the investigation? One possibility is so that this doesn't turn into a worse crime of a Watergate-like cover up, or so that it doesn't even have the appearance of a cover up.

[/ QUOTE ]
More "possibilites". The thing is, we don't know. So to accuse Rove as the leaker with nothing but "it's possible" is fairly dumb, imo.

[ QUOTE ]
All the above are just some of the possibilities that the author's argument didn't address.

[/ QUOTE ]
The author was trying to poke holes in someone else's argument. The fact that he didn't mention every "possiblity" is hardly grounds to disqualify the substance of his argument.

But you have to admit, the author raised an interesting question. The "does Rove have security clearance high enough to grant him access to CIA personnel files (especially of NOC agents)" question should be answered before Rove is accused of a crime.

[ptmusic]

Here is what you wrote at the top of your post with the article:

"here's a blurb from Powerline regarding why Rove is probably not guilty of anything."

My points are:

- The only facts in the article are Rove's job title and the legal wording of the law in question, which alone do not say anything about Rove's guilt or innocence.
- Your source is biased, so I won't trust any opinions; his pro-Rove bias weakens his credibility.
- EVEN if you believe his biased opinions, the author has presented a weak argument that "Rove is probably not guilty of anything" because some of his assumptions are completely unfounded.

Yes, he was trying to poke holes in someone else's argument, but while doing so, he created plenty of holes of his own. That makes for a weak argument.

He does raise the interesting question of clearance, although that wasn't his intention. But even if Rove didn't have clearance, that certainly doesn't make him automatically innocent, and that is my point. Even if everything the author said is true, Rove could still be guilty.

I'll toss out one (of many) scenarios: what if Cheney showed Rove the classified information, and said "Hey, Karl, what can we do with this?" This is not an accident at some cocktail party, this is in Cheney's office with the actual documents.

That ought to get you writing.

-ptmusic