News Why is the Rove/Plame issue important?

[solutions in a box]

Rove a repeat offender or?

Rove was fired from the reelection campaign of GHW Bush because he leaked information to none other than; Robert Novak.
"Well isn't that special"

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/07/07/rove_plame/index_np.html?x

My new opinion on the leak comes from the last few paragraphs of this link.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3129941/site/newsweek/

Someone in Cheney's office is the true leaker.
Why let Rove take the heat? The leak sounds like something Rove would do.

What if the investigation can't link Rove to the incedent? That was the plan all long. If all eyes fall on Rove, no one is looking for the real perpetrator.

Who Hyped Rove's name in the media? Rove did, that is his specialty.

 

[SOS2008]

Rove was fired from the reelection campaign of GHW Bush because he leaked information to none other than; Robert Novak.
"Well isn't that special"

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/07/07/rove_plame/index_np.html?x

My new opinion on the leak comes from the last few paragraphs of this link.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3129941/site/newsweek/

Someone in Cheney's office is the true leaker.
Why let Rove take the heat? The leak sounds like something Rove would do.

What if the investigation can't link Rove to the incedent? That was the plan all long. If all eyes fall on Rove, no one is looking for the real perpetrator.

Who Hyped Rove's name in the media? Rove did, that is his specialty.

As has been said, Rove is a legend in his own mind? We know the Bush regime is famous for slight of hand trickery, but it just may be they all are crooks, and they all need to go down for it.

 

[The Smoking Man]

As a related issue, this was just released by the Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/01/politics/01weapons.html?th&emc=th

August 1, 2005
Spy's Notes on Iraqi Aims Were Shelved, Suit Says
By JAMES RISEN

WASHINGTON, July 31 - The Central Intelligence Agency was told by an informant in the spring of 2001 that Iraq had abandoned a major element of its nuclear weapons program, but the agency did not share the information with other agencies or with senior policy makers, a former C.I.A. officer has charged.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court here in December, the former C.I.A. officer, whose name remains secret, said that the informant told him that Iraq's uranium enrichment program had ended years earlier and that centrifuge components from the scuttled program were available for examination and even purchase.

...

His information on the Iraqi nuclear program, described as coming from a significant source, would have arrived at a time when the C.I.A. was starting to reconsider whether Iraq had revived its efforts to develop nuclear weapons. The agency's conclusion that this was happening, eventually made public by the Bush administration in 2002 as part of its rationale for war, has since been found to be incorrect.

While the existence of the lawsuit has previously been reported, details of the case have not been made public because the documents in his suit have been heavily censored by the government and the substance of the claims are classified. The officer's name remains secret, in part because disclosing it might jeopardize the agency's sources or operations.

Several people with detailed knowledge of the case provided information to The New York Times about his allegations, but insisted on anonymity because the matter is classified.

The former officer's lawyer, Roy W. Krieger, said he could not discuss his client's claims. He likened his client's situation to that of Valerie Wilson, also known as Valerie Plame, the clandestine C.I.A. officer whose role was leaked to the press after her husband publicly challenged some administration conclusions about Iraq's nuclear ambitions. (The former officer and Ms. Wilson worked in the same unit of the agency.)

"In both cases, officials brought unwelcome information on W.M.D. in the period prior to the Iraq invasion, and retribution followed," said Mr. Krieger, referring to weapons of mass destruction.

 

[SOS2008]

I meant to post excerpts from this article earlier...(It is difficult to know what thread to post this in):

"Why the Leak Probe Matters
For all the complexities of the Valerie Plame case, this story is about how easy it was to get into Iraq, and how hard it will be to get out."

By Jonathan Alter
Newsweek
July 25 issue - Like a lot of President Bush's critics, I supported the Iraq war at first. Because of the evidence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction laid out by Colin Powell, I agreed that we needed to disarm Saddam Hussein. I even think it's possible that 25 years from now, historians will conclude that the Iraq war helped accelerate the modernizing of the Middle East, even if it doesn't fully democratize it.

But if that happens, Bush might not get as much credit as he hopes, and not just because most historians, as Richard Nixon liked to say, are liberals. Bush may look bad because his leadership on Iraq has been a fiasco. He didn't plan for it: the early decisions that allowed the insurgency to get going were breathtakingly incompetent. He didn't pay for it: Bush is the first president in history to cut taxes during a war, this one now costing nearly $1 billion a week. And most important of all, he didn't tell the American people the truth about it: taking a nation to war is the most solemn duty of a president, and he'd better make certain there's no alternative and no doubt about the evidence.

Why do I mention this now? Because for all of the complexities of the Valerie Plame case, for all the questions raised about the future of investigative journalism and the fate of the most influential aide to an American president since Louis Howe served Franklin D. Roosevelt 70 years ago, this story is fundamentally about how easy it was to get into Iraq and how hard it will be to get out.

We got in because we "cooked" the intelligence, then hyped it. That's why the "Downing Street Memo" is not a smoking gun but a big "duh." For two years we've known that senior White House officials were determined to, in the words of the British intelligence memo, "fix" the intelligence to suit their policy decisions. When someone crossed them, they would "fix" him, too, as career ambassador Joseph Wilson found when he came back from Africa with a report that threw cold water on the story that Saddam Hussein sought yellowcake uranium from Niger.

For more... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8598301/site/newsweek/

 

[BobG]

You have to read the entire article to get the main point - one I agree with. If it turns out Rove intentionally leaked Plame's name to the press, he should stew in prison for a couple decades. Deciding your own personal political battle is more important than national security is grossly out of place for someone working in the White House as the President's Chief of Staff.

 

[Skyhunter]

My apologies if this is duplication but I don't have time right now to read the other posts.

To me the most distressing element in this whole affair is the question that is not being asked.

Why did Karl Rove want to destroy the CIA's ability to monitor Saudi oil money?

Everyone just assumes Rove exposed Mrs. Wilson to punish her and her husband. I understand why people might assume this because, that is how he practices politics. I am worried about the close relationship this president has with the Saudi royal family.

Why did the Bush administration reveal the identity of Brewster-Jennings & Associates?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Jennings_&_Associates?

Hmm...

Saudis hijack planes and fly them into the Pentagon and World Trade Center and the Bush administration attacks Iraq?

When the basis for the propoganda blitz that this administration used to sell the war proves to be greatly exaggerated, if not completely false, the administration blames the CIA.

Then Bush bestows the medal of freedom on it's director?

Now the administration exposes a CIA front company, that may have been the best intelligence asset the CIA had to monitor Saudi oil money and it's flow to terrorist organizations?

Am I missing something?

This doesn't make sense to me.

 

[SOS2008]

...Everyone just assumes Rove exposed Mrs. Wilson to punish her and her husband. I understand why people might assume this because, that is how he practices politics. I am worried about the close relationship this president has with the Saudi royal family.

...When the basis for the propoganda blitz that this administration used to sell the war proves to be greatly exaggerated, if not completely false, the administration blames the CIA.

Then Bush bestows the medal of freedom on it's director?

Now the administration exposes a CIA front company, that may have been the best intelligence asset the CIA had to monitor Saudi oil money and it's flow to terrorist organizations?

Am I missing something?

This doesn't make sense to me.

I agree it is about far more than just revenge against Wilson. This administration is truly diabolical, as can be seen in several threads regarding election fraud or what have you.

Based on the fact that there has been more than two years investigation, we can conclude that Bush has no sincere desire to find out who leaked, and in fact has been hoping for the matter to go quietly away...(NO! ) Here's an update:

"77% OF AMERICANS BELIEVE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS NOT TELLING THE TRUTH ON PLAME LEAK."

CBS News poll released today...

Regarding the Plame leak, the Bush Administration is:
~Hiding something: 55% of all surveyed
~Mostly lying: 22% " "
~Telling entire truth: 12% " "

Even 57% of Republicans think Bush, et al, are either hiding something or flat-out lying. I'm guessing the 12% "Truth" responders are, well we know who they are (if you subscribe to the SwiftBoaters monthly newsletter, watch Faux News, etc., I'm referring to you).

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/03/opinion/polls/main713832.shtml

 

[BobG]

I'm guessing the 12% "Truth" responders are, well we know who they are (......, watch Faux News, etc., I'm referring to you).

Hey! I happen to like the O'Reilly Factor. And this interview of Michael Crook by Hannity and Colmes was an all-time classic! (Even if they were duped by a scam artist) okay, maybe the quality drops off pretty badly

I'm just not all that sure this is so cut and dried a case. Bob Novak has been reporting for decades and he's good enough at putting the pieces together that it doesn't take much to confirm whether or not he's put them together correctly. Harlow pretty much confirmed the story to Novak all by himself, although you'd think someone as good at putting the pieces together as Novak could have also figured out that he'd better not include Plame in his story (how is it that it's a crime to leak classified information to the press, but it's legal for the press to print the classified information, even knowing it's classified?)

Rove's comments, whether his version or reporters' versions, were pretty brain-dead in any event - something that's pretty hard to see as 'just a mistake' from someone as calculating as Rove is.

If he goes down, it's good all the way around. It's good when a Segretti, Atwater, or Rove causes embarassment to their client. It makes his type seem a little riskier for candidates to employ - that's good in today's anything goes campaign climate. I'd just be surprised to see it happen, though.

 

[SOS2008]

Hey! I happen to like the O'Reilly Factor. And this interview of Michael Crook by Hannity and Colmes was an all-time classic! okay, maybe the quality drops off pretty badly after that.

I used to watch FOX News to see what the right-wing radicals were up to, but find it preferable to learn this through round table programs like the McLachlan Group, or The Situation with Tucker Carlson (now there's a Libertarian), and speaking of which I'll have to get transcripts of last night's program.

I'm just not all that sure this is so cut and dried a case. Bob Novak has been reporting for decades and he's good enough at putting the pieces together that it doesn't take much to confirm whether or not he's put them together correctly. Harlow pretty much confirmed the story to Novak all by himself, although you'd think someone as good at putting the pieces together as Novak could have also figured out that he'd better not include Plame in his story (how is it that it's a crime to leak classified information to the press, but it's legal for the press to print the classified information, even knowing it's classified?)

Rove's comments, whether his version or reporters' versions, were pretty brain-dead in any event - something that's pretty hard to see as 'just a mistake' from someone as calculating as Rove is.

If he goes down, it's good all the way around. It's good when a Segretti, Atwater, or Rove causes embarassment to their client. It makes his type seem a little riskier for candidates to employ - that's good in today's anything goes campaign climate. I'd just be surprised to see it happen, though.

Novak seems to be a little stressed indeed, and is now on suspension from CNN for his lack of professionalism on air. Still, let's say he was putting things together, a reporter can't print suspicions. Watergate is a great example in which reporters basically cross-referenced several sources before going to print. And Rove had no business discussing what he did with Cooper, even if he was only providing confirmation of a suspicion--what is that?

BTW, Karl Rove's middle name is 'Christian' - Somehow that seems creepy.

 

[Antiphon]

BTW, Karl Rove's middle name is 'Christian' - Somehow that seems creepy.

Funny- I'm more creeped out by people named "Mohammed." I guess
we each have our biases in such matters.

Novak is probably stressed bacause he's feeling too old to go to jail for contempt
of court. He's obviously better connected than the other two journalists
who are either in or were headed for jail.

This thing's a tempest in a teapot. Don't get too worked up over it or
you'll start sounding like the poor unhinged souls on the Democrat[/color]ic Underground[/color].

(I'd post over there too but they won't let people with my views in.
You see, for the true believers on the left it's not really about freedom
of speech or diversity of opinion- unless it's their speech and their
opinion.)

 

[Astronuc]

Overview and Timeline on the Plame/Wilson matter.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20050825/ts_latimes/aciacoverblownawhitehouseexposed

By Tom Hamburger and Sonni Efron Times Staff Writers
Thu Aug 25, 7:55 AM ET

WASHINGTON — Toward the end of a steamy summer week in 2003, reporters were peppering the White House with phone calls and e-mails, looking for someone to defend the administration's claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

About to emerge as a key critic was Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former diplomat who asserted that the administration had manipulated intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion.

At the White House, there wasn't much interest in responding to critics like Wilson that Fourth of July weekend. The communications staff faced more pressing concerns — the president's imminent trip to Africa, growing questions about the war and declining ratings in public opinion polls.

Wilson's accusations were based on an investigation he undertook for the CIA. But he was seen inside the White House as a "showboater" whose stature didn't warrant a high-level administration response. "Let him spout off solo on a holiday weekend," one White House official recalled saying. "Few will listen."

In fact, millions were riveted that Sunday as Wilson — on NBC's "Meet the Press" and in the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post — accused the administration of ignoring intelligence that didn't support its rationale for war.

Underestimating the impact of Wilson's allegations was one in a series of misjudgments by White House officials.

In the days that followed, they would cast doubt on Wilson's CIA mission to Africa by suggesting to reporters that his wife was responsible for his trip. In the process, her identity as a covert CIA agent was divulged — possibly illegally.

 

[Skyhunter]

Did Time hide the truth to help Bush win reelection?

Here is an interesting take on the whole Rove/Plame scandal.

The Los Angeles Times takes a long look at Plamegate today. There's little new here -- except for a claim by someone close to Karl Rove that Rove first heard Plame's name from Bob Novak -- but the Times does raise an interesting question along the way. We know now that Rove and Scooter Libby were involved in the outing of Plame. But how is it, the Times asks, that their roles remained secret until after George W. Bush was reelected?

The answer, at least in part: Their roles remained secret because some members of the mainstream press helped to keep them secret. According to the Times' report, Time magazine's Matthew Cooper chose not to ask for a waiver of confidentiality from Rove until this summer -- in part because his attorney advised against it, and in part because "Time editors were concerned about becoming part of such an explosive story in an election year." As a result, the Times says, "Cooper's testimony was delayed nearly a year, well after Bush's reelection."

Translated, as John Aravosis explains at AMERICAblog today, that means that Time's editors didn't want Cooper to reveal information that could be damaging to Bush's reelections hopes until after the election was over. "It's one thing for Time to do its job and ignore the effects of its reporting and overall work on US elections," Aravosis writes. "It's quite another for Time to make decisions based on whether they'll influence US elections."

In a way, it may be even worse than that. By not seeking a waiver from Rove -- by not reporting what its reporter knew to be true -- Time allowed Americans to go the polls believing that which the magazine knew to be false. Until Time turned over Matthew Cooper's e-mail messages to Patrick Fitzgerald this July, the White House was free to proclaim -- as it did, repeatedly and vociferously -- that Karl Rove had nothing whatsoever to do with the outing of Valerie Plame. That's the false story Americans had been told when they cast their votes for the presidency in November. Time knew better but didn't say.

Now once again I must ask the question;

Is the US government a government of the people, by the people, and for the people?

It seems to be run by corporatists, which is just another way of saying fascists.

 

[BobG]

Here is an interesting take on the whole Rove/Plame scandal.

But how is it, the Times asks, that their roles remained secret until after George W. Bush was reelected?

The answer, at least in part: Their roles remained secret because some members of the mainstream press helped to keep them secret.

Now once again I must ask the question;

Is the US government a government of the people, by the people, and for the people?

It seems to be run by corporatists, which is just another way of saying fascists.

I doubt this is a case of Time Magazine trying to help Bush get elected. It's more an attempt to avoid the image of influencing the election. In other words, if Cooper had testified before the election and made that testimony public, people could have said Time Magazine's reporter directly influenced the election - they would have become the news rather than just reporting it.

The logic is flawed. It's like the aversion of a soccer referee to call a foul in the penalty area, knowing the resulting penalty kick would be an almost certain goal - it ignores the fact that a 'non-decision' just rewarded the person that committed the foul. Once you're in the game, it's too late to start pretending you can exist outside it.

First, Time Magazine is in the business of influencing opinion by the very nature of their work - they provide information. The only neutral and objective way to do this is to report all the news, regardless of which side is helped or hurt.

Second, Time was already part of the story whether they liked it or not. Choosing not to disclose to the public that they were part of the story didn't change the fact that they were going to impact the election one way or the other regardless of their decision. Revealing Cooper's story would help Kerry - hiding Cooper's story would help Bush - there was no neutral ground.

What hiding the story did accomplish was to allow Time to project the image that they were just a neutral observer outside the game. Sometimes affecting the story they're reporting on is unavoidable, but, even when unavoidable, it's embarrassing to a newspaper or magazine to become the story instead of just reporting it.

Edit: In other words, Time Magazine is guilty of cowardliness, not of being in cahoots with the Bush team.

 

[SOS2008]

Funny - I'm more creeped out by people named "Mohammed." I guess we each have our biases in such matters..)

You've misunderstood me. I have nothing against Christians. Many people claim Rove is the anti-Christ, and thus my joke. As for your remark about people named "Mohammed," you have once again revealed yourself--this time as being racist.

This thing's a tempest in a teapot. Don't get too worked up over it or you'll start sounding like the poor unhinged souls on the Democrat[/color]ic Underground[/color].

Never heard of it. I guess it's along the line of the Free Republic, etc., etc. :zzz:

That's the problem with this country...people don't get worked about things. Anyone with an iota of understanding and insight can see the seriousness of this and other matters related to Dubya & Co. I find it sad the media can report night after night about missing people, yet can't seem to keep Americans informed of how the investigation is progressing. In the meantime Miller remains and jail, and Novak--now he is creepy.

 

[Skyhunter]

What hiding the story did accomplish was to allow Time to project the image that they were just a neutral observer outside the game. Sometimes affecting the story they're reporting on is unavoidable, but, even when unavoidable, it's embarrassing to a newspaper or magazine to become the story instead of just reporting it.

Edit: In other words, Time Magazine is guilty of cowardliness, not of being in cahoots with the Bush team.

I understand your point, but I disagree.

They might have become the story, but only because the White House and their spin machine would have spun it that way.

Exposing the identity of a CIA operative is a felony. The fact that it was the President's political "architect" and chief of staff is news.

Of course it would have influenced the election. It was bound to come out sooner or later so your cowardice argument doesn't really hold up.

I believe the people making the decisions were Bush supporters and knew it would damage the presidents campaign.

If enough is made of this revelation maybe we will find out more that may alter my opinion, but at present I believe it is what it looks like. Corporate media supporting corporatist politicians. (not that John Kerry isn't a corporatist as well.)

 

[The Smoking Man]

I doubt this is a case of Time Magazine trying to help Bush get elected. It's more an attempt to avoid the image of influencing the election. In other words, if Cooper had testified before the election and made that testimony public, people could have said Time Magazine's reporter directly influenced the election - they would have become the news rather than just reporting it.

The logic is flawed. It's like the aversion of a soccer referee to call a foul in the penalty area, knowing the resulting penalty kick would be an almost certain goal - it ignores the fact that a 'non-decision' just rewarded the person that committed the foul. Once you're in the game, it's too late to start pretending you can exist outside it.

First, Time Magazine is in the business of influencing opinion by the very nature of their work - they provide information. The only neutral and objective way to do this is to report all the news, regardless of which side is helped or hurt.

Second, Time was already part of the story whether they liked it or not. Choosing not to disclose to the public that they were part of the story didn't change the fact that they were going to impact the election one way or the other regardless of their decision. Revealing Cooper's story would help Kerry - hiding Cooper's story would help Bush - there was no neutral ground.

What hiding the story did accomplish was to allow Time to project the image that they were just a neutral observer outside the game. Sometimes affecting the story they're reporting on is unavoidable, but, even when unavoidable, it's embarrassing to a newspaper or magazine to become the story instead of just reporting it.

Edit: In other words, Time Magazine is guilty of cowardliness, not of being in cahoots with the Bush team.

Then again ... What is the role of the 5th estate/Free Press?

What did Woodward and Bernstein do for the USA?

You all DO remember Watergate don't you?

 

[faust9]

Now how's this for a headline: "Scooter outed Plame!"

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/30/cia.leak/index.html

Lewis Libby, Dick Cheney's chief of staff, is Judith Miller's source. I wonder where Dick's personal chief of staff got the little'ol idea to leak Plame to the press?

[edit] I like how "scooter" let Ms. Miller sit in jail for 12 weeks before releasing her from her confidentiality agreement---here's the kicker race fans---even though the WH said she was freed of this obligation before she was imprisoned(only generically though). Why did it take WH VP chief of staff so long to come forward and do this? Did the WH want to spread out the links between 1600 Penn. Ave over a few months instead of releasing a handful of WH operative names at once? Hmmm first Rove, now Libby; the plot thickens.

 

[pattylou]

Isn't it possible that Lewis Libby knew who leaked Plame to the press (Maybe Rove?) and that he was Miller's source but what he told her was that it was Rove that actually leaked the name?

The sequence would be, briefly:

Rove: Wants to send message to Plame's husband to support the party line; leaks Plame's name.

Libby: Knows that Rove did this, tells Miller about it.

... In this case, Libby comes out looking pretty good. Is this possible?

 

[faust9]

Isn't it possible that Lewis Libby knew who leaked Plame to the press (Maybe Rove?) and that he was Miller's source but what he told her was that it was Rove that actually leaked the name?

The sequence would be, briefly:

Rove: Wants to send message to Plame's husband to support the party line; leaks Plame's name.

Libby: Knows that Rove did this, tells Miller about it.

... In this case, Libby comes out looking pretty good. Is this possible?

Sure, that is possible, but that doesn't explain a 12 week wait. If Libby was being such a boyscout then I would have expected him to step up a lot earlier say BEFORE Miller went to jail.

This stinks of spreading bad news out to minimize damage. Why did Libby wait until Thursday night to release Miller(knowing Millers story would hit on friday and hoping Miller's account would not be in the papers until Saturday)?

Libby might be a whistle blower but he's gone about it in an odd sort of fashion don't you think.

 

[pattylou]

Yeah.

But if we point the finger at Libby, what does that do to Rove's culpability?

 

[faust9]

Yeah.

But if we point the finger at Libby, what does that do to Rove's culpability?

Both can be equally culpable. Maybe Rove told Libby to out Plame. Maybe they all had a big get together---Bush, cheney, and the rest of the little rascals---where the outing of Plame would be used to divert attention from Wilson's report. Maybe a whole group of people decided and organized an outing strategy in concert with hitting the Sunday talking head shows in order to deflect a bad story about the WH's decision to invade Iraq on a patently false document---which they knew about it being false. We could have a case of co-conspirators with one of the parties coordinating the efforts.

 

[pattylou]

OOOOHHHH. Wow, can you imagine that coming to light? They should do a reality TV show on this.

 

[SOS2008]

Both can be equally culpable. Maybe Rove told Libby to out Plame. Maybe they all had a big get together---Bush, cheney, and the rest of the little rascals---where the outing of Plame would be used to divert attention from Wilson's report. Maybe a whole group of people decided and organized an outing strategy in concert with hitting the Sunday talking head shows in order to deflect a bad story about the WH's decision to invade Iraq on a patently false document---which they knew about it being false. We could have a case of co-conspirators with one of the parties coordinating the efforts.

The old shell game. This administration is known for it's secretive behavior and frequent behind-closed-doors pow wows, and Bush is very controlling. I doubt individuals are going around doing anything on their own. The problem is, if evidence can ever be obtained, it may not be until long after Bush is gone.

 

[faust9]

Ariannia makes some good points about little miss jail bird: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/miller-walks-the-plot-th_b_8116.html

 

[SOS2008]

Ariannia makes some good points about little miss jail bird: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/miller-walks-the-plot-th_b_8116.html

Add Novak to that list. What a wonderful "watch dog" free press we have.

 

[Tsu]

This from the NY Times:

Washington - Reporters hauled before grand juries. A White House under fire. With the CIA leak investigation perhaps ending soon, some questions and answers about what it has meant:

Q: Who in the government disclosed the identity of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame?

A: There is not a simple answer. In conversations inside the Bush administration, Plame was referred to as the CIA employee who was the wife of a former U.S. ambassador, Joseph Wilson.

In this regard, at least Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, and I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, qualify as leakers. Rove learned of Plame's name in a conversation with columnist Robert Novak. Where Novak heard about Plame's name is not known publicly. Libby says he did not learn Plame's name until he saw it in Novak's column. The reason any of this matters is that leaking the identity of a covert agent can be a crime.

Plame had a hand in sending Wilson on a trip to the African nation of Niger for the CIA. Wilson returned with the information he later used to accuse the White House of hyping prewar intelligence about Iraq, including the threat of nuclear weapons.

Q: When will we learn what the investigation by the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has turned up?

A: Possibly as early as this month. The federal grand jury that New York Times reporter Judith Miller testified to on Friday expires Oct. 28. If Fitzgerald has plans to seek indictments, he probably would do so with the grand jury that has been dealing with all the evidence for the past two years.

If Fitzgerald does not seek criminal charges, it will not end the matter. By law, he will write a comprehensive report of his findings and submit it to the Justice Department, which probably would make it public.

Q: What convinced Miller, after spending 85 days in jail, that she should testify before the grand jury?

A: Perhaps Fitzgerald's promise to limit the scope of his questioning. Miller, a national security reporter with many sources in the Bush administration, undoubtedly feared open-ended questioning. The prosecutor would not have had to range too far to get into troubling territory for Miller. Starting in 2002, her stories about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq strengthened the administration's case in preparing for war. The failure to find the weapons was developing into a major issue at the time of the Plame leak and resulted in heavy criticism of Miller and her newspaper as well as of the administration.

Q: Miller said she wanted her source to release her from a promise of confidentiality. If a personal conversation between the reporter and her source was all she was waiting for, what took so long?

A: The saga of the phone call goes back more than a year, when Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, says he and his client released Miller to testify. Tate says he was surprised when Miller's lawyers again asked for a release in the past few weeks. Miller's lawyers called and said there was "a misunderstanding and Judy wanted to hear it straight from the horse's mouth" that Libby was releasing her to talk to the grand jury about their conversation, Tate said.

One of Miller's lawyers involved in the earlier discussions, Floyd Abrams, said there was "a great deal of ambiguity" about the long-ago release given by Tate. Libby, like other administration officials, had granted a blanket waiver authorizing reporters to speak to the grand jury about any conversations they may have had. Abrams said Miller was concerned that such a release "was, by its very nature, coercive."

Q: Other than testifying about her source, what could have kept Miller from going to jail?

A: Probably nothing. Fitzgerald was adamant that he needed Miller's testimony about the contents of her conversations with Libby. The prosecutor indicated in court in July that he was prepared to pursue a criminal contempt of court charge against her if she continued to defy him.

Q: What are the chances anybody is going to jail as a result of this investigation?

A: For disclosing Plame's identity, probably a slim chance at best. For lying to Fitzgerald's investigators, the possibility may be greater. The prosecutor seems to have pursued a number of questions that could signify nothing more than imperfect memory by witnesses or could point to evidence of a cover-up.

As late as July, Fitzgerald was asking Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper "several different ways" whether Rove had indicated how he had heard that Plame worked at the CIA. Rove never said, according to Cooper. Regarding the leak of Plame's identity, under the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act, there has to be an intentional disclosure of the identity. The person making the disclosure has to know that the information identifies somebody whose status is covert and that the U.S. government has taken measures to conceal the identity. Some legal experts say that high legal threshold appears to be impossible to meet in the Plame case.

--------

Associated Press reporter David Caruso in New York City contributed to this report.

 

[Informal Logic]

WASHINGTON - Federal prosecutors have accepted an offer from presidential adviser Karl Rove to give 11th hour testimony in the case of a CIA officer’s leaked identity but have warned they cannot guarantee he won’t be indicted, according to people directly familiar with the investigation.

...Rove has already made at least three grand jury appearances and his return at this late stage in the investigation is unusual.

The prosecutor did not give Rove similar warnings before his earlier grand jury appearances.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9613084/

Though Rove has not been sent a target letter, and "Leaking the identity of a covert agent can be a crime, but it must be done knowingly and the legal threshold for proving such a crime is high" it does not mean he is safe from an indictment.

 

[faust9]

A little summary of the Rove/Scooter/Plame/Wilson fiasco:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Hardball-Rove-gate-10-10-05.mov

 

[Skyhunter]

Sure, that is possible, but that doesn't explain a 12 week wait. If Libby was being such a boyscout then I would have expected him to step up a lot earlier say BEFORE Miller went to jail.

This stinks of spreading bad news out to minimize damage. Why did Libby wait until Thursday night to release Miller(knowing Millers story would hit on friday and hoping Miller's account would not be in the papers until Saturday)?

Libby might be a whistle blower but he's gone about it in an odd sort of fashion don't you think.

I think that she is still protecting someone. Only two names come to mind; Dick Cheney or George Bush. My guess is Dick Cheney.

 

[Skyhunter]

Has anyone seen the letter from Scooter Libby to Judith Miller?

Here is the last paragraph.

"You went into jail in the summer. It is fall now. You will have stories to cover -- Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats and the Iranian nuclear program. Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them. Come back to work -- and life. Until then, you will remain in my thoughts and prayers -- With admiration, Scooter Libby."

Is this a code for how she should testify?

The more I learn the more I believe she is protecting someone other than Libby.

[edit]here are a few links to get anyone who would like to investigate further started.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/pressingissues_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001263179

http://www.markarkleiman.com/archives/valerie_plame_/2005/10/patrick_fitzgeralds_mousetrap.php