Skip to comments.If Rove Wasn't Initial Source of Leak, Who Was? [LATimes laments]
Posted on 07/17/2005 4:22:38 AM PDT by johnny7
Some in GOP fear more revelations, and hope naming a court nominee will overshadow case.
WASHINGTON If Karl Rove was source No. 2, who was source No. 1? Rove, President Bush's top political advisor, has survived a bruising week of controversy over his role in the unmasking of a CIA officer. But White House officials and their Republican allies acknowledge that they may face more revelations in the weeks and months to come.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
This whole investigation, pushed by Democrats, could end up exposing the fact that there was a faction in the CIA that leaked classified info to undermine the Bush administration.
We Republicans have been complaining about this for some time, but this shines a spotlight on this all-to-common phenomenon.
If people in the gov't disagree with administration policy, they should make their concerns known within channels (not by writing op-eds in the NYT). If they are ignored, they can tender their resignations. They are not supposed to leak clasified data, or worse, misrepresent classified data, to undermine the administration.
Wilson didn't mind endgangering American lives around the world by publicly spreading lies, in the New York Times, that America went into Iraq based on Yellowcake lies.
From his own op-ed words, we can see that Wilson didn't care about Americans.
to which entity did Wilson pledge allegiance?
It will be as hard to find out who Wilson was trying to help, as it is hard to find out who "outted" Val Plame.
I found that in the article rereading it!
How on earth does that "confirm" anything? I heard that the "earth was flat." Does that confirm that it is flat?
I heard that Clinton didn't have sex with Monica; is that confirmation that he didn't?
Ah, It's my pleasure to inform you that I can only report what the article states. Basically the CIA would not have sent a referral if she was NOT a covert agent at the time. It really doesn't matter whether or not legally she was covert, the CIA sent the referral as if she was and the prosecutor is investigating based on that criteria.
The CIA declined to discuss Plame's intelligence work, but an agency official disputed suggestions that she was a mere analyst whose public exposure would have little consequence.The CIA is not a monolith, and some agents are apt to be working against the administration. Those agents would have a reason, albeit not a legitimate one, to file a complaint.
"If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file a criminal referral," the CIA official said, insisting on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation.
If Plame met the criteria for cover, required by 50 USC 421-426, maybe the leaker was a CIA agent. It wouldn't be the first time.
Anyway, I can imagine a couple scenarios, one being filing a complaint even though the agent wasn't covert, just to clarify the formal and public record.
Notice too, the comment, "If she was not undercover, we would have no reason to file ..." is NOT an official position of the CIA. The comment comes from an anonymous source, and for all we know, was made up out of whole cloth by the reporter.
I'm not saying it's true. I kept asking the question why is Fitzgerald investigation if she was NOT a covert agent. The media keeps portraying this as if she was a covert agent, so I investigated and that is what I found.
Based on the facts that you have a reporter sitting in jail for not revealing a source about where she learned the name of a COVERT agent leads one to conclude certain things.
Go back on this thread and read my post, you'll see I didn't for one second believe she was covert until I saw that article.
I beleive she is or was covert now based on the article only because the facts tend to lead in that direction.
Right, and I can buy that scenario, but the fact remains there is an ongoing investigation as if she WAS covert. That's a fact, unless there's something we really do not know.
My whole reason for bringing up this article is because I kept thinking based on reports that she was NOT covert, but the MSM kept writing articles as if she was. I was saying why would the MSM be so blantantly wrong about her status and keep reporting bogus info. So, I did a search and found that article.
Futhermore, based on a reporter sitting in jail for not revealing a source of someone who was NOT convert is pretty stupid and unneccessary UNLESS there is more to it! I believe this was setup against Bush and Rove, if you noticed in the article Schumer immediately suggested Rove be investigated.
A referral to the Justice Department that Valeri Plame's covert status was illegally divulged.
Who instigated it?
The Novak column stated that Plame worked for the CIA. The DEMs and the media whipped up a firestorm that this revelation involved a criminal leak of confidential information. The CIA prepared and sent the referral.
Justice launches probe into CIA leak - October 1, 2003 <- Some details
And what were the results?
Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, has not announced any results. There is rampant speculation as to whether Plame was in fac covert (i.e., whether or not there is a violation of law); as well as to who the leaker was in any event. The DEMs and the media assert that no matter what, Rove's conduct in acknowledgement, even if he wasn't a leaker, merits dismissal from his post.
Poor op-ed-libeller Joey Wilson suddenly found that he had to shovel a heavy load, didn't he?
Not quite the easy life of retirement he was anticipating.
No definitive source, but Isikoff's employer signed on to an amicus brief that agrues there was no violation of 50 USC 421-426.
The below links relate to a brief filed on behalf of 36 news organizations. One of the authors of the brief is Victoria Toensing, who has posed the same points in editorial columns expressing the function of the statute that forbids disclosure of covert operatives.
The brief itself is a 1.5 Mb PDF file - fair warning.
March 23, 2005 brief filed by 36 News organizations <- Arguing "no crime committed"
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2005/03/journalists_ami.html <- Commentary
Nice answers, thanks.
That's my $64,000 Question. I believe the answer to that question is YES.
It can be failrly inferred. CIA has no legal prosecution power, so it has to file complaints with Justice. Justice doesn't act on all complaints filed, in most cases because no leads are provided. That is, they have no person to go after, just the presence of a leak.
The President wants to know who the leaker is too, and the press called for an independent investigation. In principle, CIA and Justice are on the same side, using the same laws, etc.
There is considerable speculation, and it is well described in the media's brief, that the CIA filed the complaint as a matter of CYA or as a defense against a charge that the CIA was unprofessional in handling the covert status of Plame.