Posted on 10/07/2005 5:43:13 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove told President Bush and others that he never engaged in an effort to disclose a CIA operative's identity to discredit her husband's criticism of the administration's Iraq policy, according to people with knowledge of Rove's account in the investigation.
They said Rove's denial to Bush occurred during a brief conversation in July 2003, shortly after media reports revealed that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked as a covert CIA operative.
Those with direct knowledge of evidence gathered in the criminal investigation spoke to The Associated Press only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy.
Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is wrapping up an investigation into whether Rove; Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby; or other White House aides divulged Plame's identity in violation of federal law.
Besides the disclosure of Plame's identity, the investigation is examining whether presidential aides mishandled classified information, made false statements or obstructed justice.
Rove is slated to testify before the grand jury soon for a fourth time, although prosecutors have told him they no longer can assure he will avoid indictment. Rove offered in July to return to the grand jury for additional testimony, and Fitzgerald accepted that offer after taking grand jury testimony from the formerly jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
The discussion with Bush, along with others, was general and did not get into specifics concerning Rove's contacts with two reporters, Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who wrote stories identifying Plame, the people familiar with Rove's account said.
They said Bush asked Rove to assure him he was not involved in an effort to divulge Plame's identity and punish Wilson, and the longtime confidant assured him so. He answered similarly when White House press secretary Scott McClellan asked a similar question.
Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, declined Friday to comment on the specifics of the discussions with Bush but confirmed his client maintains — then and now — he did not engage in an effort to disclose Plame's identity.
Rove has told a grand jury he first learned of Plame's work for the CIA from news reporters and then discussed it with Novak and Cooper.
"Did Karl purposely set out to disclose Valerie Plame's identity in order to punish Joe Wilson for his criticism? The answer is, 'No,'" Luskin said. "That was his answer in July 2003 and in October 2003 (when he first testified) And it remains his answer today."
"He always truthfully denied that he was never part of any campaign to punish Joe Wilson by disclosing the identity of his wife," Luskin said.
In addition to Rove's discussions with reporters, investigators are also looking into a delay in learning about Rove's contact with Cooper and an e-mail between Rove and now-National Security Adviser Steve Hadley that referenced the conversation.
Cooper's contact with Rove did not come up in Rove's first interview or grand jury appearance, but he volunteered the information and provided the email during a second grand jury appearance.
Wilson, Plame's husband, went public on July 6, 2003, with criticism of Bush administration officials, suggesting they manipulated intelligence to justify the Iraq war.
Eight days later, Novak revealed the identity of Wilson's wife, giving her maiden name, Valerie Plame, the name she used as a covert CIA officer. Novak said his information about Wilson's wife had come from two senior administration officials.
Rove acknowledged talking to Novak about the story. Cooper's wrote a similar story a few days after also talking with Rove.
Bump.
bump!
We need to get this straight. Was she a CIA operative or was she a desk jockey? Or are desk jockey's considered operatives?
More recently she was a desk jockey, albeit an "important" desk jockey ~ more than a specialist, but less than a member of a top level Directorate.
The CIA is not in the habit of revealing these things about their employees.
They did refer a problem to Department of Justice. I strongly suspect it had to do with involvement of one or more American reporters with elements of French intelligence services concerning Niger's yellowcake business (which is run by France or a French company ~ others may know).
Ambassador Wilson may well have nothing whatsoever to do with it, or, in fact, he may have inadvertently "outed" a French intelligence agent, and France being an ally (even a bad ally, but still an ally) this may have precipitated the CIA's complaint to DOJ.
We shall see shortly.
Thanks. This is the part I wanted to know:
"Cooper's contact with Rove did not come up in Rove's first interview or grand jury appearance, but he volunteered the information and provided the email during a second grand jury appearance."
I wasn't sure if the Prosecutor/FBI found out about the Cooper call and brought it up to Rove or if Rove volunteered it. Another article today by Murray Waas (and hinted to in this article) spun it that because Rove did not bring up the Cooper call in his first GJ session that he was trying to cover something up. But since Rove volunteered it on the 2nd meeting (thanks to the email he found as a refresher) I don't see how someone can say its an attempt cover-up.
It seems to me time is of the essence. Was she a desk jockey at the time in question?
"Rove has told a grand jury he first learned of Plame's work for the CIA from news reporters and then discussed it with Novak and Cooper."
It's good to see this as well. I know this came out a while ago but it is important. To be in any trouble, Rove would have had to get the Plame info from a classified source. I know Rove said he can't remember which reporters told him, but I wonder if Miller or Pincus was one. Who knows? It sounds like plenty of reporters know about Plame.
Yes. At the time, she had been back in the states for six years. The law expressly defines "covered persons" as people who have served overseas in the previous five years.
When her name came up she was over the time limit specified in the law as best anyone can determine.
Well, THAT was easy. Am I the only one who thunk of asking these questions?
For those of us who have been following the story closely, that question was resolved with the issuance of Wilson's book, "The Politics of Truth" (sic). It's his timeline for Miss Valerie's repatriation...
I couldn't say how disgusted I am about all this "spy" stuff. when do all these people have time to do the people's business? Bunch of egotistical, self important morons if you ask me. Who cares? ---except they're ripping off the American taxpayer trying to convice us they're important to our survival. Better think again.
Looking more and more like the Identities Act isn't what Fitzgerald is going after. Sounding more and more (to me), like perjury.
(pardon my depressed musings...I'm just imagining how we would be reacting if two high staffers in the Clinton administration were caught up like this.)
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Well what's the feeling on FR about Rove being indicted? Think it's going to happen?
The fact that the grand jury investigation has continued nonetheless and that indictments seem imminent might indicate to you that appearances may be deceiving..
Who cares. Nobody ever gave a rats butt about this story except Bush Bashing turds.
The issue now might not be whether any law was broken in regards to Plames "outing",but if there is conflicting testimony among the players.
The prosecutor may be looking for a perjury or obstruction charge outside the main issue. In this case something to justify the investigation,differing from Clintons,when perjury and obstruction were the main focus of the investigation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.