News Why is the Rove/Plame issue important?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pattylou
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Important
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the implications of Karl Rove's alleged leak of Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative, connecting it to broader issues of foreign policy and the Iraq war. Several reports highlight how this incident could significantly impact the Republican party's standing, particularly regarding public perception of the Iraq war and the administration's honesty. Participants express concern that the leak represents a betrayal of national interests for personal political gain, with some arguing it reflects a systematic effort to suppress dissenting intelligence that contradicted the justification for the Iraq invasion. The conversation touches on the potential for impeachment based on the severity of the actions involved, comparing them to historical scandals like Watergate. There is a sense of frustration that many Americans may not fully grasp the gravity of the situation, with some suggesting that the administration's actions could lead to long-lasting damage to public trust in government and intelligence agencies. The discussion also raises questions about the motivations behind the leak and the broader implications for democracy and accountability in governance.
  • #61
So, what will be the result of Fitzgerald's grand jury?

Most accounts say charging anyone with intentionally violating the http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html is too narrowly worded and it's unlikely anyone in the administration would be found guilty of violating it.

Other reporters suggest the most likely charge(s) to come out of the grand jury will be perjury or obstruction of justice. That has some rich irony in it. The perpetrators fall all over themselves, committing new crimes, to escape being charged with a virtually unprosecutable crime.

Of course, they could be charged with espionage. The http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC794 is more generally worded. The individual is guilty if he would "have reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation" if he passes classified information to them "either directly or indirectly". Leaking classified information to the media could reasonably be assumed to result in the classified info being published for anyone to read, including foreign governments hostile to the US ... including governments who could link Plame to other covert agents still active. Not that anyone is ever charged with espionage for press leaks, nor is there ever a serious attempt made to find the 'leaker'.

That would just means that charging Rove or Libby with espionage would possesses even more irony than a perjury or obstruction of justice charge. In 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft sent this letter to Dennis Hastert, pushing for more aggressive prosecution of individuals leaking classified information to the press. His aim was to put a stop to government officials leaking classified information to the press by forcing reporters to reveal their sources and to prosecute the sources to the fullest extent of the law.

Most notably, Ashcroft said,
We need an effective Government-wide program to curtail these damaging disclosures and to hold the persons who engage in unauthorized disclosures of classified information fully accountable for the serious damage they cause to intelligence sources and methods, military operations, and to the nation. Those who would break faith with the American people and disclose classified information without authority to do so will face severe consequences under the law.

The problem with press leaks:
In most of the few cases in which a person who engaged in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information has been identified, the sanctions applied have been relatively inconsequential in comparison to the damage caused as a result of the unauthorized disclosure. In most cases, identifying the individual who disclosed classified information without authority has been difficult, at best.

What has to be done:
Regardless, the vital need in protecting national security secrets must include rigorous investigation of unauthorized disclosures of classified information to identify the individuals who commit them, and vigorous enforcement of the applicable administrative, civil, and criminal provisions already available.

And, in his conclusion, Ashcroft complains that:
In sum, to protect its diplomatic, military, and intelligence capabilities, the Nation must combat unauthorized disclosures of classified information effectively, through aggressive administrative enforcement of current requirements, rigorous investigation of unauthorized disclosures, and vigorous enforcement of the criminal laws that make such disclosures a Federal crime. Clearly, that only a single non-espionage case of an unauthorized disclosure of classified information has been prosecuted in over 50 years provides compelling justification that fundamental improvements are necessary and we must entertain new approaches to deter, identify, and punish those who engage in the practice of unauthorized disclosures of classified information.

Basically, Ashcroft charges that we've just been too easy on these guys that go around leaking classified information to the press. It's about time we crack down on these offenders!

So, here's the ultimate paradox for liberals. Should reporters be allowed to obtain classified information from anonymous sources in government in the interest of freedom of information? (This means liberals should be supporting Rove and Libby :smile: ) Should reporters and, especially, the sources who reveal classified information be prosecuted for espionage? (It sure would be nice to see this happen to Rove and Libby, but then how will public find out what it's government is doing?)

It's probably a pretty big paradox for Bush loyalists, as well. The liberal media is free to mine government employees for classified info and to publish it without much fear of prosecution (only once in 50 years), but at least Rove and Libby survive.

Even worse, if Rove and Libby are charged with espionage, Ashcroft will probably not get a Medal of Freedom.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
I vote for obstruction of justice all around though I feel the offending parties were aware of Plame's position and as such should be prosecuted under the IIPA.

The whole affair boils down to defamation of character to protect the Iraq war. Wilson stood up and said "Hay, you guys knew the African-Uranium link was a lie from the get-go!" at which point the slander machine went into action. Well, the slander machine didn't bother to check which laws it was violating and here we ar today. We now get to watch some heavy hitters in Washington politics literally beg to give sworn testimony to a grand jury.
 
  • #63
BobG said:
So, here's the ultimate paradox for liberals. Should reporters be allowed to obtain classified information from anonymous sources in government in the interest of freedom of information? (This means liberals should be supporting Rove and Libby :smile: ) Should reporters and, especially, the sources who reveal classified information be prosecuted for espionage? (It sure would be nice to see this happen to Rove and Libby, but then how will public find out what it's government is doing?)

It's probably a pretty big paradox for Bush loyalists, as well. The liberal media is free to mine government employees for classified info and to publish it without much fear of prosecution (only once in 50 years), but at least Rove and Libby survive.

Even worse, if Rove and Libby are charged with espionage, Ashcroft will probably not get a Medal of Freedom.
You basically say it, but the irony is that Ashcroft is "a man of great integrity, a man of great judgment and a man who knows the law," President George W. Bush.
 
  • #64
Rove is having his fourth little sitdown with the grand jury right now---can't wait for the leaks!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/14/cialeakinvestigation.ap/index.html

This is a funny(not haha but funny odd) little observation:

The White House has shifted from categorical denials two years ago that Rove or Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, were involved in the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity to "no comment" today.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #65
BobG said:
So, here's the ultimate paradox for liberals. Should reporters be allowed to obtain classified information from anonymous sources in government in the interest of freedom of information? (This means liberals should be supporting Rove and Libby :smile: ) Should reporters and, especially, the sources who reveal classified information be prosecuted for espionage? (It sure would be nice to see this happen to Rove and Libby, but then how will public find out what it's government is doing?)

It's probably a pretty big paradox for Bush loyalists, as well. The liberal media is free to mine government employees for classified info and to publish it without much fear of prosecution (only once in 50 years), but at least Rove and Libby survive.
Entertaining duality. I actually hadn't paid much attention to this issue, my opinion of the above catch-44 is that there are times when national security trumps freedom of information. This has always been true and enforcing it now would not change that. And since I'm not a Bush or Rove fan, it works out just fine: I would not be at all upset to see Rove go down in flames. So I guess for me, there really isn't any catch-22. :biggrin:
 
  • #66
faust9 said:
Rove is having his fourth little sitdown with the grand jury right now---can't wait for the leaks!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/14/cialeakinvestigation.ap/index.html

This is a funny(not haha but funny odd) little observation:
I found this to be the best tidbit. Poor simple Scotty.

"They are good individuals," McClellan said of Rove and Libby on October 7, 2003. "They are important members of our White House team. And that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt with that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did."

Those good people lied to him.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #67
The lawyers (of individuals under investigation) have leaked that things have not been looking good. One leak is that they have been trying to negotiate for lesser charges.
 
  • #68
This may be completely disruptive of the flow here; I haven't read all the posts in this thread. Just wanted to make sure this was out there :

From my favorite guy, Scottie (White House press briefing, 07 Oct 2003), a flashback...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031007-4.html#2

Q Scott, you have said that you, personally, went to Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Elliot Abrams to ask them if they were the leakers. Is that what happened? Why did you do that, and can you describe the conversations you had with them? What was the question you asked?

MR. McCLELLAN: Unfortunately, in Washington, D.C., at a time like this, there are a lot of rumors and innuendo. There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made. And that's exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals. They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt of that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.
And more recently (Oct 11 2005) ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050711-3.html#2

Q: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this" -- do you stand by that statement?

MR. McCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time, as well.

Q: Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation --
...
Q Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

Well, do you ?PS : Just read Skyhunter's post (#66). Guess this substantiates what he said.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #69
there are times when national security trumps freedom of information.
That is certainly quite true, and there is information that should never be made available, like the identity of CIA agents whose lives are put in jeopardy by such disclosure.

Unfortunately, I think politicians often use the reason of "national security" to cover up unethical behavior, or possibly illegal/criminal acts.
It still surprises me that things have gone as far as they have with Rove in his fourth testimony to a Grand Jury, while Robert Novak clearly published Plame's identity. It is either a crime, or it isn't, to disclose a CIA agent's identity. If it's not, there is no issue, so just drop it.

If on the other hand, it is illegal to disclose a CIA agent's identity, and if indeed Plame is one, and if Novak did diclose it (his published column is the evidence proving he disclosed Plame's identity) then arrest Novak and he person(s) who leaked the information.

Mission to Niger
Jul 14, 2003
by Robert Novak
. . . .
Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.
. . . .
:rolleyes: This is either illegal or it isn't. How difficult can it be to figure out?

Meanwhile, the prosecutors are harrassing reporters who did not disclose Plame's identity, but only tried to find out the story.

This is so bizarrely surreal.

I wonder how many presidential pardons Bush will issue just before he leaves office? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • #70
Astronuc said:
I wonder how many presidential pardons Bush will issue just before he leaves office? :rolleyes:
Well if there was any justice, Bush would not be around to pardon anyone else. :mad:
 
  • #71
SOS2008 said:
The lawyers (of individuals under investigation) have leaked that things have not been looking good. One leak is that they have been trying to negotiate for lesser charges.
Is it a bad sign when their lawyers leak, too? :smile:
 
  • #72
Astronuc said:
:rolleyes: This is either illegal or it isn't. How difficult can it be to figure out?
Well, I don't suppose Mr. Rove is being particularly straightforward with his answers to the questions they are asking him.
I wonder how many presidential pardons Bush will issue just before he leaves office?
I'm going to guess somewhat less than his predicessor's 140 on his last day in office. :biggrin:
 
  • #73
russ_watters said:
I'm going to guess somewhat less than his predicessor's 140 on his last day in office. :biggrin:
Birds of a feather, I suppose. :biggrin:
 
  • #75
Astronuc said:
Meanwhile, the prosecutors are harrassing reporters who did not disclose Plame's identity, but only tried to find out the story.
This is so bizarrely surreal.
Especially since she went to jail to protect a http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001306690 that she claims she can't remember.
Among other things, the 5,800-word article discloses that in the same notebook that Miller belatedly turned over to the federal prosecutor last month, chronicling her July 8, 2003, interview with I. Lewis Libby, she wrote the name "Valerie Flame." She surely meant Valerie Plame, but when she testified for a second time in the case this week, she could not recall who mentioned that name to her, the Times said. She said she "didn't think" she heard it from Libby, a longtime friend and source.
I wonder how many presidential pardons Bush will issue just before he leaves office? :rolleyes:
He already took care of his drug dealing buddies while we were all distracted by the Rove/Plame affair.
http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/May/04_opa_353.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #76
According to this article, Cheney's office is actually the focus of the investigation. Is it possible that Cheney himself might be indicted? It would almost make sense: why would Scooter Libby allow Judith Miller to be released from her bonds of confidentiality unless he had full immunity? That is, is it possible that Fitzgerald offered immunity to Libby to testify against Cheney?
 
  • #77
Manchot said:
According to this article, Cheney's office is actually the focus of the investigation. Is it possible that Cheney himself might be indicted? It would almost make sense: why would Scooter Libby allow Judith Miller to be released from her bonds of confidentiality unless he had full immunity? That is, is it possible that Fitzgerald offered immunity to Libby to testify against Cheney?
It would be nice if they all are charged, including Miller who is just another WH pundit.
 
  • #78
This story just gets weirder - but then this is the Bush administration. :rolleyes:

Inaccurate Info May Help CIA Leak Probe, By JOHN SOLOMON and PETE YOST
WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff apparently gave New York Times reporter Judith Miller inaccurate information about where Valerie Plame worked in the CIA, a mistake that could be important to the criminal investigation.

Miller's notes say I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby told her on July 8, 2003, that the wife of Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson worked for the CIA's Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation and Arms Control unit.

Plame, Wilson's wife, never worked for WINPAC, which is on the overt side of the CIA. She worked on the CIA's secret side, the directorate of operations, according to three people familiar with her work for the spy agency.

The three all spoke on condition of anonymity, citing Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's ongoing grand jury investigation into the leak of Plame's identity in 2003.

Whatever Fitzgerald decides, any public statements he makes will be made in Washington, rather than in Chicago, where he is based as U.S. attorney, spokesman Randall Samborn said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051018/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak_investigation
So presumably identifying her in public would be a crime. Now why didn't Novak know that? And did his sources know that?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #79
SOS2008 said:
The lawyers (of individuals under investigation) have leaked that things have not been looking good. One leak is that they have been trying to negotiate for lesser charges.
curious where you got this from, I had read that he was offered a misdimeanor charge as a plea bargain and that he refused it...
 
  • #80
aren't there limitations on the law in regards to "outing agents" that are no longer active? Such as once they are inactive it's no longer applicable after a certain amount of time?
 
  • #81
kat said:
aren't there limitations on the law in regards to "outing agents" that are no longer active? Such as once they are inactive it's no longer applicable after a certain amount of time?

Enjoy:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Covert_Agent_Identity_Protection_Act
http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----000-.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sup_01_50_10_15.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #82
kat said:
aren't there limitations on the law in regards to "outing agents" that are no longer active? Such as once they are inactive it's no longer applicable after a certain amount of time?
I just cannot understand the contradiction here. I can understand loyalty to an ideology. But this goes way beyond ideology.

For someone from a military family that is so pro US, why do you want to defend, what is obviously an act that harmed the US?

Some person or persons exposed a CIA agent so that they could spin a story and discredit a critic. One who was right when the president was wrong. (Or intentionally lying.) An action that George Herbert Walker Bush called treason.
 
  • #83
Some person or persons exposed a CIA agent so that they could spin a story and discredit a critic.
The act of exposing Ms. Plame did not discredit her husband, Mr. Wilson. Rather the act was pure retaliation - not to mention possibly illegal.

Doesn't seem the type of behavior one would expect from an official in high public office, or rather, who works for someone in high public office.

Seems like Watergate behavior all over again.

On the other hand, if one wanted to eliminate any possible dissent in the nation's intelligence structure, this is a way to do it.
 
  • #84
Juicy news from the rumor mill:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheney_aide_cooperating_with_CIA_outing_1018.html
 
  • #85
faust9 said:
Juicy news from the rumor mill:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheney_aide_cooperating_with_CIA_outing_1018.html

Should get pretty interesting now.
 
  • #86
Astronuc said:
The act of exposing Ms. Plame did not discredit her husband, Mr. Wilson. Rather the act was pure retaliation - not to mention possibly illegal.
If you remember the talking points to discredit Wilson.

He is an idiot who didn't know how to investigate, the only reason he was there was because his wife sent him.

I remember seeing Ann Coulter on Geraldo. She told a story as if she were relating exactly what happened. I was incredulous at the time because she made it sound like she was telling the story of how exposing Valerie Plame was an innocent mistake. I was incredulous since at the time no one knew who exposed Valerie Plame Wilson.

She said, and I paraphrase.

"Robert Novak was asking the White House source."

"Why did you send this moron in the first place?"

"We didn't, his wife sent him. She works for the CIA."

The reason was obvious, they wanted to discredit him by saying he was a nobody, sent at the behest of his wife.

Remember how they accused him of saying Dick Cheney sent him. When all he said was that The Vice Presidents office had requested that the CIA look into the allegations that Iraq was trying to purchase yellow cake uranium from Niger.
 
  • #87
curious where you got this from, I had read that he was offered a misdimeanor charge as a plea bargain and that he refused it...
No, you're thinking of DeLay.
 
  • #88
Skyhunter said:
I just cannot understand the contradiction here. I can understand loyalty to an ideology. But this goes way beyond ideology.
For someone from a military family that is so pro US, why do you want to defend, what is obviously an act that harmed the US?
Some person or persons exposed a CIA agent so that they could spin a story and discredit a critic. One who was right when the president was wrong. (Or intentionally lying.) An action that George Herbert Walker Bush called treason.
I have no clue why you're directing this drivel towards me in regards to my comment. I'm curious as to where this hearing is heading and how the law is being applied. Are we looking at something in the nature of espionage? strictly perjury? Is the law really applicable as it has been portrayed? etc. Is anything at all going to come of it..or has it just been much ado about nothing with a great big bill to the taxpayer?
 
  • #89
Manchot said:
No, you're thinking of DeLay.
oops, you're right!..I guess I shouldn't be reading news sites and posting at the same time..:redface:
 
  • #90
Why is the Rove/Plame issue important?
because if it leads to a conviction of Cheney (Hannah's in Cheney's office, no?) then...erm...RICE BECOMES VICE! *Grin*
 

Similar threads

News Matt Cooper on Rove's leaking Plame's name
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
News Rove talked about CIA Op to Reporters (Article)
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
News John Bolton Lied to Congress: UN Ambassador Appointment?
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
7K
News Should the US intervene in world problems?
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
News McCain confused about the Iraq war.
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Poll Poll
News Is the CIA a Terrorist Organization?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
News Palin pick an insult to our intelligence
  • · Replies 1K ·
34
Replies
1K
Views
95K
News Bush made Iraq a very dangerous place
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
News Free Advice to G.O.P. (about Iraq)
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K