Might Karl Rove go to jail?

[wit>trope]

I'm not sure, but TIME and Newsweek may have the same parent company...

Hmm, I don't know. I thought they were COMPETITORS. If they do have the same parent company and are competitors, that's a little strange and interesting.

Regardless, turning over this information when the reporter was willing to go to jail for a few months to protect it is despicable, and just another reason that it is a bad thing that large corporations own most of our media outlets.

I tend to agree except that if there is a way to reform corporate culture and how our legal system rewards corporations, then maybe it would be more OK. Who owns the NYT or do they own themselves?

 

[wit>trope]

karl rove leaking name to press as payback and endangering us lives and security == no problem with that

Um your facts are all wrong. If Karl Rove DID that, I would have a probelm with it (though I still don't think he should go to jail unless the danger to US lives and security was grave and he knew full well of said danger). But he did NOT do that.

1. He never mentioned her name. He only spoke of her as Wilson's wife. He didn't even know her name.

2. It was Cooper who called Rove about a different subject and it was only near the end of their long conversation that this came up as part of the RESPONSE to a question that COOPER asked. Cooper was trying to see why someone like Wilson (who was unqualified, etc.) had been sent on such an important mission and who was responsible for it (like if it was the VP). Rove told Cooper that the VP wasn't responsible, etc., and that apparently he got sent because his wife "apparently" works at the CIA.

3. So Rove was just mentioning something that what was common knowledge in Washington circles (by way of rumors ... kind of like how you might know someone is pregnant by way of rumors). It has been CONFIRMED by SEVERAL people that this was common knowledge, that this rumor was widespread (ex. Fred Barnes says he heard the rumor and he didn't hear it from Rove). Since it was a rumor he like many others had been hearing he used the word "apparently" works at the CIA.

4. Rove did NOT say that she was working "covertly" or anything like that. He had no idea she was a covert agent.

5. Rove told Cooper this in COOPER's own words on "double super top secret deep background" -- that means Cooper wasn't to use this information at ALL. This is DIFFERENT from "off the record" -- off the record means that you can use the information as long as you don't attribute it to the source. Some (including a liberal commentator) speculate that maybe the reason why Cooper held off on talking about Rove was because Cooper had BETRAYED Rove, by not honoring the "double super top secret deep background" aggreement (or maybe he wanted to redeem himself -- which would be admirable)

6. She was not in the conventional sense a covert agent. Facts which support this statement:

7. As above, it was common knowledge in the Washington rumor mill that she worked for the CIA.

8. The CIA told Novak that she wouldn't get another overseas assignment (in all likelihood) -- this before the "outing" ... so the outing didn't affect anything except that the CIA said that it might cause "difficulties" for her personally if she chose to travel (as in a tourist, etc.) overseas.

9. SHE COMMUTED TO AND FROM LANGLEY!!!!
How "covert" could she be if she commutted to and from CIA headquarters? Maybe in some extremely technical sense she was "covert" ... but come on guys, if she commuted to and from Langley, the CIA wasn't doing much to conceal her CIA status

10. A WASHINGTON POST (a liberal paper) reporter acknowledges that the CONTEXT of the conversation suggests that Rove was not trying to do any payback or anything like that, but was instead trying to dissuade Cooper from writing some things or relying on some things.

Time magzine revealing who was the sourse of the leak = Gross violation

Of course it's a gross violation. That doesn't mean those responsible should go to jail (though I might support that if the jail time is like for 2 or 3 days ... journalists are called to a HIGHER STANDARD than political operatives ... a journalist has professional ethics just as a doctor, priest, or lawyer has professional ethics ... political strategists are more like accountants ... which is why I don't support the accountants going to jail over the recent corporate scandals)

 

[wit>trope]

Miller, though, should obviously be in jail. My question is, why is she being hailed as a hero? It's not as if she's protecting some Felt-like maverick who's bringing down a corrupt administration. She's protecting a mean-spirited partisan, very possibly Karl Rove.

I don't think Rove is mean-spirted partisan and we don't know who she is protecting. It could be more than one person. But it doesn't matter who it is. It's not about how good a person it is that told you a professional secret. It's about how good a person YOU are to KEEP a professional secret. How good or bad the person who entrusted you witha professional secret is irrelevant.

I wonder if the President could pardon the NYT and have it avoid the fines. Before Miller was sent to jail, someone suggested the Pres could pardon her. I hope he does, but I don't think it will happen. Rove will probably tell the President not to do it

 

[VoodooAce]

Wait, you DO know that she told her lover LONG BEFORE Oct 2004, don't you? and well befefore the "outing."? If she told her lover on the 3rd or 4th date her CIA agent status, then she couldn't be that secret of an agent.

Your source puts "operative" in quotation marks, suggesting that it is doubtful that she even really is an operative in the conventional sense at all, let alone a top secret one. She probably just did some analysis or some other boring work for the CIA. She was NOT a James Bond style secret agent or a black ops agent or anything remotely like that. Anyone who thinks she was is being silly or watches too many movies.

6. She was not in the conventional sense a covert agent. Facts which support this statement:

You DO know that she was, officially, on covert status? Maybe she wasn't 'James Bond', but she WAS, officially, covert.

I don't think Rove is mean-spirted partisan and we don't know who she is protecting.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

 

[VoodooAce]

One other thing. Is the argument (I see it building, now) that Rove didn't reveal her name going to hold water with anyone?

 

[wit>trope]

One other thing. Is the argument (I see it building, now) that Rove didn't reveal her name going to hold water with anyone?

Um, that's not the main argument. I listed TEN points in my argument. Only one of them mentioned that he didn't reveal her name and THAT was only to correct a factual error someone had made. My argument would be JUST as strong without that point.

 

[wit>trope]

You DO know that she was, officially, on covert status? Maybe she wasn't 'James Bond', but she WAS, officially, covert.

Um she wasn't covert at all (at the time her "outing" happened) SHE COMMUTED TO AND FROM LANGLEY! Maybe she was "covert" on some paper in some filing cabinet somewhere on the 5th floor of Langley in the most obscure, nit-picking, technical sense, but for all intents and purposes she was not covert. Do you know what "Langley" is? That's the CIA headquarters! Everyone knows where it is and what's there. If she were really covert in the sense of taking effort to hide her working for the CIA, I don't think she'd be commuting to and from Langley.

This ALONE, proves that she wasn't covert in any conventional sense of the word.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

One other thing. Is the argument (I see it building, now) that Rove didn't reveal her name going to hold water with anyone?

Anyone who makes that argument needs to talk to Red (see signature).

From what I've seen so far (which is sporadic), it appears Rove did not break the law. However, I'm very bothered why it had to be uncovered rather than openly disclosed if he truely didn't think he was doing anything wrong. Instead of defending how much he didn't break the law he should be appologizing for covering it up. This is same problem I had when Clinton lied under oath. Absolutely ridiculous. He should resign for the cover up, even if it wasn't illegal.

 

[wit>trope]

From what I've seen so far (which is sporadic), it appears Rove did not break the law.

Yes, he is not the target of the prosecutor's investigation. We don't know who the target is, but it's been said that it's not him.

However, I'm very bothered why it had to be uncovered rather than openly disclosed if he truely didn't think he was doing anything wrong.

Well he DID presumably disclose all this during the course of the secret grand jury investigation. It's just that since grand jury proceedings are secret and the prosector's investigation is secret, we didn't know about it until now.

nstead of defending how much he didn't break the law he should be appologizing for covering it up.

Except that he didn't cover anything up.

This is same problem I had when Clinton lied under oath. Absolutely ridiculous. He should resign for the cover up, even if it wasn't illegal.

Um, lying under oath IS illegal. And Rove didn't lie under oath and in fact he didn't lie to ANYONE whether under oath or not. I've seen the statements he has made and they were not lies at all. For example in one statement he stated that he did not call Cooper -- which is absolutely 100% true -- it was COOPER that called him. If whoever was questioning were smart and wanted to dig for more info they would have asked, "I know now that you didn't call Cooper, Mr Rove, but did Cooper ever call you?" or something like that. This is not like the thing about the definition of "is" ... when you say that you didn't call someone, it's very clear what you mean even if some stupid reporter can't figure it out or is too polite to ask a follow-up question.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

Well he DID presumably disclose all this during the course of the secret grand jury investigation. It's just that since grand jury proceedings are secret and the prosector's investigation is secret, we didn't know about it until now.

My point is an investigation should have never been needed. When it came up publically he should have come out and explained the situation. Presumably, no investigation needed.

 

[FriendlyFire]

1. Why was it nesscary for CIA to threatern and jail Cooper if there was as such "no crime committed" ?

2. Why was Rove fired from Reagon administration for leaking information to NOVAK ?

3. Why did Bush Snr called the people who did this "Insidious tratiors" ? As you imply that no damage was done ?

4. Why is it clamined that the leaking of wilsons wife name jeapodise the undercover cia company she was working for. In addition that years of work were instantly undone. Her carreer was at an end and her working for the cia would be over ? (Nothing like a good smear to end ones career)

5. Why did the timming stink ?
After Bush address impley that Saddam was seeking uraniuim for Nigera , Wilson came forward to publicly speak the truth that it was false and he reported to the vice president it was such. Next thing we have vicious series of attacks on wilson ?

 

[wit>trope]

1. Why was it nesscary for CIA to threatern and jail Cooper if there was as such "no crime committed" ?

Um, dude, the CIA DID NOT THREATEN AND JAIL COOPER! It was a federal JUDGE, not the CIA who threatened to jail Cooper. And it was a CIVILIAN prosecutor who went after Cooper and Miller. CIA had NOTHING to do with that. The only thing the CIA did was after a long time after Novak's column had been written request that the Justice Department do a routine, mandatory investigation. That's it. CIA never requested that Cooper or anyone else be jailed or threatened with jail.

2. Why was Rove fired from Reagon administration for leaking information to NOVAK ?

Um ... who cares? Rove, just like most other government officials who are in the know about things, have leaked many things to DOZENS of different reporters. I don't think you understand how common leaks are. Pick up any newspaper and I guarantee you that there will be at least one and probably several if not a dozen stories that feature leaked information. Bush administration is considered the most leak-free in American history. Leaking is considered something bad INTERNALLY ... i.e. Bush doesn't like it when someone leaks something. REPORTERS LOVE LEAKS and LEAKERS ... that's how they get to write a lot of their stories. Some reporters were complaining about how Bush was being too heavy handed in stopping leaks. So you obviously don't know what you're talking about

3. Why did Bush Snr called the people who did this "Insidious tratiors" ? As you imply that no damage was done ?

What is "this"? Bush I hasn't said Rove did anything wrong in terms of the Plame situation. If Bush I said that those who deliberately leaked classified info are "insidious traitors" then that would not apply to Rove, since he didn't do that. So you're blowing hot air on this one. And yes no damage was done. That's what the CIA told Novak. The CIA said to Novak that she wouldn't be getting another overseas assignment but that mentioning her working for the CIA may cause her personally some "difficulties" if she chooses to travel personally overseas.

4. Why is it clamined that the leaking of wilsons wife name jeapodise the undercover cia company she was working for.

Um, the company existed only on paper. There was no physical company on the physical property. People who are under "deep cover" are supposed to work for a real company, that exists physically.

In addition that years of work were instantly undone.

Um, no. She was an "analyst" -- that means a desk job analyzing things. She was not a "spy" in the sense of going out and stealing things or assasinating people or anything like that. Her analyses haven't become any less or more valuable.

Her carreer was at an end and her working for the cia would be over ? (Nothing like a good smear to end ones career)

Um no, she could still work for the CIA. Lots of people openly work for the CIA. Only reason why she wasn't then openly working for the CIA was because of PAST work overseas.

5. Why did the timming stink ?
After Bush address impley that Saddam was seeking uraniuim for Nigera , Wilson came forward to publicly speak the truth that it was false and he reported to the vice president it was such. Next thing we have vicious series of attacks on wilson ?

Um you got your facts wrong and no one thinks Wilson is reliable ... just do some research on it ... he contradicts his own findings and talks about stuff he didn't even read. Also a BI-PARTISAN committee found that Wilson's wife was responsible for Wilson getting the assignment yet Wilson says that his wife was not responsible ... so a bi-partisan committee is basically saying that Wilson is lying about that. Also read the British LORD BUTLER report. It says that Blair's statement and Bush's statement was "WELL-FOUNDED" Read all of it here:

http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/

As for "coincidence" ... they didn't like him BEFORE he was even sent on the mission. He was a known liberal Clinton-loving Democrat. Only reason he got sent was because his wife at the CIA got him to go. And you're going to find a million coincidences all the time in life. If you are into conspiracy theories, you'll find a billion. Only about 1 in a million of these is actually signficant. This one isn't. A reporter from the liberal WASHINGTON POST agrees (another reporter from the same paper doesn't, but he's a liberal extremist -- Carl Bernstein -- and she's a reasonable woman)

 

[wilbill]

Yes, he is not the target of the prosecutor's investigation. We don't know who the target is, but it's been said that it's not him.

Who said he's not the target? The special prosecutor? "It's been said" doesn't provide much basis for your statement.

And Rove didn't lie under oath and in fact he didn't lie to ANYONE whether under oath or not. I've seen the statements he has made and they were not lies at all.

You've seen all the statements he made to the Grand Jury? To the FBI? Of course you haven't. What statements are you talking about and how do you know they're not lies? Your special gift of lie detection?

 

[wit>trope]

Who said he's not the target? The special prosecutor? "It's been said" doesn't provide much basis for your statement.

Lots of people have said it including the SPECIAL PROSECUTOR. So what are you going to do now with your anti-Rove hatred? ... I know you'll claim that the special prosector is in Rove's pocket

Luskin said prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "has confirmed repeatedly, most recently last week, that he (Rove) is not a target of the investigation."

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

Luskin said Rove "certainly did not disclose to Matt Cooper or anybody else any confidential information."

Rove has testified at least twice as part of the inquiry, but sources involved previously told CNN that while Rove acknowledged talking to reporters about the issue, he said he never knowingly disclosed classified information.

Luskin stressed that his client has cooperated fully with the government.

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

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/03/cooper.rove/

You've seen all the statements he made to the Grand Jury? To the FBI? Of course you haven't. What statements are you talking about and how do you know they're not lies? Your special gift of lie detection?

Um, I'm talking about the statements that Rove made in PUBLIC that some unreasonable people are jumping all over as being "Clintonesque" ... these were shown on TV. ALSO, if you see what I quoted above, Rove's lawyer says, "I've been assured by the prosecutor they have no reason to doubt the honesty of anything he's said" So the PROSECUTOR HIMSELF says that Rove is being honest in all that he said.

 

[wilbill]

So the PROSECUTOR HIMSELF says that Rove is being honest in all that he said.

No, Rove's attorney says that the prosecutor told him that. Do you believe everything lawyers say in defense of their clients? I don't.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Um, dude, the CIA DID NOT THREATEN AND JAIL COOPER! It was a federal JUDGE, not the CIA who threatened to jail Cooper. And it was a CIVILIAN prosecutor who went after Cooper and Miller. CIA had NOTHING to do with that. The only thing the CIA did was after a long time after Novak's column had been written request that the Justice Department do a routine, mandatory investigation. That's it. CIA never requested that Cooper or anyone else be jailed or threatened with jail.



Um ... who cares? Rove, just like most other government officials who are in the know about things, have leaked many things to DOZENS of different reporters. I don't think you understand how common leaks are. Pick up any newspaper and I guarantee you that there will be at least one and probably several if not a dozen stories that feature leaked information. Bush administration is considered the most leak-free in American history. Leaking is considered something bad INTERNALLY ... i.e. Bush doesn't like it when someone leaks something. REPORTERS LOVE LEAKS and LEAKERS ... that's how they get to write a lot of their stories. Some reporters were complaining about how Bush was being too heavy handed in stopping leaks. So you obviously don't know what you're talking about



What is "this"? Bush I hasn't said Rove did anything wrong in terms of the Plame situation. If Bush I said that those who deliberately leaked classified info are "insidious traitors" then that would not apply to Rove, since he didn't do that. So you're blowing hot air on this one. And yes no damage was done. That's what the CIA told Novak. The CIA said to Novak that she wouldn't be getting another overseas assignment but that mentioning her working for the CIA may cause her personally some "difficulties" if she chooses to travel personally overseas.



Um, the company existed only on paper. There was no physical company on the physical property. People who are under "deep cover" are supposed to work for a real company, that exists physically.



Um, no. She was an "analyst" -- that means a desk job analyzing things. She was not a "spy" in the sense of going out and stealing things or assasinating people or anything like that. Her analyses haven't become any less or more valuable.



Um no, she could still work for the CIA. Lots of people openly work for the CIA. Only reason why she wasn't then openly working for the CIA was because of PAST work overseas.



Um you got your facts wrong and no one thinks Wilson is reliable ... just do some research on it ... he contradicts his own findings and talks about stuff he didn't even read. Also a BI-PARTISAN committee found that Wilson's wife was responsible for Wilson getting the assignment yet Wilson says that his wife was not responsible ... so a bi-partisan committee is basically saying that Wilson is lying about that. Also read the British LORD BUTLER report. It says that Blair's statement and Bush's statement was "WELL-FOUNDED" Read all of it here:

http://www.butlerreview.org.uk/

As for "coincidence" ... they didn't like him BEFORE he was even sent on the mission. He was a known liberal Clinton-loving Democrat. Only reason he got sent was because his wife at the CIA got him to go. And you're going to find a million coincidences all the time in life. If you are into conspiracy theories, you'll find a billion. Only about 1 in a million of these is actually signficant. This one isn't. A reporter from the liberal WASHINGTON POST agrees (another reporter from the same paper doesn't, but he's a liberal extremist -- Carl Bernstein -- and she's a reasonable woman)

Funny thing is that a simple investigation should have been able to conclude within weeks. Instead it journalist are going to jail for not publishing cia agents name yet novak who did is free ?

Sure why not just have a nice list of CIA operatives name up on a website for easy access. There no damage done whatsoever.

She maintained her "cover" as a "energy industry analyst" rather then openly state she worked for the CIA ? could be that it would jepodise pervious operations ? Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a covert officer at the CIA.

Ah just like the finding of no WMDs and no link to 9/11 attacks. Even though the info turned out to be wrong. Yes the administration is blameless. while the people who got it right get fired and there wife gets exposed.

The butler report. lol
How about the downing street memo ? How about memo E ?
How about the First Dorssia on Saddams WMD which was pagarissed from a uni students essay ?

Dont like hearing the truth ? Just label them liberal clinton loving democrates Just like - Paul O'Neill, David Kay and Richard Clarke.
Do i see a pattern emerging here ?

For two years the whitehouse insisted that Rove was not the sourse of the leak. Now we find out he spoke to at least one reporter about Valerie Plame.

 

[zulu9812]

picked this up at http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/07/12/fox-news-anti-national-security/

FOX News anchor John Gibson just said onair that he thought Karl Rove deserves a medal if he outed Valerie Plame. Let me repeat: John Gibson, anchor at the FOX News Channel, says he believes that we ought to expose our covert government agents and harm national security… as long as it benefits Republicans.

I think that there's also a video at that link

EDIT: that video is, quite frankly, spectacular. People rightly criticise Bill O'Reilly, but even he says that his show is nothing more than an opinion-piece. This guy is a news anchor, presenting his scandalous opinion piece on a news show. It also seems that this sort of thing isn't out of place on FOX News either.

Simply put, he strings together a rediculous conspiracy theory. It's based on the fact that this woman recommended that her husband for the job to investigate the claims that Hussein sought yellow-cake in Niger. A particularly choice quote is "You wouldn't send a peacenik to see if we should go to war" - completely bypassing the fact that those documents were FAKE.

Oh, and the wife is a secret spymaster, apparently,

 

[cgannon64]

It's not about how good a person it is that told you a professional secret. It's about how good a person YOU are to KEEP a professional secret. How good or bad the person who entrusted you witha professional secret is irrelevant.

I can understand protecting a source that technically broke a law for an overaching social good - say, Deep Throat. But why would one protect a source that broke a law for a petty partisan purpose?

Because of some absurd invocation of free press and liberty? That doesn't make any sense! Would a reporter - and this is obviously a stretch, but only to make a point - keep a known murderer's name secret?

 

[Cuivienen]

Um she wasn't covert at all (at the time her "outing" happened) SHE COMMUTED TO AND FROM LANGLEY! Maybe she was "covert" on some paper in some filing cabinet somewhere on the 5th floor of Langley in the most obscure, nit-picking, technical sense, but for all intents and purposes she was not covert. Do you know what "Langley" is? That's the CIA headquarters! Everyone knows where it is and what's there. If she were really covert in the sense of taking effort to hide her working for the CIA, I don't think she'd be commuting to and from Langley.

This ALONE, proves that she wasn't covert in any conventional sense of the word.

She was covert in the only sense that matters to this discussion - she was officially covert. Any CIA agent who is considered to be a covert operative by the CIA is covert even if the CIA does not actively work to conceal their identity, and it is still a federal crime to reveal their name.

(And give no BS about Rove saying that "Wilson's wife" is a CIA agent is not the same as saying "Valerie Plame" is a CIA agent. It is. Doesn't matter if he didn't know her name, Wilson only has one wife.)

 

[wilbill]

picked this up at http://www.oliverwillis.com/2005/07/12/fox-news-anti-national-security/

Quote:
FOX News anchor John Gibson just said onair that he thought Karl Rove deserves a medal if he outed Valerie Plame. Let me repeat: John Gibson, anchor at the FOX News Channel, says he believes that we ought to expose our covert government agents and harm national security… as long as it benefits Republicans.

Sadly, this isn't the most offensive quote of the week by a Fox anchor. When covering the London bombings, Bret Hume admitted that his first thought was... how to make money from the tragedy.

"My first thought when I heard," said Brit, live on air, "just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, 'Hmmm, time to buy.'"