Karl Rove And The Plame Leak

Lawrence O'Donnell struck sparks by posting at Arianna that "Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source" for the Valerie Plame leak.

Mike Isikoff of Newsweek modifies this a bit, delivering quotes from a chat with Rove's attorney Robert Luskin and telling us that "one of Cooper's sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove".  (Emphasis added). 

The Washington Post has the strongest denial:

Rove's lawyer said Rove never identified Plame to Cooper in those conversations. More significantly, Robert Luskin said, Fitzgerald assured him in October and again last week that Rove is not a target of his investigation.

Some thoughts - Karl Rove was under oath when delivering his grand jury testimony, and although unsworn, false statements to a federal investigator can lead to a prosecution.   His attorney, Robert Luskin, is not similarly constrained when making statements to the press.  Hence, his statements may be false (unlikely, since presumably Mr. Luskin has a professional reputation to consider), or artfully constructed to be misleading (Do tell!). 

Furthermore, Special Counsel Fitzgerald would not normally hold a press conference to rebut any misleading statements made by Robert Luskin. My strong impression is that unlike Ken Starr, who was authorized under his empowering statute to deliver a final report into his investigation, Special Counsel Fitzgerald will either present his evidence in indictments and at trial, or go quietly away.  Grand jury testimony is meant to be secret, after all, and although ironists would delight if Fitzgerald began delivering leaks to the press about the progress of his investigation into press leaks, he has run a tight ship so far.

So, let's pull out the direct quotes from Robert Luskin, and see whether there is any obvious wiggle room in his denials.  From Newsweek:

Luskin told NEWSWEEK that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." Luskin declined, however, to discuss any other details. He did say that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him. "He has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else," Luskin said.

Well, "knowingly disclosed" may be important in establishing criminal intent, but it sidesteps the question of whether Rove inadvertently mentioned a connection between Plame and Wilson.

"[H]e did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA", may be a perfect non-denial denial - did Rove say, for example, that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but omit her name (which was available on the internet as part of Ambassador Wilson's on-line bio, now long gone)?

The Washington Post gives us more to work with:

More significantly, Robert Luskin said, Fitzgerald assured him in October and again last week that Rove is not a target of his investigation.

"Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn't disclose Valerie Plame's identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else," Luskin said. Luskin said the question remains unanswered: "Who outed this woman? . . . It wasn't Karl."

"Not a target" is not a direct quote.  However, it is possible that Robert Luskin is relying on a term of art, and simply telling us that Karl Rove has not received a target letter.  Maybe Fitzgerald's position is, Rove is not a target, but if it turns out he perjured himself or lied to investigators, that could change.

"Did nothing wrong" may refer to the notion that a prosecution under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is probably impossible.  Or it may reflect the ethical judgment of someone sympathetic to the White House (see Howard Fineman's piece on the background tussle between the CIA and the White House.)

"Who outed this woman... It wasn't Karl" will be left as a challenge to the reader, but I will suggest this - Robert Novak claimed to have two sources; if Matt Cooper had a similar experience, maybe Rove merely confirmed a Plame/Wilson connection that Cooper had gleaned elsewhere.  In which case, Rove didn't exactly "out" her, did he?  Hmm... Let's note this from the WaPo:

Cooper has said that more than one confidential source is identified in his e-mails and the notes of interviews he conducted in July 2003 after Wilson's opinion piece appeared in the New York Times.

More from Robert Luskin:

Rove answered questions under oath for about two hours before a grand jury on Oct. 15 as part of the special prosecutor's investigation. According to Luskin, the prosecutor said he believes Rove was candid and forthcoming about his contact with reporters.

"I've been assured by the prosecutor they have no reason to doubt the honesty of anything he's said," Luskin said.

That's good news for Karl's fans, although it is possible that new evidence in Cooper's notes may change the prosecutors' minds.

Let's reprise one theory of the information flow that led to the leak, with thanks to Cecil Turner, commenting at the Beldar Blog.  Briefly, someone at the INR (the State Dept intelligence arm) attended the famous meeting where Joe Wilson was introduced by his wife; much later, when the White House was vexed by Wilson's leaks and his NY Times piece, Colin Powell was apprised of the Wilson/Plame connection while traveling with Bush in Africa:

Sources close to the case say prosecutors were interested in discussions Powell had while with President George W. Bush on a trip to Africa in July 2003, just before Plame's identity was leaked to columnist Robert Novak. A senior State Department official confirmed that, while on the trip, Powell had a department intelligence report on whether Iraq had sought uranium from Niger—a claim Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, discounted after a trip to Niger on behalf of the CIA. The report stated that Wilson's wife had attended a meeting at the CIA where the decision was made to send Wilson to Niger, but it did not mention her last name or undercover status.

Well - if Powell knew, who else in the White House did?  And what did they know?  Not Ms. Plame's name, and not her undercover status, if this memo was the basis of their information.  The meeting is described in the SSCI report.  And let's note that Novak's original column was hazy on just what information came from which sources:

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report.  The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him.

Let's try for a Big Finish  - playing "Parse the denial" is lots of fun, and great practice for a Hillary '08 campaign, but I will be more inclined to believe what Fitzgerald does than anything these guys say.  I'm not seeing anything here that makes me worried. 

Two points to ponder: 

(a)  This is reporting from the Hall of Mirrors - the WaPo has received lots of leaks on this, and their Walter Pincus testified to Fitzgerald's grand jury.  One would hope that if the WaPo runs a strong Rove denial without waving a lot of red flags, it is because the denial squares with what they already know (or think they know).

(b) Did the various editors at the Times, the WaPo, and Time magazine really sit on evidence that would have incriminated Karl Rove all through last fall's campaign?  What happened to the public's right to know?  And if they were worried about being subpoenaed by Fitzgerald, Sydney Blumenthal explained the solution years ago - leak the "Rove is a criminal" scoop  to some anti-Bush British papers (gee, could they find one?), and pick up the story from there.

Either they are awfully dumb (possible!), or the story is not there.  Or both.

MORE:  Michelle Malkin rounds up some links; Josh Marshall also weighs in, and we will highlight this:

What's implicit in Isikoff's report, however, and in the Tribune too, is that the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald is after Rove for some felony arising out of the case (perjury after the fact? conspiracy?) but not the immediate and original act of leaking the name.

We have seen press speculation that Fitzgerald's investigation has degenerated to a Martha Stewart style attempt to find secondary crimes, such as lying to investigators or perjury to the grand jury.  Has this become the new CW on the left?  Keep hope alive!

MORE:  Josh Marshall does hold up a flickering candle:

...Fitzgerald shouldn't be pressing matter of jailing journalists unless he thinks he's on his way to prosecuting a serious crime.

So just a question: Would Fitzgerald have pushed to get Cooper and Miller in the slammer if some other party in the White House weren't in a lot of trouble?

No doubt about it - Fitzgerald's behavior is fully consistent with the notion that he is on the trail of a big one.  That said, just what did people expect Fitzgerald to have done if his investigation, sans the evidence of Cooper and Miller, had reached a dead end with no prospects of indictments?   Perhaps Josh Marshall could volunteer to handle Fitzgerald's press relations on the day he announces something to the effect of "although it is obvious that I have left some stones unturned, my clearly incomplete investigation is at an end, and no indictments will be handed down"; that's not a job I would want.

Put another way, Fitzgerald's behavior is also consistent with the notion that he has nothing but can't quit until every lead is exhausted.

Comments

[kim]

So it's innocent disclosure by administrative officials and hit job shenanigans by Wilson and maybe the CIA. Where's the retribution?
=============================

[kim]

And I still suspect that Judith Miller is protecting someone else, like Valerie.

I see Siberians, pursued in the troika by a starving wolfpack, pitching Cooper's notes out the back in hopes the smell of Rove's blood will allow the escape of the sleigh. And who will testify to the flurescence of the ghostly carriage, then?
==============================

[creepy dude]

3 Questions for my friends in denial:

1."This case is about a potential retaliation against a whistleblower," said Fitzgerald. Who's the whistleblower? Who's the retaliator?

2. Why did Ashcroft recuse himself?

3. Do you think the President was being honest when he said: "And I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials. I don't have any idea. I'd like to. I want to know the truth. That's why I've instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators -- full disclosure, everything we know the investigators will find out. I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is -- partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers. But we'll find out."

[kim]

1. When did he say that? I'm asking what date? Could be pertinent.

2. Politically sensitive investigation. To avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. For you legal and political naif out there.

3. Yes. When he said that I doubt he knew who the leaker was, because the leaker hadn't realized he was leaking anything.

OK, for you it all looks like denial. It's plausible. Now before you get all worked up about 'plausible deniablity' remember plausible can be either possible or probable or both, and that I worked the phrase in just for silly wordplay.
==========================

[creepy dude]

1. He said it in open court on June 29, 2005.

2. Don't forget Rove worked for Ashcroft before Bush.

3. Since Fitzgerald is getting to the truth, why didn't Bush ever call for an independent prosecutor?

[kim]

1. Thanks. Could be pertinent.

2. What? 1970?

3. Does 'since' mean 'when' or 'because'?
===============================

[kim]

1. Bien touche.

2 and 3. I'm returning the essential irrelevance of your replies. I'm also trying to outline your creepy oscuro with a little curious chiaro of mine. Dude, where's my paranioa?
===============================

[TM]

Well, my typepad host site seems to have hung up before I could type in my big finish, so:

(a) Playing "parse the denial" is fun, and great practice for a Hillary '08 run, but I will be a lot more interested in what Fitzgerald does than in what anyone else says.

(b) Remember, this is a hall of mirrors - the WaPo was on the receiving end of some of these leaks, and Walter Pincus testified to the grand jury. One might hope that they would not embarrass themselves and mislead their readers by running a strong Rove denial without waving lots of red flags - unless their other info suggested that the denial was appropriate.

(c) Now I've forgotten (c), but I'm sure it was important (if not memorable).

As to the questions from Irish:

- Fitzgerald said "potential retaliation" - we are delighted that he is taking it seriously, and we are not surprised that he is declining to quit without amassing all avalable evidence, but he hasn't indicted anyone yet.

(b) Ashcroft's recusal - Ashcrof has a personal Rove connection, IIRC (Rove was an advisor on an Ashcroft campaign, I think), but the obvious answer is, the whole White House was being questioned.

(c) As to Bush's comment - he is probably very interested in knowing whether a crime was committed and national security jeopardized. However, I doubt he is taking his guidance on these points from David Corn and left-wing blogs.

George Tenet (back when he was in charge) had not even mentioned the leak to Bush until October 2003 (IIRC - my archives seem to have collapsed, too, although scroll down and this is legible, from Oct 2003. Hah!).

[kim]

CD got paranee owe ah;
Won't credit what he owe ya'
Make a point,
Nada rejoint,
But haul you all ovah the boneyah.
=============================

[richard mcenroe]

Oh, come on! Everybody knows the Times, WaPo and Time Magazine are part of the VRWC. I read it at the DU and the Sydney Morning Herald...

[jack risko]

Tom:

O'Donnell substantially backtracked in an interview on Pacifica yesterday. You can probably get the transcript.

I discuss it here:

http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2005/07/03/pacifica-is-the-real-thing-not-air-america/

O'Donnell had a nanosecond to get some cheap publicity, and he took it; at least that's what it looks like to me.

Regards,

Jack Risko

[jack risko]

Tom:

O'Donnell substantially backtracked in an interview on Pacifica yesterday. You can probably get the transcript.

I discuss it here:

http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2005/07/03/pacifica-is-the-real-thing-not-air-america/

O'Donnell had a nanosecond to get some cheap publicity, and he took it; at least that's what it looks like to me.

Regards,

Jack Risko

[jack risko]

Tom:

O'Donnell substantially backtracked in an interview on Pacifica yesterday. You can probably get the transcript.

I discuss it here:

http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2005/07/03/pacifica-is-the-real-thing-not-air-america/

O'Donnell had a nanosecond to get some cheap publicity, and he took it; at least that's what it looks like to me.

Regards,

Jack Risko

[max]

TM's pet Irish Swamp Crank ("Isck") asked a few questions, and then politely (yes!) answered a few questions put to him before disappearing.

On the off chance that Isck reemerges, I have a few questions I hope he or someone can answer:

1. Why does the special prosecutor need Cooper's and Miller's correspondence? They were not the ones who first wrote that Plame worked for the CIA. What information could they give the special prosecutor that Novak (since he's not going to jail) presumably hasn't already given him?

2. Novak's article simply states in a matter of fact way that Plame works for the CIA, without any indication of his source for this statement. Was there in fact no particular source for this fact, because it was a matter of common knowledge in Washington?

3. Has Colin Powell been known to speak to reporters off the record?

4. Hasn't the stautue authorizing the appointment of independent prosecutors expired?

[kim]

CP could be the surprise of whom Novak speaks. He seems to have been in the chain of custody of info.
==============================

[creepy dude]

Mr. Pad, let's start with 4-The independent counsel statute has indeed expired-that's why TM's Ashcroft recusal explanation is lacking. The AG didn't recuse the DOJ-Fitzgerald is just a regular old DOJ employee remember-Ashcroft recused himself personally.

As for your 1-the cognoscenti now believe it was Miller who gave Rove the info about Wilson's wife. Miller got it from Chalabi who got it from Cheney/Feith/etc.

As for 2-if the "common knowledge" canard has not been trampled by the course of this investigation so far, well there's no hope.

3-who cares.

[kim]

Cognoscenti wognoscenti. Whence Yellow Cakoscenti.
==========================

[SteveMG]

Sorry, it seems to this eye that anyone who has the slightest idea as to who the players are in this opera bouffe is either kidding themselves, kidding us or is too smart to be spending this much time on the internet (that's not a shot TM).

I'll leave it others to decide which category they belong in.

'Course, I could be wrong. I once voted in a primary election for Al Gore for president (well, the party's candidate for the post).

Time for some pie, apple of course with a dab of vanilla ice cream.

Happy Fourth. Remember the "electric chord".

SMG

[kim]

Cockamamie wog knew SIMMI.
=========================

[Fresh Air]

Kim--

Colin Powell looks increasingly likely as Novak's source. Remember, Novak wrote in his explanatory column the source was "no partisan gunslinger." Powell fits that description; Rove does not.

As to Marshall's assertion Rove is the target of an investigation: dream on.

[kim]

Josh's Dawn Off the Deep End.
===============================

[Tollhouse]

"Implicit" must have a different meaning inside the beltway. Can someone explain how Isikoff's news slim rehashing of this affair with some new quotes makes it implicit that Rove is being investigated for something?

[Fresh Air]

Tollhouse--

It's called "projection," something that lefties like Marshall specialize in.

Hard to get through the day as a liberal without at least two or three juicy rationalizations to make things conform their warped worldview.

[creepy dude]

Fresh air-please review the history of U.S. Presidents and tell me when a President has hired his own attorney and been questioned in the oval office and his chief aide has hired an attorney and made numerous grand jury visits-and all from an investigation referred to DOJ by the CIA-and then doggedly prosecuted by that president's own DOJ!

Remember Congress (to its eternal discredit) has never been involved in this.

Say whay you will-these are extraordinary circumstances.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Joe and Mata Hari kiss and tell (from Vanity Fair, January 2004):

"He had met Plame in February 1997 at a reception at the Washington home of the Turkish ambassador. ....

"....they got very serious very quickly. On the third or fourth date, he says, they were in the middle of a "heavy make-out" session when she said she had something to tell him. She was very conflicted and very nervous, thinking of everything that had gone into getting her to that point, such as money and training.

"She was, she explained, undercover in the C.I.A."

[Fresh Air]

Creepy--

Hired his own attorney? Had his top aide questioned before a grand jury? Geez, that's a tough one...Bill Clinton?

I don't really know what your point is. Somebody leaked Ms. Plame's name to Robert Novak. The leaker was allegedly someone in the White House. That's about all we know so far.

If you want to compare White Houses for ethical problems, you'll have to do a whole lot better than inuendo about a single matter in which a crime may or may not have even been committed.

By historical standards this is a very tightly run ethical ship, and compared with the last president it's a monastery.

[Fresh Air]

Creepy--

Hired his own attorney? Had his top aide questioned before a grand jury? Geez, that's a tough one...Bill Clinton?

I don't really know what your point is. Somebody leaked Ms. Plame's name to Robert Novak. The leaker was allegedly someone in the White House. That's about all we know so far.

If you want to compare White Houses for ethical problems, you'll have to do a whole lot better than inuendo about a single matter in which a crime may or may not have even been committed.

By historical standards this is a very tightly run ethical ship, and compared with the last president it's a monastery.

[Fresh Air]

Sorry about the double post. Typepad must be run by the Palestinian Authority.

[dave Chiriboga]

reading Novak's report for the first time, it is interesting that Novak may actually NOT be saying that administrative sources told him that Valalry P. was an operative. Novak says the two sources told him that"Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report." It is possible that Novak knew, cause he is a guy that gets around, that she was an operative. The sources could have simply said that she worked for the State Department,and Novak added the little tidbit on his own -- he himself may not have realized she was undercover, esp if he came by the info fairly easily. After all, if everyone you know knows that she is a State Dept operative, why should you think that she is in deep cover???

[creepy dude]

FA-you're totally missing the point. Clinton's troubles were totally the work of the Republican Congress.

This Bush mess was completely iniated by his own administration!!!

That's what so incredible.

I'll repeat my question for the equally dense:

When has a President lawyered up to protect himself against his own administration?

[creepy dude]

Congress took Nixon down; Congress started Iran-Contra; Congress impeached Clinton.

Bush and Rove are being hounded by their own employee!!!

The stupidity is mindboggling.

[richard mcenroe]

Creepy Dude — Oh, Codswallop. How exactly did the Republican Congress trick Clinton into lying before a grand jury... or doing something to lie about?

[SteveMG]

Creepy Dude:
"Bush and Rove are being hounded by their own employee!!!"

Damned, Mohammed Atta has nothing on you. You've hijacked this thread all by yourself without a pair of boxcutters.

Just using your fingers.

And you're flying it right into the ground.

Fortunately, the rest of us have parachutes and you're by your lonesome.

No 72 virgins however. Just you and Jor and Jukeboxgrade in one big circle jerk.

SMG

[creepy dude]

Whatever SMG-

Are you not honest enough to at least admit how incompetent the Bush admin is?

What administration was it that sent Wilson to Niger in the first place?

Bush!!!

let's assume you guys are right-Wilson is a "Clintonoid hack" (I see that phrase in one of TM's Trackbacks)

What type of Administartion sends its political enemies to discover sensitive information?

Did you say "stupid"? I hope so.

[Tollhouse]

Yeesh, the Bush admin was stupid for expecting a Democrat to put the nation ahead of party? Is that the tack you want to take?

[SteveMG]

Creepy Dude:
Sorry for the snarky post but you're all over the place.

Initially you're comparing this to Watergate and Iran-Contra. Now you're accusing the Bush Administration of incompetence.

Which is it? Fouls or foul-ups?

Wilson was sent to Niger by the CIA. No one in the Bush Administration, as I understand it, knew of his mission. This was an in-house operation.

No one knew he was a Clinton hack at the time he was sent to Niger. He was a career State Department employee/ambassador who had been honored by Bush, Sr. because of his (Wilson's) actions during the Iraq war while he was in Kuwait.

This was a bureaucratic action not directed from the W.H. The CIA does send out analysts and operatives without W.H. directions. There is a degree of independence. Rove or Bush or Rice don't sit around and approve CIA operations.

I just see any "there there" in this case. Let's first prove that Rove leaked the information to Cooper/Novak and then we can start putting together these theories.

SMG

[SteveMG]

"No one in the Bush Administration, as I understand it, knew of his mission."

Let me amend that. No one knew that _Wilson_ was on the mission.

As I understand it, the W.H. (I believe Cheney specifically) asked the CIA to check out allegations that Iraq was seeking nuclear materials from Niger.

From there, the CIA put together internally its own operation where Wilson, after being suggested by Plame for the taks, was selected.

Of course, Wilson lied about that part. As he lied about not finding any evidence re Iraq's attempt to acquire nuclear material from Niger.

Wilson is a louse. Just a miserable, miserable creep.

SMG

[Fresh Air]

SteveMG--

Thanks for a fine illustration of logic and reason, though I doubt it will do Creepy any good. He's one of those people who's convinced the same government that can't even deliver the mail very well has taps on every Democrat's telephone.

[Fresh Air]

One other thing: Wilson also has extremely bad hair.

[Cory]

Wilson wasn't sent by any of Bush's political appointees, he was sent by the CIA. Read the Novak column.

By the way, the column does not mention that she was undercover. Does anybody know when that first came out? Was it Wilson himself who first mentioned it?

[SteveMG]

Cory:
"Does anybody know when that [Plame was an undercover agent] first came out?"

That's an excellent question that comes up everytime I see this discussed.

And no one has the definitive answer. Well, they say Novak in his story but after re-reading his piece again and again, there's some wiggle room that leaves the question somewhat open.

Novak's a smart guy who's been in Washington for 40+ years; he didn't phrase his piece the way he did for nothing.

He states that she was an "Agency operative" but NOT that she was undercover.

I guess by inference one can put 1+1 together, i.e., she worked for the CIA as an "operative" + she travelled abroad as a employee of a public company (read CIA front).

Of course, at the time of the Novak piece, she was not working or active in that capacity. So she was a _former_ CIA operative and not an active agent.

SMG

[Lion]

If Luskin said, or suggested, that his client was assured "again last week" that his client was not a target, that seems to me to go well beyond saying merely that he hadn't received a target letter. One would not use that language if all that was meant was that another week had passed without receiving a letter.

[Lion]

In light of what some correspondents have said above, it is worth looking at exactly what Novak said, and what he did not say: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report." The information that she was an "operative"--the only disclosure that could possibly constitute a crime (very doubtful)--is plainly not attributed to the senior White House officials. Novak has since asserted that his information about her status with the CIA indeed did not come from anyone in the White House.

[creepy dude]

Ok SMG-so Cheney wants the CIA to check out if Saddam is seeking nukes via Africa.

The CIA sends a miserable creep louse.

Indeed, the guy is so lousy Rove has to launch a counteroffensive against him.

The counteroffensive eventually necessitates lawyering up and grand jury appearances, all while Repubs control Congress.

So show me where the competence is.

[TM]

Sydney Blumenthal explained the solution years ago - leak the "Rove is a criminal" scoop to some anti-Bush papers...

Oh, bother - that was meant to be "anti-Bush BRITISH papers...", which was the info-flow Sydeny described in his outline of the VRWC.

[SteveMG]

Creepy Dude:
You're making all these conclusions without, in my opinion, supporting evidence.

(1) Cheney didn't want to see if Saddam was seeking nukes.

He asked the CIA to find out whether Saddam was trying to acquire nuclear materials from Niger.

The CIA put together an operation and Wilson was sent to Niger to find out.

The W.H., as far as I know, had zero knowledge that Wilson was sent.

He returns from Niger and starts making all these wild - and false - accusations and statements.

(2) You've already convicted Rove and want to string him up. I'm not joining the lynch mob.

Yet.

If he's the guilty party, I'll bring the rope.

I'm sure the W.H. wanted to get back at Wilson. The issue is whether revealing his wife's secret status was part of the counterattack.

(3) Where you'll find agreement from me is on the competence question. There have been too many screwup from this Administration.

But incompetence does not equal Watergate.

SMG

[Lion]

Who controls Congress has zero to do with convening a grand jury or lawyering up. Bush has not lawyered up in any event. It's not clear who is the "employee" that Creepy Dude claims is "hounding" Bush, but for prior examples of employees hounding their bosses into lawyering up, see, e.g., Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey. Clinton became (and remains) the portrait of a hounded man, whereas no one has laid a glove on Bush. I also seem to recall that John Dean was an "employee" of Nixon's, as was Deep Throat, and both of them did their share of hounding.

[Darrow]

Let us not forget the estimable Henry Cisneros, who lawyered up in 1994, while the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. Later, of course, he pleaded guilty to his criminal acts.

[creepy dude]

Lion-Bush hired a lawyer (mr. Sharp) and was questioned for over an hour by Fitzgerald, a U.S. Attorney and somebody who Bush could fire, i.e. an employee.

[Fresh Air]

Well, there you have it. Bush hired a lawyer. Rove was deposed in grand jury testimony. Obviously Bush=Nixon.

It's no wonder the left is in so much trouble. Does no one take logic classes any more?

[max]

Some people have way too much time on their hands.

If the CIA using a buffoon like Wilson without President Bush's prior knowledge makes his administration incompetent, what on earth does Janet Reno authorizing Ken Starr to expand the scope of his independent counsel mandate to include investigation of possible perjury in matters unrelated to Whitewater make the Clinton adminstration - the bozo clowns from hell?

Actually in both cases hindsight is 20/20 and it's unfair to judge any adminstration by one seemingly small decision.

But it is nice to see cranky admit at least by implication that Wilson is a dishonorable, dishonest lying cretin who shouldn't have been allowed within 1000 miles of any position of responsibility and trust.

The true villian is this whole mess is not whoever 'outed' Valerie Plame, but her lying husband.

[creepy dude]

Hot Air-if Bush was as smart as Nixon, this little contretemps would never be what it is today.

Mr. Pad-learn from the honest SMG-Bush is incompetent at the least.

[SteveMG]

Creepy:
"[L]earn from the honest SMG-Bush is incompetent at the least"

Boy, about 6 posts up you were dismissing me. Now, all of a sudden I'm the font of wisdom and truth (tongue in cheek).

Amazing how conservatives "grow" in the eyes of the left when they attack one another. I guess that's true in the other direction too, e.g., Zell Miller.

I feel like John McCain.

SMG

[max]

"if Bush was as smart as Nixon, this little contretemps would never be what it is today"

This statment should read:

"if Wislodn, the Democrats and Big Media were as honest as Nixon, this little contretemps would never be what it is today"

"Bush is incompetent at the least."

Projection, thy name is progressive or leftist or liberal or cranky or actually all of these.

[max]

"if Bush was as smart as Nixon, this little contretemps would never be what it is today"

This statment should read:

"if Wislodn, the Democrats and Big Media were as honest as Nixon, this little contretemps would never be what it is today"

"Bush is incompetent at the least."

Projection, thy name is progressive or leftist or liberal or cranky or actually all of these.

[Tollhouse]

And just in time, a little puff piece on our favorite soccer mom spy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/politics/05wilson.html?ei=5094&en=df481fba22d3d077&hp=&ex=1120536000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print

Whose machine is behind the O'Donnel-Isikoff-NYTs articles?

[The Kid]

Creepy is pretty darn good at taking potshots, so one need not look to him for consistency.

Nevertheless, he is correct in stating that the Bush administration brought this upon itself, but the motivation may be something that simply escapes him – a desire for accountability.

SMG correctly points out that Cheney had a question and that the Christians in Action on their own decided how to get the answer. It was their method – their decision-making process – that Novak was concerned about. Some may recall that Novak’s column described Wilson in rather complimentary terms. His conversations with administration officials probably had a tone something like “So you sent a Democrat to prove your point? WTFO?”

With the MSM-driven blowup, Ashcroft had little choice but to appoint a special counsel to look into the charges, and the initiation of this process pulled the shades over what can be disclosed. Whether it was the public criticism or a simple desire to get to the bottom of the mess may never be know, but Creepy is thus able to assign whatever motive he so desires.

What confronts us is legal proceeding: we’re left to guessing about much of the details, a fact that allows Creepy to fire off a round in one direction and then another, depending on whatever point a poster makes. He’ll even go so far

The most troubling issue really is whether the CIA is merely incompetent or has become politicized. Did they not have better means of collecting the requested intelligence, or did they not want to know and sent an agent who would most likely report what they wanted?

What’s merely annoying is that not even the MSM will acknowledge that Wilson’s trip proved what he claims that it did not, that is, his input indicated that Iraq could have been seeking uranium from Niger.

[Syl]

I love the irony. The left thinks the whistleblower was Wilson.

But Wilson lied. So the real whistleblower is the leaker.

Sweet.

[kim]

Yes, Syl. Excellent irony. Where's the justice?
==================================

[Fresh Air]

Creepy--

I'll wager you know next to nothing about Nixon, and were in fact, born after 1980.

You have produced not a shred of evidence of wrongdoing by the Bush administration, nor a solitary point of comparison in support of your assertion that (a) Bush is less competent than Nixon; or (b) Bush is dumber than Nixon. (Both of which are besides the point of this thread in any case.)

In other words, you done nothing but rant, firing in every direction, rattling teacups but missing with every shot.

The fact is that the facts aren't all in. All TM has done here is parse and speculate. For my money there is a lying sack of sh*t Democrat at the bottom of this well. It could be Rove, but I doubt it. Until I get some evidence to the contrary, Dude, you don't even creep me out.

[AT]

Tom, I'm pretty sure a lawyer can be punished for knowingly lying on behalf of his client.

Anyway, Luskin's a Democrat and a professional government ethics lawyer, not Rove's everyday attorney, so he's not going to take a fall for him. He graduated from Harvard Law, magna cum laude, I think, so he's not stupid. So yeah, I think Rove's off the hook. I also think Wilson and Plame are stupid, nutty, and arrogant enough to have started this whole thing themselves

[creepy dude]

Hot Air-Nixon was shrewd. You think he would have his own AG screw him over like Ashcroft did Bush. See up thread where I quote Bush's oh so condescending "there's lots of senior officials" and "we want the truth (wink wink)" nonsense.

His insouciance was prompted only by his expectation that his AG would quash the investigation. But the honest breast-fearing Ashcroft wouldn't play part in such perfidy.

Now did Nixon have such an AG? Wasn't his AG a lying scheming no good SOB just like Nixon. If Bush plans to govern like a scumbag, it's incompetent to appoint good Christians. Appease the base some other way.

Nixon would never get tripped up by his own administartion.

And The Kid-what's your support for the conclusion that Ashcroft "had no choice" but to appoint a special counsel?

[Lion]

Actually, Creepy, Nixon's Attorney General (John Mitchell) screwed him royally, probably moreso than any of the many "employees" (people he could fire) who did so. Archibald Cox screwed him until he did indeed get fired; Leon Jaworski took over, and although Nixon could have fired him he did not, and Jaworski screwed him. "Nixon would never get tripped up by his own administration" is an assertion guaranteed to elicit peals of laughter from anyone who knows the facts. You seem not to want to discuss John Dean, but when you get around to it you might also want to contemplate Alexander Butterfield, who ratted out the whole taping system. And the inconvenient history of employees Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Henry Cisneros seems to provoke an uncomfortable silence on your part. A president who is forced to resign is incompetent. A president who gets impeached, sanctioned by a federal judge and disbarred in his home state is incompetent. Bush hasn't had to break a sweat, and he won't. If that means "incompetence" to you, maybe that's why you keep losing and we keep winning.

[creepy dude]

"that's why you keep losing"

If the antecedent of the pronoun is "the country" I agree.

[Ralph Tacoma]

One thing that generally gets "skipped over" in these discussions is the blithe assumption that Fitzgerald's charge is to find "who in the White House leaked Plame's identity." His charge is to find out "who the leaker was, and prosecute IF a crime was committed." We on the outside seem to have accepted the tacit assumption that the leaker inherently must have been in the White House. The Left, of course, wants this to be true, those of us on the Right tend to fall into the trap of allowing them their assumptions. Fitzgerald is, by any rational analysis, too good a presecutor to limit his investigation solely to the White House.
IF, in fact, Rove is "not the target," doesn't mean that someone else in the WHITE HOUSE necessarily is. Given the convoluted politics involved in this one, it's certainly plausible that the actual leaker could have been part of the CIA, for example. Since the investigation is secret, properly so, those of us on the outside simiply DO NOT KNOW where it's going.
I do agree with those who think that something "important is afoot" if Fitzgerald has gone so far as to demand the testimony of reporters. His brief explaining his need ran for eight pages (the content of which has not been made public) so one would suspect that he had a fairly convincing argument to present to the judge.

[creepy dude]

Mr. Tacoma: "This case is about a potential retaliation against a whistleblower," said Fitzgerald in open court on June 29, 2005.

Who's the whistleblower? Who's the potential retaliator?

[Ralph Tacoma]

Creepy,

My point is that I DO NOT KNOW, and neither do you. I'm NOT saying that the guilty party could not be in the White House. I am saying that all of us lack the data to KNOW where it is going. It's even possible (note that I do not say "probable") that the "whistleblower" involved is not some one that we recognize. After all, there is a real basis for arguing that Joe Wilson was not a "whistle blower" since even his own report didn't say what he alleged it to have said. He did talk with one source who had said that Niger had been approached by Iraq to "increase trade," and the source suspected that it was an indirect approach for uranium, (since Niger only exports "uranium and goats), but since the talks had never gone further his source didn't "KNOW" that for a fact.
So, your are speculating. That's fine, but none of us have the evidence to KKNOW what all is going on. Fitzgerald has kept the investigation confidential, as it should be at this stage.
IF a crime was indeed comitted, then I hope that the culprit will be charged and prosecuted to the full extent of the law WHEREVER he/she is located, and whoever he/she may be.

[creepy dude]

Well Ralph if unfounded speculation and halfbaked ideas are not warranted, the blogosphere is in trouble.

Valerie Plame is the whistleblower btw.

[Ames Tiedeman]

They ( the left) will do anythng to take Rove down. Rove had nothing to do with the leak...

[Ames Tiedeman]

They ( the left) will do anythng to take Rove down. Rove had nothing to do with the leak...

[TexasToast]

Creepy

Whaddaya bet Karl gets everyone to apologize? After all, accusing somebody (like Karl's lawyer) of word parsing is an old liberal trick. "Karl lied, people died! Really, the fact that his critics are liberals is all we really need to know.

[Tollhouse]

Looks like a new twist.

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/nation/12058256.htm

Starting to look like the weekend leaks were more an attempt to change the subject from the fact that Cooper and Miller weren't really cooperating with Fitzgerald, to the Rove herring.

[creepy dude]

Now why would someone let these reporters go to jail if what (s)he told them was all hunky dory?

Just come out and disclose it.

Would you let people go to jail for you?

[Tollhouse]

Alternatively, why would you go to jail for refusing to reveal something to the prosecutor that you had no problem at all telling Larry O'Donnell?

[Cecil Turner]

"if unfounded speculation and halfbaked ideas are not warranted . . ."

Heaven forbid! But does "potential retaliation against a whistleblower" imply either retaliation or a whistleblower? I'd suggest it does not, but merely the potential for either (or both).

In any event, though the mention of Karl Rove is clearly red meat for some, I don't see how it changes anything even if he discussed Wilson and Plame. Unless he has back-channel access to NOC status information, it can't be an IIPA violation. If he was repeating information from the INR memo in an attempt at news management, it's at worst a lesser offense of leaking classified information. However, if one of Cooper's (or Miller's) sources is Wilson or Plame, that completely blows both the criminal and political case. Personally I think the likelihood on that is about a coin-flip . . . but it sure would be fun.

"Valerie Plame is the whistleblower btw."

If so, it was probably criminal--there are legal avenues for CIA officers to blow whistles, but the Times isn't one of them. (Though I tend to agree she must have been involved, despite Wilson's protestations to the contrary.)

[creepy dude]

-it's at worst a lesser offense of leaking classified information-

I think that's the best case. And Yep-leaking classified information in the course of political retribution is something only people who think like Rove could all aspire to.
The guy should be fired based on what we know now.

[creepy dude]

Btw-are you and/or TM still working on the theory that Fitzgerald is just going through the motions in a wrap up process so no one can castigate him for incompleteness?

[Cecil Turner]

"leaking classified information in the course of political retribution"

Not proven, nor very logical--if retribution was the goal, there were several more effective methods of reaching it. Assuming Rove was the source (which seems unlikely, based on several statements, but especially Novak's), how about "leaking what was believed to be unclassified information in the course of news management"? (E.g., "his wife sent him.") Doubtful it'd even be criminal.

"[are you] working on the theory that Fitzgerald is just going through the motions . . . "?

No. (And never was.) I don't see how he can investigate a leak without knowing who talked to whom. The specific allegations involved two administration officials shopping the story around, and there's no way of evaluating that without talking to those who supposedly received phone calls (and not just Novak). And I think there is a possibility that someone did stupidly try to retaliate against Wilson by outing Plame . . . it just seems unlikely. However, if it were revealed that Cooper, Miller, and Novak all received calls from the same person, and Plame's identity figured prominently in each conversation, that'd change everything. Fitzgerald can't ignore that possibility.

[creepy dude]

Go read Swopa btw-the man has it all figured out:

From an old Bill Gertz piece (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040722-115439-4033r.htm)

"The identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame was compromised twice before her name appeared in a news column that triggered a federal illegal-disclosure investigation, U.S. officials say.
Mrs. Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a Moscow spy, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

In a second compromise, officials said a more recent inadvertent disclosure resulted in references to Mrs. Plame in confidential documents sent by the CIA to the U.S. Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy in Havana.
The documents were supposed to be sealed from the Cuban government, but intelligence officials said the Cubans read the classified material and learned the secrets contained in them, the officials said. "

Now who was this U.S. official?

And who's been in the news for questionable activities re: ginning up intelligence on Cuba?

And who is reputed to come down hard on analysts who won't go along with his desired outcome?

[Cecil Turner]

"leaking classified information in the course of political retribution"

Not proven, nor very logical--if retribution was the goal, there were several more effective methods of reaching it. Assuming Rove was the source (which seems unlikely, based on several statements, but especially Novak's), how about "leaking what was believed to be unclassified information in the course of news management"? (E.g., "his wife sent him.") Doubtful it'd even be criminal.

"[are you] working on the theory that Fitzgerald is just going through the motions . . . "?

No. (And never was.) I don't see how he can investigate a leak without knowing who talked to whom. The specific allegations involved two administration officials shopping the story around, and there's no way of evaluating that without talking to those who supposedly received phone calls (and not just Novak). And I think there is a possibility that someone did stupidly try to retaliate against Wilson by outing Plame . . . it just seems unlikely. However, if it were revealed that Cooper, Miller, and Novak all received calls from the same person, and Plame's identity figured prominently in each conversation, that'd change everything. Fitzgerald can't ignore that possibility.

[creepy dude]

CT-you're denying it was retaliation?

Let's not forget what Cooper wrote on July 17:

"And some government officials have noted to TIME in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched [to] Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein's government had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium ore, sometimes referred to as yellow cake, which is used to build nuclear devices."

What is the point of telling reporters Wilson's wife is CIA?

P.S. I'm glad you agree TM is a loon.

[creepy dude]

So per Rove's attorney: he never knowingly leaked classified info.

Right-so if he unknowingly leaked in the course of retaliation he should still be fired, and be thankful dangerous stupidity is not illegal per se.

[Cecil Turner]

"What is the point of telling reporters Wilson's wife is CIA?"

According to Novak, it was in response to a direct question:

During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. [emphasis added]

Which doesn't sound much like retaliation. And if neither Cooper nor Miller will testify, it's hard to see how Fitzgerald could conclude it was.

"P.S. I'm glad you agree TM is a loon."

C'mon, Dude. Besides, I think we're fairly close on this one, and the picture is still pretty fuzzy.

[creepy dude]

The crack about our gracious host TM was a joke of course, though I see you did not actually refute it.

But as for Novak's question: "according to Luskin, Rove's lawyer, Rove spoke to Cooper three or four days before Novak's column appeared." says the recent Newsweek piece.

Novak seemed to be looking for confirmation of a story the White House had already shopped.

[Lurking Observer]

creepy dud:

In the mid-1990s, the most likely person to compromise US intel agents to Moscow would be Aldrich Ames. (Arrested 1994)

Or, depending on whose files he was reading, Robert Hanssen. (Arrested 2001)

Considering the Soviets (and Russians) shared their info w/ their "little brothers," e.g., the Cuban intelligence agencies, that would make Ames and Hanssen likely conduits for subsequent leaks, as well.

[AT]

Hmm, so Cooper and Miller were happy to let their companies pay their legal fees and play dress-up martyr, but are caving now that they may have to face actual consequences. I doubt they were defending a Republican source on principle, since their pals whined that reporter-source privilege exists for everyone but Bob Novak. I conclude that either they had nothing and were jerking us around, or their protecting a big fat Commie rat.

In all seriousness, I'm putting $10 on Joseph C. Wilson IV. Transactions can be consummated through PayPal at the proper time. Any takers?

[Harry Arthur]

LO, I'm sure you meant to write "creepy dude," not "creepy dud." Or was it a Freudian slip sort of a thing. I'd be shocked, shocked I tell you, if it was intentional.

In all honesty I just don't see Rove doing this to punish Wilson - I'd bet there are better tools available to him that would do a better job without the potential risk, some of which have been discussed here. If Karl Rove is anything, he ain't dumb.

This is all very interesting. I'm fairly certain that we'll all be in for surprises at some level when this is sorted out. Not much interest here, though, is there? Just under 90 posts in roughly 24 hours.

[creepy dude]

Why do you guys think Rove is so smart?

Remember the last days of campaign 2000 when Bush was in California at Rove's bequest-apparently so he could project an air of confidence or some such nonsense.

Think the Bolton nomination has been handled well?

Rove's reputation is all talk.

[Lurking Observer]

Actually, Harry, it's been a long day, here at the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy.

Tagging Lefties for future resolution, keeping an eye on the Evolutionists, making sure that as many women stay barefoot and pregnant as possible, it's just wearing. So, pardon my unintended typo.

On a brighter note, there's a host of Democratic agents whose cover are about to be blown, on orders of Darth Rove. Watching them die b/c of their spouses' activities, that's what we Vast Right Wing Conspirators live for.

That, and serving as minions for the Sith Lord himself. Ca-loo, ca-lay, oh frabjous day!

[Lurking Observer]

creepy dude:

It's not the GOP that's been claiming that Karl is the Sith Lord himself.

Who was it that claimed that the Rather memoes were the work of Rovian minions? That wasn't the GOP, dude.

If liberals want to tread in fear and dread of Rove, that's your choice. If liberals want to pooh-pooh Rove, that's your choice, too.

Suffice to say that any campaign manager who can guide their candidate from state-level office to the Presidency of the United States is pretty good. That applies to James Carville and it applies to Karl Rove.

[Lurking Observer]

creepy dude:

It's not the GOP that's been claiming that Karl is the Sith Lord himself.

Who was it that claimed that the Rather memoes were the work of Rovian minions? That wasn't the GOP, dude.

If liberals want to tread in fear and dread of Rove, that's your choice. If liberals want to pooh-pooh Rove, that's your choice, too.

Suffice to say that any campaign manager who can guide their candidate from state-level office to the Presidency of the United States is pretty good. That applies to James Carville and it applies to Karl Rove.

[creepy dude]

"Observe better, lurk more" make that your motto.

[Harry Arthur]

Hey, CD, so what should we suggest for your motto? Creep more?

We'll all soon see where all this leads so work on keeping your blood pressure down as the anticipation builds. I know you're going to be disappointed but this is all part of The Master Plan.

[Neo]

This thread is just full of it.

First, this investigation is not covered by the old Nixonian prosecutor law, so in the end, as with any DOJ investigation, only the USAG will know the results of the Fitzgerald investigation. All the grand jury testimony will remain secret, unless the participants themselves repeat their stories in public. I know this is a real downer for so many but .. tough and I don't want to hear that coverup crap later.

Next, there have long been stories of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative in the Georgetown cocktail party set. If this is the case then the only piece of news is that she used her position to recommend her husband for the Niger trip. Yawn.

Lastly, there has long been speculation that Karl Rove will pitching the story in the Novak piece .. by pitching the Novak piece, after the fact. If this is a crime, then all of Washington is guiltier that Martha. Lawrence O'Donnell's story seems to lack any sense of temporal relativism.

[TM]

working on the theory that Fitzgerald is just going through the motions in a wrap up process so no one can castigate him for incompleteness?

I don't know why that is not one possible explanation for his conduct, although I certainly don't think it is the only explanation.

Is it your theory that Fitzgerald could just announce that, even though he has not heard from several reporters with potentially relevant info, he is suspending the investigation?

[Lion]

I think Rove is smart, and I think he has a reputation for being smart, because he helped immeasurably as Bush won a larger share of the popular vote than any Democrat has won in 40 years, and has helped teh GOP to its largest majority in the Senate since Herbert Hoover was president. And Bush is supposed to fire him because a couple of reporters have stepped in it? Neither Rove nor Bush is experiencing and difficulty at all over this matter, and neither of them will. The fact that some people are simmering in their impotent rage about their inability to bring Rove down makes it all the more delightful.

[Darrow]

Neo is correct that this investigation is proceeding under an entirely different statutory scheme. As always, grand jury witnesses are free to broadcast what they were asked, and what answers they gave, from the courthouse steps if they want to. Another way their testimony could become public would be if the matter were to go to trial, in which case their lawyers or the prosecution could use the transcripts during their examination. But don't hold your breath on that one. The most likely outcome is that whatever they had to say will go into the void forever. At this point Lawrence O'Donnell is probably squirming more than any of the players except the two reporters.

[DBL]

I read the entire post and when I got to the end, all I could think was, "who cares?" As if anybody on the left ever gave a damn about having effective intelligence or counter-intelligence. What a farce!

[creepy dude]

-"I don't know why that is not one possible explanation for his conduct"-

Possible but not plausible, unless the guy really is a monster. Would he really put people in jail for absolutely nothing?

And I know there are scum at the highest levels nowadays-but why let reporters go to jail if this is all over nothing?

[cathyf]

Does anyone know whether Fitzgerald's investigation must be limited to Plame's "outting" or can he bring charges on any illegality that he finds?

If, as it says in Wilson's book, Plame told Wilson on the 3rd or 4th date that she was covert (and that was her job at the time and not years before) then that certainly was both a felony and a firing offense.

Novak claims that Plame's covert past was not a secret. If that is true then Wilson and/or Plame are guilty of breaking the Identity Act, and well within the 5 year statutory limitation.

Wilson claims that he told the CIA that the Italian memo was a forgery. The 9/11 Commission says that the Italians didn't send the memo until 2 weeks after the CIA ended their relationship with him, and that he should never have seen the memo. If Plame showed classified info to hubby that he wasn't supposed to see, another felony.

Fitzgerald is a career prosecutor as tough as they come. The kind of guy where one scalp is just as good as another. If Wilson and Plame aren't total idiots they ought to be sweating pretty hard...

cathy :-)