An "Aggressive Partisan And Hothead"

The NY Times delves into the long friendship bewtween Karl Rove and Robert Novak, two people they chooses to describe as "two men [who] share a love of history and policy, as well as reputations as aggressive partisans and hotheads."

Perhaps a typesetting error prevented the Times from breaking real news - maybe Novak and Rove have reputations as "potheads".

Otherwaise, I would be curious to know whther the Times has ever characterized some of Wahington's other well known partisans with a temper as "hotheads" - Bill and Hillary get heated up ocassioally, I have read.  I bet James Carvile can get riled from time to time.  I even heard a rumor that Sen. Harry Reid once took off his glasses and said "That really bothers me".  OK, maybe that shouldn't count. 

But the list could go on, even though I am not.  But I bet Dick Cheney would have something to say to this.

Coming soon - the Times probes the reporting relationship between Judy Miller and Lewis Libby.  Oh, wait, what's the point - her being in jail isn't really news, and the Times doesn't know who she is protecting...

Comments

[Martin]

I did see Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC last summer saying Rove was known to use crsytal meth on occasion. I can't find a transcript, but I clearly remember the show and her saying it.

[kim]

Hopping mad.

Nests of vipers, all of 'em.
==============

[BumperStickerist]

I did see Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC last summer saying Rove was known to use crsytal meth on occasion. I can't find a transcript, but I clearly remember the show and her saying it.

I saw that too. But you left out the part where she held up typed documents from circa 1977 to substantiate the claim that Rove was a speed freak.

A closer examination revealed that the typewriter used to produce the documents had kerning, proportional spacing, superscript, and, iirc, the ability to mix type fonts and point sizes within the document with no discernable human error with alignment on subsequent lines.

Andrea stands by the story, and vows to get to the bottom of the issue. /eyeroll

----------------------------

regarding the 'false memory' with Mitchell's other statements - I haven't been able to find recordings of Mitchell's appearances on Imus (which is where I think I heard the 'cocktail circuit' bit) nor is the Imus show transcribed and archived online.

Also, while the show has closed captioning, there are many, many times where the transcriber gets garbled .. so a fuzzy search looking for 'cock tale sir cut' might be needed.

If someone were to pull an hour's worth of Mitchell's appearances over the past year from Imus, I'd listen through them to find the cut.

fwiw, the contact info for Bernard McGurk from WFAN wasn't working or perhaps he could look up the show's guest list and have tapes pulled.

[kim]

I'll bet Fitz is after perjury, whose, I don't know. There are just too many people who knew about Plame for a prosecutor to prove 'outing' beyond a reasonable doubt.
===============================================

[Martin]

"If someone were to pull an hour's worth of Mitchell's appearances over the past year from Imus, I'd listen through them to find the cut."

Step away from the computer...

[kim]

This is a case of:

A. Wilson perjury, yellow cake forgery, moral penury.

B. CIAacide. Referral to DOJ turns over large rock on them.

C. Press stonewalling the facts.

D. Administration deviousity.

E. Onlooker horror. Bystander casualties.

F. All of the above.

Many correct answers possible.
===========================================

[kim]

I think I like 'deviocity' better.
=================================

[kim]

Just take the quiz, post your answers, and I'll have a grad get back to you.
==============================

[kim]

I like 'F'. The Plame "Affair is a WMD.
========================================

[boris]

I'll bet Fitz is after perjury

I think it's more likely he's stirring the pot. Information on who and how subplots that cause damage occur is probably very interesting to the new heads of security, intelligence and state departments.

[SamAm]

Ahh, the Mitchell-Imus rumor. An even more tenuous version of the Powerline-Mitchell rumor (which I saw bandied about the right so often as to be comical in effect). Hasn't the idea that she knew and others knew been superseded by other events, like her claims similar to Russert's (but more detailed) as to it not being common knowledge but in fact a serious matter. She's not conducted herself, currently or in the past 2 years as if she believed the matter of Plame's identity was a DC open secret. And nothing I've seen says she's been called before the grand jury. If she had this important for the administration information, she'd have gone. And Miller wouldn't be in jail, Rove and Libby wouldn't be fibbing about their sources, and so forth.

Also, if there's perjury there's obstruction and greater crimes. There's no need to lie if there's no illegality going on.

I'll just repeat again what I've said before.

The administration did not need reporters to tell it information it requested from government sources and channels.

[BumperStickerist]

Well, as happy as I am to participate in rumor mongering, the "Imus/Mitchell" exchange consisted of Mitchell, per my recollection, telling Imus that it was known in DC circles that Plame worked at the CIA, not that she was a former undercover operative.

That Klaxon was sounded by Ambassador Wilson.

and, yes, it is time to step away from the keyboard.

[boris]

it was known in DC circles that Plame worked at the CIA

Andrea could reasonably comment on damage done when Valerie's CIA employment and undercover status became public knowledge. That she might have been among the DC inner circle who knew where Valerie worked is not inconsistent with such commentary at all.

[Jim E.]

You can't seriously deny that Karl "We Will Fuck Him Like He's Never Been Fucked Before" Rove and Bob "Bullshit!" Novak are are partisan hotheads. If they aren't, no one is.

Do synonyms count? If so, check out this liberal media bias:

NY Times on Bill Richardson, May 9, 2004: "At times, he can be reckless, hot-tempered and a vainglorious showboat. A Democratic ticket with him and John Kerry -- hollow-eyed, estranged from his appetites, subsisting on a diet of rectitude and moral fiber alone -- would be a striking comedy of contrasts and perhaps not the one Kerry is striving for." (This is from a profile, not an opinion piece. It slurs two Dems at once.)

[Jeff]

Well, liberals being more likely to be potheads (excepting you libertarian types), perhaps that explains why we aren't called hotheads. I'd be surprised if LBJ wasn't called one, though.

[Syl]

More info from my classification management source...

I'm afraid the watercooler talk about Valery and the CIA is a red herring. Although the source of classified info is important, it does not matter if an individual who has been briefed on matters of classification and release of information (as any administration official is) has learned something from gossip or from a classified document or from the press, if he has reason to believe the information may be classified.

One of the things briefed on is specifically CIA employment. That's a red flag indicating you must find out whether the individual's employment is classified before disseminating further. You cannot confirm information you heard at the watercooler (or from a reporter or a newspaper article). You must have 'no comment' on it. You must neither confirm nor deny.

'I heard that too' is not something you can prosecute. It's neither a confirmation nor a denial.

But 'his wife works at the CIA' is bad bad bad.

Sorry.

[kim]

Furthermore, "I heard that, too." means someone said it. Happy Trails to Fitz, since so many knew.
==================================================

[boris]

You must have 'no comment' on it. You must neither confirm nor deny.

While the suggestion that Harlow 'blew it' was credible in a speculative sense, the claim that all government workers are under the same restraint is not.

Were Harlow dismissed and in jail for breaking the rule it would be more so.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Syl, it is only prosecutable if you had access to the information through your security clearance. If it's something told to you by someone who clearly doesn't have such access you'd not be expected to think it's classified.

Tim Russert was simply wrong to take out of context the SF 312 verbage he read to Ken Mehlman on MTP.

[Syl]

Boris

Strawman. I didn't say 'all government workers'.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Speaking of partisan hotheads, we haven't forgotten ol' Larry O'Donnell have we:

http://flyunderthebridge.blogspot.com/2004/10/little-worried-about-how-election-is.html

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Here's the language that Rove might have read (we don't know if he actually had a security clearance in July 2003):

----------quote-------------
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.
---------endquote---------

Highlight 1: 'If information that a signer of the SF 312 *knows to have been classified* appears in a public source...'

Highlight 2: 'merely quoting the public source in the abstract is not a second unauthorized disclosure'.

[boris]

Strawman: ... (as any administration official is)

Close enough for the point, if the rule is to be widely applied in a strict sense then Harlow should be in more trouble than he seems to be.

[Syl]

I was dodging a monster T-storm for the past couple of hours. ufda.

Boris...we don't know that Harlow is not in trouble.

Patrick R...Good source. Highlight 2 would be like 'I heard that too' not 'his wife works for the CIA'.

The Cooper call thus seems to gain more importance. However what we don't know is if Rove (or Libby or Hadley) asked someone official if it was okay and they said 'yes'.

Nobody has leaked on that (yet?)

[boris]

we don't know that Harlow is not in trouble.

Of all the things we don't know and thereby should not be used for the purpose of rank speculation, this one item is where you draw the line?

C'mon ...

If there is a rule and it supposedly applies to CIA officials and administration officials, would not one expect it also applies to justice department officials, national defense officials, home security officials, state department officials, etc ad nauseum. Sorry if "government workers" was too generic for you (not).

[Syl]

Patrick

"Syl, it is only prosecutable if you had access to the information through your security clearance. If it's something told to you by someone who clearly doesn't have such access you'd not be expected to think it's classified."

No, this isn't necessarily true. And in the case of CIA employees, because of the situation of having both covert and non-covert agents it's a blanket rule that you must get clearance before you disseminate, or further disseminate, the fact that someone is a CIA employee.

It makes no difference whatsoever who you heard the info from.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'It makes no difference whatsoever who you heard the info from.'

Not according to the official handbook on what signing the SF-312 obliges you to do. It's:

'knows to have been classified '

[Syl]

I didn't state that right. CIA employment itself is classified information. And I don't think it's credible for someone in a senior administration capaciity to plead ignorance. They need permission to further disseminate, no matter the source.

Boris

I don't get your beef. Nobody's been indicted for anything yet. I've not said Harlow is off the hook, have I?

[Geek, Esq.]

This disturbs me.

"Rove as hothead" undercuts my vision of Rove as "cold, evil schemer."

Stepping away from the keyboard . . .

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

CIA employment is NOT itself classified. And Novak is a 'public source' because he clearly doesn't have a security clearance.

Here's another blurb from the official manual:

' A party to the SF 312, SF 189 or SF 189-A may be liable for disclosing "classified information" only if he or she knows or reasonably should know that: (a) the marked or unmarked information is classified, or meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination; and (b) his or her action will result, or reasonably could result in the unauthorized disclosure of that information. In no instance may a party to the SF 312, SF 189 or SF 189-A be liable for violating its nondisclosure provisions by disclosing information when, at the time of the disclosure, there is no basis to suggest, other than pure speculation, that the information is classified or in the process of a classification determination.'

Note that you can be prosecuted:

'only if he or she knows or reasonably should know that'

It is hardly reasonable to think that a journalist knows the name of a deep cover CIA agent.

[Syl]

Patrick.

No. CIA employment IS classified UNTIL someone declassifies that information for a specific employee. Harlow confirmed to Novak that Valery worked for the CIA. Novak could simply assume, since Harlow is an official source, that the info is declassified. I don't think Novak is in trouble.

"may be liable for disclosing "classified information" only if he or she knows or reasonably should know that: (a) the marked or unmarked information is classified, or meets the standards for classification and is in the process of a classification determination"

Exactly. And certain unnamed administration officials (and, hey, I'm a Bush supporter) should know or reasonably know that CIA employment is classified. So if they're not sure about a specific individual, they have to ASK someone OFFICIAL before they disseminate or confirm. There is no way they know that a specific person's employment has been declassified just because there's water cooler gossip.

[Syl]

But, as I mentioned earlier, it's possible they or he or she or it DID ask somebody official and was told it was okay.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Also, the requirements needed to prosecute for disclosing a covert CIA agent's identity are even more stringent than for other classified information:

-----------quote----------
PROTECTION OF IDENTITIES OF CERTAIN UNITED STATES UNDERCOVER INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS, AGENTS, INFORMANTS, AND SOURCES

Sec. 601.(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....
----------endquote---------

Not only does it say that you had to have had access to classified information identifying someone as an agent, but you have to know that the U.S. is actively concealing it. No way does that fit Rove.

[Seven Machos]

Syl: Who does Porter Goss work for?

CIA employment itself is NOT classified information. This is not a good premise because it is wrong.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Syl, I'm not saying Novak is in trouble. And, it isn't classified information that Porter Goss and roughly 2/3 of his charges are CIA employees.

Rove hears from public source Robert Novak what public source Judith Miller (and possibly other public sources) has also told him. He thus is allowed to 'quote...public source [Miller to public source Novak] in the abstract'.

According the the official ground rules:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/sf312.html

[Syl]

Patrick...that's my take too. I don't think there can be a prosecution under that act. In fact I think it's likely Rove didn't know Valery's status at all. But, he had the obligation to find out. Who knows, maybe Rove called Harlow too.

Seven. Sorry, CIA employment is classified. it's declassified on an individual basis. The fact that Porter Goss works at the CIA would be declassified information, not unclassified. Harlow works for the CIA too.

[Syl]

Patrick

"He thus is allowed to 'quote...public source [Miller to public source Novak] in the abstract'."

Rove could say "Miller told me Wilson's wife is CIA". He could not say "Wilson's wife is CIA".

See the difference?

[boris]

I don't get your beef.

What beef ??? Where's the beef ??? All I wrote was that if the rule is to be widely applied in a strict sense then Harlow should be in more trouble than he seems to be.

I don't buy "widely applied in a strict sense".

former Deputy Director of the CIA:
... but she was working in an analytical organization, and there’s nothing that precludes anyone from identifying analytical officers.

If there's a hard and fast rule I think he would have qualified that statement. Not saying there is no rule ... or that Harlow is 100% free and clear ... just that I don't buy that "government OFFICIALS" are strictly bound by one.

[Syl]

Patrick

"And, it isn't classified information that Porter Goss and roughly 2/3 of his charges are CIA employees."

That's just being silly. It IS classified information that X is one of them.

[Seven Machos]

Syl: Sorry. You are wrong. CIA employment is not classified. It is CLASSIFIABLE on an individual basis, and even then the Agency must take affirmative steps to conceal.

[kim]

Like not use birth name?
========================

[Syl]

"and even then the Agency must take affirmative steps to conceal."

And that includes the exhortation not to disclose or confirm that an employee works at the CIA unless you've cleared it with someone authorized to okay it.

Because of the situation of having both covert and non-covert workerbees at CIA, this is the rule. And anyone signing an NDA is given this information as part of the briefing according to my source.

Did certain individuals sign an NDA and when? What other briefings were they given. People just don't show up at the WH and start to work, this stuff is part of orientation.

[Syl]

Boris

"Harlow should be in more trouble than he seems to be."

Ah, you can't go by the press. To the press Rove and only Rove is in trouble. They barely noticed Harlow, and that only to dig at Novak.

I don't know what to make of the quote from the former Dep Dir of the CIA. My slowly shifting paradigm hat hasn't rotated enough to parse it.

[Syl]

I hate thunderstorms. :(

[jukeboxgrad]

PATRICK: "it is only prosecutable if you had access to the information through your security clearance."

Syl is right and you're wrong. To be more precise, you're correct with regard to IIPA, but you're wrong with regard to the Espionage Act. This is explained well here and here.

There's a lot of confusion about this, I think because some folks are overly focused on IIPA and not realizing it's not the only law that might apply. I think another reason for the confusion is posts like this, by Dale Franks. (Thanks to Geek for bring this post to our attention.) Franks asks the following question (which is similar to what Patrick said): "Did Mr. Rove's knowledge of Ms. Plame's status at the CIA come from his access to classified knowledge, or did it come from some other parties." Franks is implying this distinction matters. Under the Espionage Act, it doesn't.

Franks adds to the confusion by citing only paragraph d of the Espionage Act while ignoring paragraph e. The former refers to someone "lawfully having possession" of classified information (and this corresponds to Patrick's statement "if you had access to the information through your security clearance"). But Franks and Patrick are both ignoring the next paragraph, section e, whichs refers to "unauthorized possession." In other words, the Espionage Act says clearly it doesn't matter whether or not "you had access to the information through your security clearance." Classified information is classified information, regardless of whether it fell into your hands legitimately or illegitimately.

This corresponds with what Syl correctly said: "it does not matter if an individual who has been briefed on matters of classification and release of information ... has learned something from gossip or from a classified document or from the press, if he has reason to believe the information may be classified."

"If it's something told to you by someone who clearly doesn't have such access you'd not be expected to think it's classified."

Nowhere in SF-312, the Espionage Act, or related government documents is there support for such an outlandish idea. The mere fact that information is being given to you by an unauthorized source is far from sufficient basis to be sure the information is unclassified. If there was any doubt, Rove had a duty to confirm first: "I understand that if I am uncertain about the classification status of information I am required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before I may disclose it" (link).

It's interesting to note that the recent Franklin indictment refers specifically to the Espionage Act (both paragraphs d and e), and also SF-312, as well as this specific provision of SF-312: "he agreed that if he was uncertain about the classification status of information, he was required to confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before he could disclose it."

"we don't know if he actually had a security clearance in July 2003"

As I've said, Rove was a "regular participant" in the "White House Iraq Group" (link). According to some reports, he chaired this group. It's extremely hard to imagine he did this with no security clearance. If that's true, it's perhaps an even bigger scandal.

"merely quoting the public source in the abstract is not a second unauthorized disclosure"

It's quite a stretch to claim some kind of "public source" ("for example, in a newspaper article"), since the relevant conversations happened before Plame's identity as a CIA employee had been published anywhere.

"Not according to the official handbook on what signing the SF-312 obliges you to do. It's: 'knows to have been classified'"

Who are you trying to kid? You're grabbing one phrase completely out of context. That's not even from the form. It's from the explanatory handbook. And it's from Question 19, which is making a specific point about a "public source," which does not apply in this case because nothing had yet been published. And you're using that phrase to essentially make the claim that if you're in doubt, it's perfectly fine to err in the direction of endangering national security. Even though SF-312 explicitly says if in doubt, check first.

"Novak is a 'public source' because he clearly doesn't have a security clearance."

More nonsense. The term "public source" appears nowhere in SF-312. It appears in the briefing booklet, and only in connection with Question 19, which clearly says " a public source, for example, in a newspaper article." In other words, any random unauthorized person conveying classified information (even if they happen to be a journalist) is not automatically "a public source."

"the requirements needed to prosecute for disclosing a covert CIA agent's identity are even more stringent than for other classified information"

The text you cite is not from the Espionage Act, it's from IIPA. As I said, with regard to the latter you have a point. With regard to the former you don't.

[jukeboxgrad]

SYL: "what we don't know is if Rove (or Libby or Hadley) asked someone official if it was okay and they said 'yes'."

That's a good question. I think that if such a thing had happened, big-mouth Luskin would have found a way to generate some spin along those lines.

Also, it's hard to imagine, if Rove had asked, why he would have gotten an answer substantially different than the answer Novak got from Harlow. In other words, I think Rove's fans should be praying that Rove didn't ask.

"I don't think Novak is in trouble."

A very important difference between Novak and Rove is that only the latter signed SF-312.

"Rove could say 'Miller told me Wilson's wife is CIA'. He could not say 'Wilson's wife is CIA'."

No, he couldn't even say "Miller told me Wilson's wife is CIA." I think you're misinterpreting Question 19 ("quoting the public source in the abstract") in the same way that Patrick is. A "public source" is not just any random unauthorized person who is spreading gossip (even if that person happens to be a journalist). A "public source" is something published and generally available to the public (and that's why Question 19 explicitly gives the example of a "newspaper article"). And "quoting the public source in the abstract" is simply this: "yes, I read in the NYT that X and Y and Z." The point of this business about "quoting the public source in the abstract" is to let you know that you won't be prosecuted merely for saying "yes, I read in the NYT that X and Y and Z." This business about "quoting the public source in the abstract" is not a blanket loophole where any unauthorized person (perhaps because they happen to be employed as a journalist) is magically considered a "public source," and any effort to retransmit the classified information you got from that person is magically OK because you're only "quoting the public source in the abstract."

[boris]

Juke, I only read your posts if they fit on one screen.

[jukeboxgrad]

I'm at a loss for words to describe how little I care whether or not you read my posts.

[boris]

A loss for words? Major improvement already!

BTW quoting chapter and verse of gov regulations is even less informative than quoting scripture. At least the bible is a finite document. When CIA personel like Harlow and the former deputy director act clueless about them applying them to everyone else is pointless. You might as well say that there is some law on some book capable of throwing everyone in the country in jail.

[Syl]

JBG

I'm mostly with you on the first post, but not the second.

Well, yes, Luskin probably would have let the word out somehow that Rove had asked for and gotten permission. Maybe.

But the stuff about the answer from Harlow is sideways. Harlow never looked up Valery's status until after he first spoke to Novak. It was AFTER he looked her up that he called Novak back. So, if someone else had asked Harlow previous to that, Harlow may also have confirmed.

It's really possibly that this whole situation is like a plane crash. There's never one answer to why it happened, there are a series of things.

We cannot discount the possibility that all the discussed info surrounding the valerie/wilson/niger thing took precedence in people's heads over a detail like checking CIA status. Oh, lookie what we found. Combine that with a possible atmosphere of everyone knowing she worked at the CIA. People goofed.

That doesn't necessarily get them off the hook, but it is an explanation for the how.

And there may very well be some official Rove went to who confirmed for whatever reason.
And Luskin/Rove could be playing rope-a-dope. Let the press and Dems stew, and look foolish when it turns out Rove was indeed cleared to say what he said, no matter if erroneously.

Speculation. But, well, it's possible and can't be totally ruled out.

As for public source business, you're wrong. "quoting the public source in the abstract" is NOT disseminating classified material because it neither confirms nor denies the info.

If Novak, a journalist who hasn't printed a word yet, says to Rove "Wilson's wife works at the CIA" it is still non-prosecutable for Rove to respond "I heard that too".