Jailing Reporters

[quote]hedo wrote:
Good points.

Of course, I agree with your last comment about the Dems.

I am sure the conclusion of the case will be interesting for both sides. The process is fascinating to me.[/quote]

Just to be fair…the Republicans crying over this is just as whiny or worse if Rove ends up being involved in any way shape or form (like his moronic lawyer is quoted as saying he is).

I looked into Luskin’s past as he does not seem to be a very adept lawyer.

He took payment from a client (Stephen A. Saccoccia) that was convicted of laundering more than a hundred million dollars for various Colombian drug kingpins. Stephen is currently serving a 660 year sentence. Their racket was laundering drug money through companies which traded in precious metals…

Saccoccia was convicted in 1993. And Luskin took up his case on appeal.

Eventually the Feds got the idea that the money Saccoccia had paid Luskin and his other attorneys for their services was itself part of the $137 million in drug money he was ordered to forfeit.

The prosecutors thought he should have gotten some inkling when Saccoccia started paying Luskin’s attorney’s fees in gold bars.

Luskin got paid more than $500,000 of his attorney’s fees in gold bars from his client who was trying to appeal his conviction on charges that he laundered drug money through precious metals dealers.

Luskin insisted that he “never have, and never would, knowingly accept a fee that was the proceeds of illegal activities.”

But when federal prosecutors finally got a chance to depose Luskin and Saccoccia’s other lawyers, they found that their lawyers’ fees had come in forms “such as gold bars, cash that was dropped off at hotels and trunks of cars, and money transfers from Swiss bank accounts.”

Eventually, in 1998, Luskin came to a settlement with the government in which he agreed to cough up $245,000 of the money he’d gotten from Saccoccia.

I would not let this guy represent my neighbor.

After thinking about the CIA’s requestion on July 30th of last year for the Justice Department to look into Plame’s ‘outing’ it just occured to me.

Plame must have been a NOC within the past 5 years for them to even have bothered to ask for this request.

Anyone care to weigh in on that thought?

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
100meters, I’m very disapointed in you. Hedo and Zap have gone to great lengths to expose this obviously liberal bred scandal to smear Bush’s people.

Do you really expect us to believe that Rove, Bush, or Cheney, would be behind something like that? Shame on you![/quote]

I am a pretty conservative person and I believe what Rove did was called a Hatchet Job. And yes I believe it was intentional. His only salvation was he was not trying to injure our country, he was trying to get at Joseph C. Wilson .That is not a crime. Maybe uncontionable but no crime.

Bzzzt. Sorry, thanks for playing. Maybe wanting to get back at someone isn’t a crime, but how you go about doing it makes all the difference.

However, since you’ve defined it as not a crime, I’m going to shoot the next person that cuts me off on the highway, after all, getting back at someone isn’t a crime right?

Do those blinders let in any light at all?

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
100meters, I’m very disapointed in you. Hedo and Zap have gone to great lengths to expose this obviously liberal bred scandal to smear Bush’s people.

Do you really expect us to believe that Rove, Bush, or Cheney, would be behind something like that? Shame on you!

I am a pretty conservative person and I believe what Rove did was called a Hatchet Job. And yes I believe it was intentional. His only salvation was he was not trying to injure our country, he was trying to get at Joseph C. Wilson .That is not a crime. Maybe uncontionable but no crime.

[/quote]
Well, his deliberate, repeated actions, put Plame, and those working for her cover company at risk. Any foreign nation putting Plame and her “employees” togeather could have killed them. I’m not sure you can come up with a lot of scenarios that “injure” the country more? Oh and outing a covert agent is a crime, revealing her idenity is a crime, spreading information about her is a crime, lying about doing it is a crime, and hiding information about it is also a crime----all happening in the whitehouse.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
100meters, I’m very disapointed in you. Hedo and Zap have gone to great lengths to expose this obviously liberal bred scandal to smear Bush’s people.

Do you really expect us to believe that Rove, Bush, or Cheney, would be behind something like that? Shame on you!

Dude, How can you say I am biased here? I recognize Rove may be lying. He may even be a criminal. He definitely looks like an idiot here. Let the special prosecutor do his job.

I also recognize the obvious, that Plame looks incompetent if she is trying to play secret agent. Unfortunately our entire CIA is looking incompetent.

I also think it is a dirty game when reporters sit around and try to figure out who our spys are and then go on and report them.

I think 100meters use of “inside sources” is good for a laugh. Inside sources often don’t exist!

We will find the truth out when Fitzgerald does his job. The rest is silly speculation.[/quote]

Uhh, there is still no reflection of Plames abilities in Rove’s and others in the whitehouse’s actions. And the dirty game is TELLING reporters who our spies are. Of course Novak is dirt to for reporting it and her cover company, but WE ALL knew that right?

[quote]100meters wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
100meters, I’m very disapointed in you. Hedo and Zap have gone to great lengths to expose this obviously liberal bred scandal to smear Bush’s people.

Do you really expect us to believe that Rove, Bush, or Cheney, would be behind something like that? Shame on you!

I am a pretty conservative person and I believe what Rove did was called a Hatchet Job. And yes I believe it was intentional. His only salvation was he was not trying to injure our country, he was trying to get at Joseph C. Wilson .That is not a crime. Maybe uncontionable but no crime.

Well, his deliberate, repeated actions, put Plame, and those working for her cover company at risk. Any foreign nation putting Plame and her “employees” togeather could have killed them. I’m not sure you can come up with a lot of scenarios that “injure” the country more? Oh and outing a covert agent is a crime, revealing her idenity is a crime, spreading information about her is a crime, lying about doing it is a crime, and hiding information about it is also a crime----all happening in the whitehouse.

[/quote]

I have to interject that if we were to compare crimes in the whitehouse the one you showcase above pales in comparison to the infamous “Blow Job”.

In my opinion who cares about a female CIA agent who’s cover is blown, big deal she didn’t get killed.

Now on the other hand a blow job that’s gotta be dangerous to national security on some level and worthy of buttloads of money to get at the root of the deception of said blow job.

From the AP via CNN. I don’t know what political leaning John Solomon has. Take note that Rove testified a year or two ago on this and still is not the subject or target of an invesatigation. I would also note that the leaders calling for his ouster are from the opposition party. Nothing wrong with that but it cannot be dismissed either.

Elk, CLinton got skewered for lying to the investigators not for getting the BJ. In the end I think most thought it was a matter between him and Hillary. It was the special proesecutor who said this not the opposition. Of course they joined into the chorus.

Begin:

Rove Learned CIA Agent’s Name From Novak By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 38 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Chief presidential adviser Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of an undercover CIA officer but that he originally learned about the operative from the news media and not government sources, according to a person briefed on the testimony.

The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, told The Associated Press that Rove testified last year that he remembers specifically being told by columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, the wife of a harsh Iraq war critic, worked for the CIA.

Rove testified that Novak originally called him the Tuesday before Plame’s identity was revealed in July 2003 to discuss another story.

The conversation eventually turned to Plame’s husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who was strongly criticizing the Bush administration’s use of faulty intelligence to justify the war in Iraq, the person said.

Rove testified that Novak told him he planned to report in a weekend column that Plame had worked for the CIA, and the circumstances on how her husband traveled to Africa to check bogus claims that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Niger, according to the source.

Novak’s column, citing two Bush administration officials, appeared six days later, touching off a political firestorm and leading to a federal criminal investigation into who leaked Plame’s undercover identity. That probe has ensnared presidential aides and reporters in a two-year legal battle.

Rove told the grand jury that by the time Novak had called him, he believes he had similar information about Wilson’s wife from another member of the news media but he could not recall which reporter had told him about it first, the person said.

When Novak inquired about Wilson’s wife working for the CIA, Rove indicated he had heard something like that, according to the source’s recounting of the grand jury testimony.

Rove told the grand jury that three days later, he had a phone conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and ? in an effort to discredit some of Wilson’s allegations ? informally told Cooper that he believed Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, though he never used her name, the source said.

An e-mail Cooper recently provided the grand jury shows Cooper reported to his magazine bosses that Rove had described Wilson’s wife in a confidential conversation as someone who “apparently works” at the CIA.

Robert Luskin, Rove’s attorney, said Thursday his client truthfully testified to the grand jury and expected to be exonerated.

“Karl provided all pertinent information to prosecutors a long time ago,” Luskin said. “And prosecutors confirmed when he testified most recently in October 2004 that he is not a target of the investigation.”

In an interview on CNN earlier Thursday before the latest revelation, Wilson kept up his criticism of the White House, saying Rove’s conduct was an “outrageous abuse of power … certainly worthy of frog-marching out of the White House.”

But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak’s column first identified her. “My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity,” he said.

Federal law prohibits government officials from divulging the identity of an undercover intelligence officer. But in order to bring charges, prosecutors must prove the official knew the officer was covert and nonetheless knowingly outed his or her identity.

Rove’s conversations with Novak and Cooper took place just days after Wilson suggested in a New York Times opinion piece that some of the intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

Democrats continued this week to sharpen their attacks, accusing Rove of compromising a CIA operative’s identity just to discredit the political criticism of her husband.

On Thursday, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada pressed for legislation to strip Rove of his clearance for classified information, which he said President Bush should have done already. Instead, Reid said, the Bush administration has attacked its critics: “This is what is known as a cover-up. This is an abuse of power.”

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Democrats were resorting to “partisan war chants.”

Across the Capitol, Rep. Rush Holt (news, bio, voting record), D-N.J., introduced legislation for an investigation that would compel senior administration officials to turn over records relating to the Plame disclosure.

Pressed to explain its statements of two years ago that Rove wasn’t involved in the leak, the White House refused to do so this week.

“If I were to get into discussing this, I would be getting into discussing an investigation that continues and could be prejudging the outcome of the investigation,” White House spokesman Scott McClellan said

Rove obviously leaked this information to the NY Times after McClellan said that the special prosecutor specifically requested that no talk about the case. That is truely pathetic.

Rove is not out of the woods. I knew Rove would single out reports as the people who told him about Plame. Once again, truely pathetic.

The Jonathan Randel leak prosecution precident will apply in this case. Karl Rove may be able to claim that he did not know he was leaking “classified information” about a “covert agent,” but there can be no question he understood that what he was leaking was “sensitive information.” The very fact that Matt Cooper called it “double super secret background” information suggests Rove knew of its sensitivity, if he did not know it was classified information (which by definition is sensitive).

Stick a fork in Rove…he is done.

[quote]hedo wrote:
From the AP via CNN. I don’t know what political leaning John Solomon has. Take note that Rove testified a year or two ago on this and still is not the subject or target of an invesatigation. I would also note that the leaders calling for his ouster are from the opposition party. Nothing wrong with that but it cannot be dismissed either.

Elk, CLinton got skewered for lying to the investigators not for getting the BJ. In the end I think most thought it was a matter between him and Hillary. It was the special proesecutor who said this not the opposition. Of course they joined into the chorus.

Begin:

Rove Learned CIA Agent’s Name From Novak By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 38 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Chief presidential adviser Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of an undercover CIA officer but that he originally learned about the operative from the news media and not government sources, according to a person briefed on the testimony.

The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, told The Associated Press that Rove testified last year that he remembers specifically being told by columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, the wife of a harsh Iraq war critic, worked for the CIA.

Rove testified that Novak originally called him the Tuesday before Plame’s identity was revealed in July 2003 to discuss another story.

The conversation eventually turned to Plame’s husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who was strongly criticizing the Bush administration’s use of faulty intelligence to justify the war in Iraq, the person said.

Rove testified that Novak told him he planned to report in a weekend column that Plame had worked for the CIA, and the circumstances on how her husband traveled to Africa to check bogus claims that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Niger, according to the source.

Novak’s column, citing two Bush administration officials, appeared six days later, touching off a political firestorm and leading to a federal criminal investigation into who leaked Plame’s undercover identity. That probe has ensnared presidential aides and reporters in a two-year legal battle.

Rove told the grand jury that by the time Novak had called him, he believes he had similar information about Wilson’s wife from another member of the news media but he could not recall which reporter had told him about it first, the person said.

When Novak inquired about Wilson’s wife working for the CIA, Rove indicated he had heard something like that, according to the source’s recounting of the grand jury testimony.

Rove told the grand jury that three days later, he had a phone conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and ? in an effort to discredit some of Wilson’s allegations ? informally told Cooper that he believed Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, though he never used her name, the source said.

An e-mail Cooper recently provided the grand jury shows Cooper reported to his magazine bosses that Rove had described Wilson’s wife in a confidential conversation as someone who “apparently works” at the CIA.

Robert Luskin, Rove’s attorney, said Thursday his client truthfully testified to the grand jury and expected to be exonerated.

“Karl provided all pertinent information to prosecutors a long time ago,” Luskin said. “And prosecutors confirmed when he testified most recently in October 2004 that he is not a target of the investigation.”

In an interview on CNN earlier Thursday before the latest revelation, Wilson kept up his criticism of the White House, saying Rove’s conduct was an “outrageous abuse of power … certainly worthy of frog-marching out of the White House.”

But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak’s column first identified her. “My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity,” he said.

Federal law prohibits government officials from divulging the identity of an undercover intelligence officer. But in order to bring charges, prosecutors must prove the official knew the officer was covert and nonetheless knowingly outed his or her identity.

Rove’s conversations with Novak and Cooper took place just days after Wilson suggested in a New York Times opinion piece that some of the intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

Democrats continued this week to sharpen their attacks, accusing Rove of compromising a CIA operative’s identity just to discredit the political criticism of her husband.

On Thursday, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada pressed for legislation to strip Rove of his clearance for classified information, which he said President Bush should have done already. Instead, Reid said, the Bush administration has attacked its critics: “This is what is known as a cover-up. This is an abuse of power.”

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Democrats were resorting to “partisan war chants.”

Across the Capitol, Rep. Rush Holt (news, bio, voting record), D-N.J., introduced legislation for an investigation that would compel senior administration officials to turn over records relating to the Plame disclosure.

Pressed to explain its statements of two years ago that Rove wasn’t involved in the leak, the White House refused to do so this week.

“If I were to get into discussing this, I would be getting into discussing an investigation that continues and could be prejudging the outcome of the investigation,” White House spokesman Scott McClellan said
[/quote]

Yeah, I saw this article this morning too. It’s kind of funny, because if this is true— Rove CONFIRMED classified information to a reporter who got information from 2 sources in the whitehouse:

“When Novak inquired about Wilson’s wife working for the CIA, Rove indicated he had heard something like that…”

And then Rove also gave information directly to Cooper. (and who else?)

I’d love to know who else leaked info? Cause Novak said 2 people just gave him the name? Maybe Ari?

100

Very good question. If the unamed sources are real then we will find out. If they are made up then not good for the reporter.

Here’s an interview with the attorney who drafted the statute. Can’t get any better information on the intent and letter of the law then that.

ON CAPITOL HILL
Drafter of intel statute:
Rove accusers ignorant.
Lawyer who wrote law to protect agents says Plame charge doesn’t meet standard

By Art Moore
? 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Democrat leaders and editorialists accusing Karl Rove of treason for referring to CIA agent Valerie Plame in an off-the-record interview are ignorant of the law, according to the Washington attorney who spearheaded the legislation at the center of the controversy.

Plame’s circumstances don’t meet several of the criteria spelled out in a 1982 statute designed not only to protect the identity of intelligence agents but to maintain the media’s ability to hold government accountable, Victoria Toensing told WorldNetDaily.

Toensing ? who drafted the legislation in her role as chief counsel for the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence ? says the Beltway frenzy surrounding Plame’s alleged “outing” as a covert agent is a story arising out of the capital’s “silly season.”

“The hurricane season started early and so did the August silly stories,” Toensing said. “What is it that qualifies as a story here?”

Democrat leaders are accusing Rove of exposing Plame’s identity as an act of retribution against her husband Joe Wilson, who returned from a CIA assignment to Niger with a report disputing the administration’s suspicion that Iraq wanted to acquire uranium from the African nation.

Toensing, now a private attorney in Washington, says Plame most likely was not a covert agent when Rove referred to her in a 2003 interview with Time magazine’s Matt Cooper.

The federal code says the agent must have operated outside the United States within the previous five years. But Plame gave up her role as a covert agent nine years before the Rove interview, according to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof.

Kristof said the CIA brought Plame back to Washington in 1994 because the agency suspected her undercover security had been compromised by turncoat spy Aldrich Ames.

Moreover, asserts Toensing, for the law to be violated, Rove would have had to intentionally reveal Plame’s identity with the knowledge that he was disclosing a covert agent.

Toensing believes Rove’s waiver allowing reporters testifying before the grand jury to reveal him as a source ? signed more than 18 months ago ? shows the Bush strategist did not believe he was violating the law.

Rove, according to Cooper’s notes, apparently was trying to warn the reporter not to give credence to Wilson’s investigation, because he had no expertise in nuclear weapons and was sent to Africa on the recommendation of his wife. Wilson had claimed he was sent by Vice President Cheney.

Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame in July 2005 issue of Vanity Fair magazine

Another element necessary for applying the law is that the government had to be taking affirmative measures to conceal the agent’s identity.

Toensing says that on the contrary, the CIA gave Plame a desk job in which she publicly went to and from work, allowed her spouse to do a mission in Africa without signing a confidentiality agreement and didn’t object to his writing an op-ed piece in the New York Times about his trip.

Columnist Robert Novak, who first published Plame’s name, also apparently didn’t think it was a big deal, Toensing said, or he would have put it in the first paragraph.

Novak’s aim was to expose the incompetence of the CIA, she argued.

“These are the kinds of stories we wanted to still be put out there when we passed the law,” she said. “We only wanted to stop the methodical exposing of CIA personnel for the purpose of assassination.”

Hedo,

Interesting post.

We may be left with the fact that retaliation in this instance was not illegal based on the story as presented.

However, whether or not it qualifies as illegal, I don’t think there should be much argument that going after Wilson because he had the temerity to speak his viewpoint is inappropriate.

This is government pressure to only put forth information that supports the agenda of the administration. It is insidious and it is dangerous.

It amounts to a form of unofficial censorship, as others will learn not to speak their minds unless they agree with the administration also.

I don’t know if you see that, or see the ramifications of that, but it is very wrong on several levels, whether or not Rove can be found guilty of anything.

I think it points to the character of the people in the White House and gives us insight into how to interpret their actions in a broader sense.

I believe these were the phrases used when people were trying to get a feel for Kerry as a man and whether or not he would be appropriate as Commander in Chief.

Think about it. It isn’t all about politics and left versus right. It is about the way in which business is done, the manner in with the truth is searched for or squelched.

Good government is about letting the voices of the people be heard. About letting the people have access to all the information and making informed decisions. About strengthening the rights of citizens and protecting them against abuses by authoratative powers.

I think such actions demonstrate that the current administration does not believe in these ideals. They believe they know better than the American people, they believe they should squelch the opinion of those that are in disagreement (because they believe they are right) and that they feel the ends justify the means.

This thinking is shown by these actions and by the dangerous moves being taken with respect to civil rights and the Patriot Act and those which will follow.

Whether or not you are Republican or Democrat should not be the issue which determines how you are argue and what you think. Find the underlying principles, how the actions taken illustrate the principles of those taking those actions, and what it means in the long term for you nation.

While I doubt many people care, I think the US is on a dangerous path. Civil rights are under pressure, the federal government is consolidating power, notions that have been abused in the past to control or sway the populace are being abused again, and those that disagree are being pressured by inappropriate tactics.

These are very bad steps indeed. Don’t let an irrational fear of random terrorist attacks lead you down the garden path of becoming a police state. And no, I don’t mean that is the intent of the administration.

I mean that is the path you appear to be on, even though everyone certainly means well today, these notions will be abused by the next administration or the twenty that follow it.

Just like it is not appropriate to incur huge crushing federal deficits to place as a legacy on your grandchildren, you must think of others, of the future, and make sure you aren’t placing them in the yolk of an all too powerful government that watches them day and night and has the power to take secret action against them in the name of terrorism whenever they feel like it.

Just as the meaning of “marriage” is changing to potentially include same sex unions, the future interpretation of “terrorism” will change to include any act that could be considered harmful to the federal government or it’s reputation. If and when the definitions start to change, the laws put in place today to protect against real evils will suddenly have no place to be applied except internally.

If that happens, God help you.

Your government is a juggernaut, and each agency simply follows it’s own agenda, applying all the rules and laws that are set out in front of it. The small minded people out applying those rules will create a tyranny by mistake, by being bought by criminals or big industry, or even by personal agenda against someone they don’t like, unless controls are put in place to ensure that it does not happen.

This has nothing to do with the current administration, except that now is when the wheels seem to be starting to turn down that path. Please look beyond the surface politics and steer a course based on more important underlying issues.

e-hater wrote:

"I have to interject that if we were to compare crimes in the whitehouse the one you showcase above pales in comparison to the infamous “Blow Job”.

In my opinion who cares about a female CIA agent who’s cover is blown, big deal she didn’t get killed.

Now on the other hand a blow job that’s gotta be dangerous to national security on some level and worthy of buttloads of money to get at the root of the deception of said blow job."

Try lying under oath and obstructing justice.

Funny how you can’t remember those parts.

Thanks for playing,

JeffR

Omg, another personal attack. I am so offended, I think I’m going to whine and cry about these things for days on end…

Everyone,

Please read Hedo’s excellent post.

Nothing doing here, people.

Thanks for the frenzy, however, it’s been fun!!!

JeffR

Date: Today.

Rove Learned CIA Agent’s Name From Novak

Jul 15, 8:09 AM (ET)

By JOHN SOLOMON

(AP) Members of the MoveOn Political Action organization protest in front of the White House, Thursday,…

WASHINGTON (AP) - Chief presidential adviser Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of an undercover CIA officer but that he originally learned about the operative from the news media and not government sources, according to a person briefed on the testimony.

The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, told The Associated Press that Rove testified last year that he remembers specifically being told by columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, the wife of a harsh Iraq war critic, worked for the CIA.

Rove testified that Novak originally called him the Tuesday before Plame’s identity was revealed in July 2003 to discuss another story.

The conversation eventually turned to Plame’s husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who was strongly criticizing the Bush administration’s use of faulty intelligence to justify the war in Iraq, the person said.

Rove testified that Novak told him he planned to report in a weekend column that Plame had worked for the CIA, and the circumstances on how her husband traveled to Africa to check bogus claims that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Niger, according to the source.

Novak’s column, citing two Bush administration officials, appeared six days later, touching off a political firestorm and leading to a federal criminal investigation into who leaked Plame’s undercover identity. That probe has ensnared presidential aides and reporters in a two-year legal battle.

Rove told the grand jury that by the time Novak had called him, he believes he had similar information about Wilson’s wife from another member of the news media but he could not recall which reporter had told him about it first, the person said.

When Novak inquired about Wilson’s wife working for the CIA, Rove indicated he had heard something like that, according to the source’s recounting of the grand jury testimony.

Rove told the grand jury that three days later, he had a phone conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and - in an effort to discredit some of Wilson’s allegations - informally told Cooper that he believed Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA, though he never used her name, the source said.

An e-mail Cooper recently provided the grand jury shows Cooper reported to his magazine bosses that Rove had described Wilson’s wife in a confidential conversation as someone who “apparently works” at the CIA.

Robert Luskin, Rove’s attorney, said Thursday his client truthfully testified to the grand jury and expected to be exonerated.

“Karl provided all pertinent information to prosecutors a long time ago,” Luskin said. “And prosecutors confirmed when he testified most recently in October 2004 that he is not a target of the investigation.”

In an interview on CNN earlier Thursday before the latest revelation, Wilson kept up his criticism of the White House, saying Rove’s conduct was an “outrageous abuse of power … certainly worthy of frog-marching out of the White House.”

But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak’s column first identified her. “My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity,” he said.

Federal law prohibits government officials from divulging the identity of an undercover intelligence officer. But in order to bring charges, prosecutors must prove the official knew the officer was covert and nonetheless knowingly outed his or her identity.

Rove’s conversations with Novak and Cooper took place just days after Wilson suggested in a New York Times opinion piece that some of the intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

Democrats continued this week to sharpen their attacks, accusing Rove of compromising a CIA operative’s identity just to discredit the political criticism of her husband.

On Thursday, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada pressed for legislation to strip Rove of his clearance for classified information, which he said President Bush should have done already. Instead, Reid said, the Bush administration has attacked its critics: “This is what is known as a cover-up. This is an abuse of power.”

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Democrats were resorting to “partisan war chants.”

Across the Capitol, Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., introduced legislation for an investigation that would compel senior administration officials to turn over records relating to the Plame disclosure.

Pressed to explain its statements of two years ago that Rove wasn’t involved in the leak, the White House refused to do so this week.

“If I were to get into discussing this, I would be getting into discussing an investigation that continues and could be prejudging the outcome of the investigation,” White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Note: not a covert agent.

Note: Not a covert agent.

Note: Learned identity from Novak

Note: So did I.

Note: Give me a freaking break with the “pressuring Time” crap. Anyone else think the Republicans have any pull with time.

Please.

I love my democratic friends. They are so transparent.

JeffR

Jerffy,

The point of the matter, which I’m more than sure is lost on the likes of yourself, is that there was no need to place Clinton under oath to see if he was cheating on his wife.

That is not a question which should be asked of a president. His loyalty to his family, his wife and his nation are then put into conflict.

However, the Republicans knew this and that is precisely why the question was asked. If you could stop villifying Clinton for one single minute, you could see that the whole deal was simply a mean spirited political game meant to discredit Clinton and the Democrats.

Clinton was a man, he has flaws. Bush is but a man, he too has flaws. It is appropriate to keep these mortal flaws in mind and see how it affects policy, or important matters of state – when these things are actually related to matters of state.

The Republicans seem to be the party of the discreditors. It appears to be their favorite tactic and this rubs off on those here in the boards. A good discussion or argument on the boards is often followed by a statement meant to discredit the quality of the poster in some capacity.

For example, I’m Canadian, what the fuck could I possibly know. Oh, don’t forget, I’m also some type of Ultra-Liberal or perhaps even a Social-Liberal apparently, with some type of “agenda” against Bush. It’s all a load of crap, but it certainly discredits me very quickly in the eyes of those that don’t think very much.

Imagine that.

Those are VERY POOR argumentative tactics, and are used against me all the time, even by those that would rail against me for the tactics I use. I call it hypocrisy.

[quote]vroom wrote:
e-hater wrote:

Omg, another personal attack. I am so offended, I think I’m going to whine and cry about these things for days on end… [/quote]

This kind of behavior is lowering the standard of this forum and driving people away. I am severely hurt and distressed. What’s next someone demanding I go to a police station and declare cops are cowards in the hopes I get pistol whipped… Oh, the inhumanity!

[quote]hedo wrote:
100

Very good question. If the unamed sources are real then we will find out. If they are made up then not good for the reporter.

Here’s an interview with the attorney who drafted the statute. Can’t get any better information on the intent and letter of the law then that.

ON CAPITOL HILL
Drafter of intel statute:
Rove accusers ignorant.
Lawyer who wrote law to protect agents says Plame charge doesn’t meet standard

By Art Moore
? 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Democrat leaders and editorialists accusing Karl Rove of treason for referring to CIA agent Valerie Plame in an off-the-record interview are ignorant of the law, according to the Washington attorney who spearheaded the legislation at the center of the controversy.

Plame’s circumstances don’t meet several of the criteria spelled out in a 1982 statute designed not only to protect the identity of intelligence agents but to maintain the media’s ability to hold government accountable, Victoria Toensing told WorldNetDaily.

Toensing ? who drafted the legislation in her role as chief counsel for the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence ? says the Beltway frenzy surrounding Plame’s alleged “outing” as a covert agent is a story arising out of the capital’s “silly season.”

“The hurricane season started early and so did the August silly stories,” Toensing said. “What is it that qualifies as a story here?”

Democrat leaders are accusing Rove of exposing Plame’s identity as an act of retribution against her husband Joe Wilson, who returned from a CIA assignment to Niger with a report disputing the administration’s suspicion that Iraq wanted to acquire uranium from the African nation.

Toensing, now a private attorney in Washington, says Plame most likely was not a covert agent when Rove referred to her in a 2003 interview with Time magazine’s Matt Cooper.

The federal code says the agent must have operated outside the United States within the previous five years. But Plame gave up her role as a covert agent nine years before the Rove interview, according to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof.

Kristof said the CIA brought Plame back to Washington in 1994 because the agency suspected her undercover security had been compromised by turncoat spy Aldrich Ames.

Moreover, asserts Toensing, for the law to be violated, Rove would have had to intentionally reveal Plame’s identity with the knowledge that he was disclosing a covert agent.

Toensing believes Rove’s waiver allowing reporters testifying before the grand jury to reveal him as a source ? signed more than 18 months ago ? shows the Bush strategist did not believe he was violating the law.

Rove, according to Cooper’s notes, apparently was trying to warn the reporter not to give credence to Wilson’s investigation, because he had no expertise in nuclear weapons and was sent to Africa on the recommendation of his wife. Wilson had claimed he was sent by Vice President Cheney.

Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame in July 2005 issue of Vanity Fair magazine

Another element necessary for applying the law is that the government had to be taking affirmative measures to conceal the agent’s identity.

Toensing says that on the contrary, the CIA gave Plame a desk job in which she publicly went to and from work, allowed her spouse to do a mission in Africa without signing a confidentiality agreement and didn’t object to his writing an op-ed piece in the New York Times about his trip.

Columnist Robert Novak, who first published Plame’s name, also apparently didn’t think it was a big deal, Toensing said, or he would have put it in the first paragraph.

Novak’s aim was to expose the incompetence of the CIA, she argued.

“These are the kinds of stories we wanted to still be put out there when we passed the law,” she said. “We only wanted to stop the methodical exposing of CIA personnel for the purpose of assassination.” [/quote]

The article is correct when it states the Victoria Toesing is the author of the statute but this article is not telling the whole story.

Victoria Toesing is a close and personal friend of Novak. She also server as Barry Goldwater’s cheif counsel while he was a senator and served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration.

It has been confirmed that Toesing and her husband diGenova spent time with Novak at their beach house during the summer.

According to an October 17, 2001, “Reliable Source” column in The Washington Post, Novak was among “70 friends” hosted by diGenova to celebrate Toensing’s 60th birthday at the Palm restaurant.

Novak (whose son is the director of marketing for Regnery which explains Toensing and her husband attendance) was a guest along with Toensing and diGenova at a September 21, 2004, party in Washington to celebrate the success of the book Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry (Regnery, 2004).

Toesing has argued numerous times that Fitzgerald lacks legal justification to compel reporters to identify the government sources that purportedly leaked Plame’s name because neither the original government sources nor Novak committed a crime by disclosing Plame’s identity.

None of these facts discredit her from commenting as everyone is entitled to their opinion but in this instance Toesing has shown a lack of integrity as she is not unbiased in her assessment.

At the end of the day her opinion will mean $hi!t in this investigation.

Toesing is a blatanly partisan person.

We shall wait until Fitzgerald is done with the investigation.

I will try and sum up my point about Rove.

I think he talked to the reporter and most likely knew that Plame worked for the CIA. I think her tried to steer him away from the story because it was a “non-issue” and would likely blow back at him. It did. Since the reporter already knew the identidy of the reporter, by name, I don’t think it’s a crime.

Since the issue was investigated and Rove gave information (I didn’t realize that) to the prosecutor some 19 mos. ago and gave permission to the reporter to release his name, he most likely is in the clear and has been told so by the prosecutor. Further since Palme was outed by Wilson in his book and bio and was a very public person socially, she was not maintaining a cover. Additionally she was pulled form the field in 96 or thereabouts following the Ames scandal. This met the current assignment and the 5 yr. rule.

Now questioning his reputation, ethics or morals is a different matter and I don’t think that’s what the Dems are talking about. The press smells blood and are going after it. Of course the Dems will make an issue, the should, that’s the role of the opposition.

Anyone can argue intent or degree including me…and it is the fun part of political discussions as least as far as I am concerned.

So what about jailing reporters? Anyone still up for that? Too be quite honest I think they showed some stones not giving up their sources and going to jail…at least one did I think. I don’t think they should get special treatment from a court order but I admire the conviction.