Powered by TypePad

« I Need Some Double Super Secret Background Information | Main | Moving The Goalposts (Back To Their Original Position) »

July 18, 2005



What I can't understand is this: If everyone agrees that no crime took place, and that Valerie Plame-Wilson was not working undercover, then why doesn't Karl Rove just say he he told the whole bloody world about her? Screamed it at the top his lungs from Liberty's torch. I mean, so what.


The hypocrisy of the media never fails to amaze. The Times writes of no protection under the law and separately files an amicus brief that says (1) no violation of the law and (2) states that Plame had already been outed in the 90s by the CIA itself.

Utterly freaking amazing. We have medical malpractice laws why no journalistic malpractice laws?

"Neither of the two White House officials who are known to have discussed a C.I.A. officer with a reporter for Time magazine appear to have named her.

But that fact by itself, legal experts said, will not provide the officials with a defense to charges under a 1982 law that makes it a crime to identify covert operatives in some circumstances.
"The statute does not require that the name be disclosed," Jeffrey H. Smith, a former general counsel for the Central Intelligence Agency who is now in private practice at Arnold & Porter in Washington, said on Sunday. "It just says that you cannot intentionally disclose any information."

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp”>Media Amicus Brief Says No Violation of the Law


Already working up "exculpatory scenarios"?
Don't worry-Rove's not going anywhere even if/when idicted b/c Bush lowered his standards today:

"I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts and if someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration," said Great Leader.

Presumably one is not decisively judged to have "committed" a crime until all appeals are exhausted, so Rove should be on board through 2008.


Also note that "committed' a crime is exclusively a judicial branch determination-so Bush can waive off having to reach an executive branch conclusion. Weasel.


Also since most people who "commit" crimes go to jail, this is really about the lowest level a White House could conceivably maitain.

Really-what could a lower standard possibly be?


"Convicted criminals won't work here."

Yikes-man that is rough. There's a new morality in this White House 4 sure.


Sambergler didn't go to jail.


Anyway, Bush isn't changing his position from what he *actually* said:

And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action.

Time to find a new hobby, Martin.

Seriously dude, throw out the urine samples and take the Kleenex boxes off your feet.


"If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action"

Not the same Armin-remember Luskin has already set up "my client did not knowingly leak classified info"

Under Bush's first formulation-you might see a zero tolerance policy, i.e. if you leaked, knowingly or not, I'll deal with you.

Under today's standard, the knowledge aspect is irrelevant-it's: if you leaked, and get convicted, you're gone (yep-to jail).

Read the tea leaves. Rove is thigh deep in it, Bush knos it, and Bush won't fire him until the Marshall carts him off.


The first Times headline "Reporter Says He First Learned of C.I.A. Operative From Rove"

What's inaccurate about that? Operative?


Yep-per the great Colbert-the facts are clearly biased against Republicans.


oh yeah. i'm gonna go with Martin on this one.

From billmon:

"Fitzgerald is a prosecution machine," the old editor said. "When he wants somebody, he goes after them with whatever he's got. If he can't make the case he started with, he'll figure out what you did do and hit you with that. He's relentless, and he doesn't give a flying fuck about the press or the First Amendment. He'd throw us all in jail if it would help him make his case."

From Mark Kleiman:

"Under the Espionage Act, the person doing the communicating need not actually believe that revelation could be damaging; he needs only "reason to believe." Classification is generally reason to believe, and a security-clearance holder is responsible for knowing what information is classified.

Nor is it necessary that the discloser intend public distribution; if Rove told Cooper -- which he did -- and Cooper didn't have a security clearance -- which he didn't -- the crime would have been complete."

kr's done. and could take a whole lot a folks with him.


Enough. I'm gone. Mr. Maguire is clearly not having fun anymore. And I shouldn't taunt him on his own bandwidth. Later all.

Don't forget you owe me $20 Armin.



Trouble with the Espoionage Act is that the preson who receives the classified information is also guilty. Every reporter in Washington for the past 50 years would be in the slammer. Now you see why it's only been used once?


one is still allowed to hope, no? if we could go after clinton for lying about a bj, than certainly lying about matters of war are fair game.



"Of the 98 Americans arrested for espionage during the past 20 years, almost all were trustworthy and loyal Americans at the time they were investigated and first approved for security clearance. They changed over time."


Under today's standard, the knowledge aspect is irrelevant-it's: if you leaked, and get convicted, you're gone (yep-to jail).

Um, I hate to point this out, but: completely incorrect, Martin. Tell me what part of the Espionage Act Rove can be prosecuted under, and why.

Joe Mealyus

Freudian slip of the day?

"Rove is thigh deep in it, Bush knos it, and Bush won't fire him until the Marshall carts him off."

Sure, we'd all like to see liberal bloggers granted vigilante powers, but I'm guessing they'll leave this task to regular law enforcment.

(By the way, is "thigh deep" a quiet back-down or what? - surely Rove was chest-deep or even chin-deep a few days ago).


I was specifically talking about Bush's new "not convicted you're cool with me" standard Slarti. You want legal analysis, tak to Fitzgerald.

Remember Rove has reserved his right to claim he didn't knowingly leak Plame's ID-but, ergo, only did so from ignorance.

Bush at first was signaling he wouldn't tolerate leakers-presumably then ignorant leakers would get canned for being reckless and stupid.

Not now-under Bush's new standard Rove can get indicted and Bush won't can him until he's convicted and the verdict's certified on appeal.

As I said, you can't have a lower employment standard, unless you're prepared to employ actual prisoners.


Sure you can: where do you think Dems get their GOTV employees?

Joe Mealyus

"As I said, you can't have a lower employment standard, unless you're prepared to employ actual prisoners."

But do political consultants actually rank above generic "prisoners" in the first place? I'd say it's a close call....

E.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Morris

Perhaps, "you can't have a lower employment standard, unless you're prepared to employ actual blog commenters" would make your point more adroitly.



That's not the ONLY White House employment standard. But when the subject matter is an accusation of a crime, it seems like a pretty fair standard. Surely you're not suggesting the firing of everyone who stands accused of a crime by their political enemies?



Agreed that there are many errors which would not result in conviction that should still lead to firing. Also, however, he shouldn't be dismissed for every error or indiscretion. It depends on what damage was actually done and how much of it was done by Rove. For all we know, he may have been shopping the story very hard. Or he may have just gotten set up and burned. Need to look past your instinctive hatred for him and breathe for a second before making a decision on ending his public service.

And we need more facts before we can decide. Either he's right and it's a big tempest in a teapot. Or he's wrong and has been getting exposed and just going down hard.


Clicked on NYT link and saw an Intel ad. Didn't click through beyond that. But my image of Intel is now tainted. In the future I will definitely remember Intel pays the NYT.

Patrick R. Sullivan

Here's why Valerie Plame is 'fair game':

BLITZER: But 11 months earlier, you, the Bush administration, had sent Joe Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador to Niger, to find out whether it was true. He came back, reported to the CIA, reported to the State Department, it wasn't true, it was bogus. The whole issue was bogus. And supposedly, you never got word of his report.

RICE: Well, first of all, I didn't know Joe Wilson was going to Niger. And if you look at Director Tenet's statement, it says that counterproliferation experts on their own initiative sent Joe Wilson, so I don't know...

BLITZER: Who sent him?

RICE: Well, it was certainly not a level that had anything to do with the White House, and I do not believe at a level that had anything to do with the leadership of the CIA.

BLITZER: Supposedly, it came at the request of the vice president.

RICE: No, this is simply not true, and this is something that's been perpetuated that we simply have to straighten out.

The vice president did not ask that Joe Wilson go to Niger. The vice president did not know. I don't think he knew who Joe Wilson was, and he certainly didn't know that he was going.

The first that I heard of Joe Wilson mission was when I was doing a Sunday talk show and heard about it.

The other thing is that the reporting, at least, of what Ambassador Wilson told the CIA debriefers says that, yes, Niger denied that there had been such a deal made, that they had sold uranium to the Iraqis.

It also apparently says, according to this report, it also apparently says that one of the people who was meeting with the Iraqis thought that they might, in fact, be trying to use commercial activity to talk about yellow cake.

So what the director says in his statement is that they believed, when they looked at what was reported about the Wilson trip, that it was inconclusive. They therefore did not brief it to the president, the vice president or any senior officials.

So no, the Wilson trip was not sent by anyone at a high level. It wasn't briefed to anyone at high level. And it appears to have been inconclusive in what it found.

BLITZER: Did George Tenet know about the Joe Wilson trip to Africa?

RICE: I am not aware that George Tenet was aware that this happened before it happened.

Which is why Matt Cooper was warned away from the story. Either Wilson himself was telling people he'd gone at the request of the vice-president (and with his ego, that's easy to believe) or the press was taking his Op-ed to be saying that.

me (and TCO)

You know...when you read this report. And then read the Wilson op-ed itself, it is kind of funny. Wilson made this one trip...AND DID NOT SEE ANY OF THE REST OF THE INTEL...yet feels that he has some gotcha that disproves what Bush said...which is irrelevantly true "that the British believe...yada yada"

me (and TCO)

I mean...when you read the op-ed itself, it is kind of funny. Wilson SPECULATES on what he thinks the other intel says. He really does come across as self-promoter.


For us non-legal beagles .... we are told that Rove would have gotten a target letter if he is really under the gun.... if so, why hasn't he received a letter from Mr. Fitzgerald? How could he have testified three times and not been advised of this?

Seven Machos

Susie -- Rove is not a target. Who is more likely to testify to a Grand Jury: witnesses FOR an investigation or targets OF an investigation? Who is more likely to be asked to testify at such an investigation?

If you think the government is about to prosecute you, you don't give them their case against you. And, frankly, it's poor form for any prosecutor to ask for a case from you.

Hence, Rove is unlikely to receive an indictment.


Thank you Seven! Then who is Fitzgerald gunning for and have they received a letter and if so, why don't we know about it?

Seven Machos

I don't know. That's the issue. I salute Fitzgerald. He must have sat his people down and said, "This is an investigation about leaks. We aren't hypocrites, so @#$%&!*, we are not going to have any leaks about our investigation of leaks."

Whatever he has said, it worked. And so we wait for the exciting ending to this exciting non-scandal...


Here's a lower employment standard: Hiring Joe Wilson. By the way, if not his wife, who thought he should go to Africa and why?


Wilson had some criteria for handling the assignment. french speaker, africa experience, etc. But I wouldn't trust him in the future. (For one thing he makes an argument that the administration as a whole ignored intel when his own intel was at least mixed and when he was only one peice of the picture...unless he had some pillow talk with wifey to get the rest of the intel...and whoever thinks that did not happen?
Like his original selection, it begs credibility that his name came up without wifey raising it.

All that said, I'm still worried about losing our 'blossom. ;)


Kim, a possible answer to your most recent question might be found in a posting on "The American Thinker" blog. It is entitled "Spy Valerie and the Rogue CIA." LOADS of interesting twists and turns.


There IS something there. MSM is staying away from it big time, and it's becoming obvious that what they choose not to write about is as important as what they choose to bias when they do write.

And TNX for the reference.

I was specifically talking about Bush's new "not convicted you're cool with me" standard Slarti. You want legal analysis, tak to Fitzgerald.

Ah, my bad. I thought you were actually saying he was guilty of something. In the future, maybe it'd serve clarity if you'd take the invective level off of 11.




Or, you can continue being a dick. Your choice, but it appears you've already made it.



Paul Zrimsek





Meanwhile General Hewitt has sent out orders: "Every media voice that was raised against Dick Durbin's asinine comparison of Gitmo practices to those of Nazis and Pol Pot should speak with equal pointedness against Tancredo's speculation."

Sayeth the great Hewitt: "I want to be very clear on this. No responsible American can endorse the idea that the U.S. is in a war with Islam. That is repugnant and wrong, and bloggers and writers and would-be bloggers and writers have to chose sides on this, especially if you are a center-right blogger. The idea that all of Islam is the problem is a fringe opinion. It cannot be welcomed into mainstream thought because it is factually wrong. If Tancredo's blunder does not offend you, then you do not understand the GWOT."

Priceless. Talk about being out of touch with the base! So which one of you center-right bloggers is going to wade into the threads at FreeRepublic and tell them how stupid they are?

Paul Zrimsek

Why don't you do it instead, Martin?

Little advantage: You'll be tapping a whole new pool of people you haven't insulted yet.

Big advantage: You won't be here.


I've told them many times PaulZ. But believe me, it's hard work to convince Republicans they are stupid. Just check out this thread.


Psst: Paul, DNFTFT.

joe in oklahoma

so, outting a CIA operative is a distraction?

President George H Bush calls it tantamount to treason....afterall, to get back at Joe Wilson for telling the truth, two sources in the WH outted an operative with a cover, thus endagering her life, the lives of others in the same operation and the operation itself.

yeah....just a distraction, obviously toying with national security isnot nearly as bad as lying about a blowjob.

uh hunh.


Joe Wilson told the truth? Not here and not in Oklahoma, either.


Look at my site for the truth.

kal gold

Because the kal gold is very useful to upgrade equipment. Only your equipment becomes better, then you can win this game.


When you have LOTRO Gold, you can get more!

The comments to this entry are closed.