home

Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here

The news is reporting that Karl Rove's lawyer's said Sunday that Rove mentioned Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA to Matthew Cooper before the Novak article was published.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove spoke with at least one reporter about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA before she was identified as a covert agent in a newspaper column two years ago, but Rove's lawyer said yesterday that his client did not identify her by name.

Rove had a short conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper on July 11, 2003, three days before Robert D. Novak publicly exposed Plame in a column about her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV. Wilson had come under attack from the White House for his assertions that he found no evidence Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger and that he reported those findings to top administration officials. Wilson publicly accused the administration of leaking his wife's identity as a means of retaliation.

I don't think Rove has admitted a crime. This is nothing different than what Luskin has been saying for the past week. As I wrote here on July 5:

....the primary requisite intent for the offense of disclosing the identity of a covert operative is intentionally and knowingly. Specific intent is a higher burden for the government to prove than just "knowingly." In other words, the disclosure must have been intentional and in making the disclosure he had to know he was both identifying a covert agent and that the United States was taking affirmative measures to conceal that agent's intelligence relationship to the U.S.

It now looks like Rove may have admitted he disclosed that Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, but did not mention her name - he maintains he didn't know her name.

On July 7, I wrote:

After Cooper got his call [from his soucrce], the New York Times reports there was a conference between lawyers for Rove and Cooper and Fitzgerald.

Mr. Cooper's decision to drop his refusal to testify followed discussions on Wednesday morning among lawyers representing Mr. Cooper and Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser, according to a person who has been officially briefed on the case. Mr. Fitzgerald was also involved in the discussions, the person said.

I think during the discussions they disclosed what Cooper's testimony would be and Fitzgerald agreed Cooper did not implicate Rove in a crime.

Earlier today, I wrote:

USA today reported on October 8, 2003:

On Tuesday, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan ruled out three senior Bush aides as possible sources of the leak: Karl Rove, Bush's political adviser; Lewis Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff; and Elliott Abrams, a senior official on the National Security Council. All have been named in Washington speculation.

He said each, when asked by him, denied leaking the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson to newspaper columnist Robert Novak, who revealed her identity in an article July 14. "They were not involved in leaking classified information, nor did they condone it," McClellan said.

They denied leaking "the name." That is consistent with what Karl Rove and his lawyer have said. Lawyers parse words for a reason. "I did not disclose her name" and "I did not knowingly leak classified information" does not foreclose that he said "Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA" without mentioning in what capacity. And I think that's just what Karl Rove told Matthew Cooper, and if Rove did not know that Plame had ever been an undercover operative, then he's probably in the clear on an unlawful disclosure charge.

I don't think Karl Rove is looking at a perjury charge or a charge of unlawful disclosure of an undercover agent. I suspect that was made clear to Rove's lawyer during discussions that took place between Cooper's lawyer, Rove's lawyer and Fitzgerald in the 24 hours before Rove let Cooper off the confidentiality hook. Otherwise, Luskin would never have allowed Rove to release Cooper from his confidentiality pledge.

I think if Fitgerald has a target in sight it is Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby and possibly other members of the White House Iraq Group. Of course, since Rove attended most of the Group's weekly meetings, he may have some exposure there on a conspiracy charge - or on a false statement or perjury charge if he told investigators or the grand jury something different on an earlier occasion.

And then again, maybe now Fitzgerald will close the investigation and write a report saying he investigated every possible lead with the exception of Judith Miller's source, and without Judith Miller's cooperation, we can't prove a crime against anyone.

But my money's still on Lewis Libby.

Update: The New York Times has quotes from both Karl Rove's and Lewis Libby's lawyers - and both now deny that their clients gave "personal" waivers to Matt Cooper. Luskin said Rove never spoke to Cooper on the day of the hearing. Cooper is now saying by using the word "personal" he meant "specific." But Luskin and Libby's lawyers now say they never did anything but reaffirm the general waiver given to the FBI. It's probably neither here nor there in terms of the investigation, but still, it's curious.

< Skippy Turns Three | Cyrus Kar Released >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:03 PM EST
    How does Fitzgerald know that Judith Miller's testimony is essential to prove a crime? Because he did not get anything so far? Because she has refused to reveal her source? Because her source has not waivered her yet? I don't get it. She may commit perjury easily to protect her source without endangering herself.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    I think it's because he knows her source he just doesn't know what was discussed. The court opinion (PDF)upholding Miller's contempt described her subpoenas as:
    In the meantime, on August 12 and August 14, grand jury subpoenas were issued to Judith Miller, seeking documents and testimony related to conversations between her and a specified government official “occurring from on or about July 6, 2003, to on or about July 13, 2003, . . . concerning Valerie Plame Wilson (whether referred to by name or by description as the wife of Ambassador Wilson) or concerning Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium.”
    She has said the source signed a general waiver but not one specific to her. Since she wouldn't comply with the subpoena which named a certain person, it's a fair inference that the person named in the supboena was her source.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#3)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    But WHY was he talking about "Wilson's wife"? Just a casual oh-by-the-way, to a frikkin REPORTER? Even if it was an honest mistake (LMFAO), that's gotta make him slightly dumber than a bag of sticks. Remember, budding young neoc**ts, you don't have to defend him. Just... attack... ME!

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    I still think that if this investigation wholy depends on Miller's testimony, Miller and her source can easily fabricate what was discussed between them. If the special prosecutor has other ways to prove it perjury, the case will close.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    The whole scandal is a clear buttress to the Downing Street files. The untrue propaganda to drive the country into war is a matter of record, and it is clear that Rove or Libby or Cheney's purpose was not in any way a concern for national security damage. It was an act of political revenge, in line with a treasonous lying to the American people and their Congress, in the cause of illegal invasion to install airbases and profit from the terrorism of that act.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    Rove disclosed that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA but he has insisted that he did not mention her name and he didn't know her name. Does it matter whether he knew her name or not? I think that Rove disclosed her identity in the very legal sense if he told a reporter that Wilson's wife is a covert operative, which is not for certain now. If he did so, the reporter could easily find out her name after all. Let's assume that Novak did not mention Valerie Plame in his original column and just refered her as Wilson's wife. Then, was there no crime committed at all?

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#7)
    by owenz on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    I think a major unknown issue involves why Novak, and not the other seven reporters, chose to publish Plame's name. Novak might be a shill, but he's a seasoned guy. Would he really "out" Plame if he understood her covert role at CIA? I have a strong feeling Novak published based on mistaken or limited knowledge. If Rove casually mentioned that "Wilson's wife is CIA" to Novak – and gave Bob the impression Plame's identity was no big secret – Novak could have published her name based on a mistake assumption. Luskin seems to be saying Rove only had limited knowledge of Plame's role at CIA when he told Novak and others about "Wilson's wife." According to Luskin, Karl never used Plame's name and didn’t “know” she was undercover. The implication is that Rove shared Plame's identity casually, without knowing its true impact or the extent of her role at CIA. If that were truly the case, Karl would not be guilty under Section 421, which requires specific knowledge of the agent's undercover status. All he’d be guilty of is spreading some inside the beltway gossip about a political opponent’s wife. There’s only one problem: Miller. Media reports have implied Miller had a greater role in this fiasco than people like Cooper and Novak. What if Miller’s notes show she and Rove had a frank and open discussion about Wilson that included specifics about Plame's role at CIA? What if she and Karl even discussed the implications of leaking Plame's name, and how such a leak could be accomplished? It wouldn't even take that much, of course. All Miller's notes really have to show is that she and Rove discussed Plame's role in some detail prior to Rove innocently mentioning "Wilson's wife" to Novak. Karl has run into problems in the past when he's gotten too smart for his own good. Maybe he realized he couldn't directly "out" Plame without running afoul of Section 421, so he chose to casually mention “Wilson’s wife” to a group or reporters, knowing he could always pretend it was an innocent mistake if one of them decided to publish it. A scheme like that would probably work...as long as he didn't discuss Plame in detail with someone like Miller before hatching it. Of course, considering how tight Miller and the White House were at that point, maybe it's not surprising he trusted her. Even if Fitzgerald doesn't have enough to get Rove under Section 421, there's lots of room to nail Karl for perjury or obstruction in the scenario above. If Rove told the grand jury he didn't know Plame's covert status prior to discussing "Wilson's wife" with Novak, Miller's notes don't need to show a lot to prove Karl lied.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#8)
    by Tom Maguire on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    But Luskin and Libby's lawyers now say they never did anything but reaffirm the general waiver given to the FBI. It's probably neither here nor there in terms of the investigation, but still, it's curious. All I get from that is that Cooper finally accepted the same reassurance that Ms. Miller has refused to accept, namely, the general waiver.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#9)
    by owenz on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    Yes, but what do Miller's notes say? Luskin and Rove have painted Karl into a narrow corner at this point. If Miller's notes show Karl knew about Plame's role at CIA prior to his discussions with Novak and Cooper, he's toast on perjury and perhaps a lot more.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#10)
    by owenz on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    I still think that if this investigation wholy depends on Miller's testimony, Miller and her source can easily fabricate what was discussed between them. If the special prosecutor has other ways to prove it perjury, the case will close. It may not wholy rest on Miller's testimony. Let's remember who we're dealing with here: Karl Frickin' Rove. If you're Fitzgerald, you're not going to charge him until you're absolutely positive you've got all your ducks lined up. Miller may be the last nut for him to crack before bringing charges. With her rotting in jail he can afford to be patient. Let's see if she wants to talk after another 60 days...

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#11)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    et al - This is from Newsweek via Powerline.com:
    In a brief conversation with Rove, [TIme reporer Matthew] Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson's criticisms. NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time's editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine's corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger..." Newsweek notes that "[n]othing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative." Newsweek notes that "[n]othing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative.
    Sorry folks.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#13)
    by The Heretik on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    Where to start on this? Everyone is now covering their butts with as much newsprint as possible. Cynical positioning goes on even as some go to jail, some are about to go the press yet again with a spin, and some reporters are revealed to be more like college frat boys. More farcical political comedy will follow with yet more splitting of the meaning of words. Genius? Boy, I think not.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#14)
    by owenz on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    Do we really need Newsweek "via Powerline"? Thanks, but I'll just visit newsweek.com if that's ok. Fitzgerald is building his case. There are three key pieces of information: 1. What Rove told the grand jury he knew about Plame's role at CIA when he spoke to Cooper. 2. Cooper's notes say Rove said about Plame, and when it was said. 3. What Rove actually knew about Plame's role at CIA, as documented in Miller's notes and other sources. Fitzgerald has had #1 for a while and just got #2. If #3 doesn't match the first two, Rove is in trouble.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#15)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    owenz - Hmmm. Snippy, eh? Didn't like the information? So what you're saying is that the best they can do is perjury? Somehow I don't think Rove told different stories, and if someone says so then the next problem is "Who do you believe?" in front of a jury. Kinda like what the meaning of "is," is. ;-)

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    It seems like you based some of your conclusions on the assumption that Rove called Cooper and worked out a deal. The new report in the NYT suggests that Rove’s lawyer was surprised that Cooper will be testifying. Should this revelation make you rethink your previous logical arguments? Reviewing the case suggests that as far as Rove goes it comes down to the question of whether revealing that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA …. presents a problem for him, legal or political. Does the fact that he did not use her explicit name clear him? Again there are the legal and the political aspects to consider.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#17)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    DA - So now we know that neither the VP or the head of the CIA sent Wilson on his mission. That's interesting, because it shows an agenda. I mean, why did Wilson want to go to Niger, and why did he get his wife to sponsor it? It shows an intent, and it explains why the administration was upset, and shows why they felt they needed to establish some background. Indeed, it goes to the motives of both sides.
    it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip
    So why was that? Why did Wilson want to go? What was he trying to accomplish? Perhaps this," which is just an attack on Bush's policy. And then we have from May's article :
    What's more, he was affiliated with the pro-Saudi Middle East Institute and he had recently been the keynote speaker for the Education for Peace in Iraq Center, a far-Left group that opposed not only the U.S. military intervention in Iraq but also the sanctions and the no-fly zones that protected Iraqi Kurds and Shias from being slaughtered by Saddam.
    BTW - If you go to May's article and click on the Education for Peace in Iraq you will get a look at what they are currently trying to sell the more gullible of the English public. So now we know that Rove was pis*ed at Wilson, and now we know why he was. We also know that, apparently, he has kept his ducks in order and committed no crime in the payback. Tempest meet teapot.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    Hey sparky, two wrongs don't make a right. Perhaps your mum should have spoken to you a bit more PPJ.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    Perhaps you and your ilk can remember this advice PPJ: When pissed or getting even, try not to commit a felony and say, shucks, I was just gettin even.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#20)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    JL - If you were astute enough you would be able to ascertain that I offered no forgiveness for Rove, I merely show the motives for both sides. And neither motive is worthy of anyone supposedly in a leadership position. Of the two, one is anger. The other appears to be a calculated desire to oppose the President's war policy while a major war is going on. You may pick your own "least worst" of the two. I think I know your pick. ;-) Now, please return to your regularly scheduled inaccurate charging.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    Posted by owenz: "he's a seasoned guy. Would he really "out" Plame if he understood her covert role at CIA?" Would Novak do his duty to the coup? You bet he would. Plenty of people get dirtied by association with conspiracy who might not otherwise, until they are told to (and there are plenty of operatives willing to put hammers to delicate parts among this mob). But Novak doesn't need the hammers. He's a willing get.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    PPJ: Your "explanation" can only be considered defensive in nature as your typical MO here is to fault the left and praise the right. If you are so dense (and I assume you are) to assume that a substantial portion of readers here do not feel there was a political motive on either side and need to explain it, perhaps you should upgrade those intellect of those you associate with personally as they are having a serious impact on your authoritarianism. Secondly, you opine on nearly every topic and claim a side on nearly every topic, which of course goes to argument here that your "explanation" is certainly a "defense" of Rove. Do you lack an opinion on this or hasn't Rush spoken yet? Your arguments seldom come from your own reasoning and logic and almost always read along the points of punditry. I can only assume that you are devoid of the ability to reason on your own. Again PB&J, your mum should have spent a wee bit more time talking to you.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    P.S. While a MAJOR WAR is going on. He outed a CIA agent, some might call that treason, but of course they would be republicans and the accused would have to be a leftie. Let me know when Rush et al tell you what your argument is, perhaps then we can have a grown up discussion.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    I love this. PPJ makes reasoned commentary, minus the personal attacks and insults. Here's what's KNOWN so far, what would make Rove guilty, what would make Rove innocent, etc. Then you've got Jlvngstn -- all hyperbole, opinion, insults -- but it's PPJ's mom who didn't tell him (her?) how to play nice? And then Jlv. has the nerve to talk about 'grown up discussion'. I don't care what side you're on, people, but if you can't keep it 'grown up', stay home.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#25)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    Scott, Here is a great assessment of "what we know" so far. PPJ is anything but a reasoned source of info, tho a fellow free American whose opining I encourage, since we're all free to. Plame-gate So Far

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#26)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    Also, the splitting of hairs by the right here, i.e. Rove didn't i.d. her "by name", is weak and deluded at best -- and far worse than any hair-splitting Clinton did about whether a BJ constitutes "sex". There are a good number of people, though I may disagree with their definition, who actually believe oral sex is not intercourse and much lower on the scale of adulterous wrongs. As for the Valerie Plame hair-splitting, is not describing her as Joe Wilson's wife, de facto naming her? Mrs. Joe Wilson is certainly a kind of name in our society, and info that makes it easy as pie to find her real name and disseminate it as part of the wider smear on the couple. There is no one I know who wouldn't consider Mrs. Joe Wilson a name. And don't come back at me with her i.d. as CIA was known, that she really wasn't covet, I have seen nothing that leads me to believe she was "outed" in a legal sense, and that this was done for purely politcally retributive purposes by very high persons in this utterly failed administration. Hey, they may get off, but so did Nixon technically.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#27)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    That should read "...I have seen nothing that leads me to believe she WASN'T "outed" in a legal sense, and that it WASN'T done for anything but purely politically retributive purposes..."

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:05 PM EST
    Let us recall that this crime is not merely about V. Plame, but also the FRONT COMPANY which was outed by this illicit, criminal politicization of our national security. Dangling atom bombs over the heads of Americans in order to prosecute an illegal invasion against a disarmed country is treason. Outing an entire front company certainly outs a great many spies, operatives, informants, and innocent office workers. C. Rice outed to the NYT the name of an Al Qaeda MOLE who the British had turned. That mole was reportedly in contact with AQ terrorists in the US planning another attack. WHY would the NS advisor out a mole, an intelligence asset of the British, to a newspaper? Why would they then publish it? And who pays for the MI6 and other agents who had to then try to arrest whomever they could, at considerable risk to themselves? C Rice was promoted. Genghiz Bush promotes anyone incompetant and treasonous enough to give him a giggle. Scare them with nukes, the silly twits. And sell their wives and their families to the terrorists if they complain.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:05 PM EST
    Scott, PB&J and I have been fighting for 2 years, when I insult you, please come to your own defense. With 2 years of debate behind us and an active log which tracks peoples leanings and siding on debates, it provides some historical context to perspective. PB&J has not been consistent with his opinion or debating integrity on issues, his stance on issues varies greatly with the party accused of wrongdoing. Had you any long term perspective of the arguments PB&J has made and with which the venom and anger he displays toward those that are not "patriotic" it might have been more revealing to you relative to this argument as well as others. I like to think that consistency with regard to issues such as this one where someone with access such as Rove, would merit the same screaming and yelling and resignation demands of that of a let's say Clinton or even Rather. See me notes on Clinton and the definition of "is", deplorable. See PB&J's notes on Rather. See my notes on Rather (strongly suggested he resign). Or my notes on Byrd (whigger) also thought that he should resign immediately. Sure my comments are insulting, no more than the 4987 times PB&J has asked someone to read a history book in order to understand the logic of his arguments. Such as comparing to Hussein to Hitler relative to the subsequent danger he presented, which of course was obvious in our what, 11 day dismantling of his military "empire". Do yourself a favor, let PB&J defend himself and offer me a postion as his secretary and proffer suggestions as to the proper way to read a history book. I will continue to call PB&J out on his hypocrisy my own special way and will continue not to insult those that articulate arguments from their own logic base as opposed to what Rush et al say they should say.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:05 PM EST
    P.S. Scott do you have anything to add to the discussion at hand which of course is Rove v Plame?

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:05 PM EST
    "Training agents such as Plame, 40, costs millions of dollars and requires the time-consuming establishment of elaborate fictions, called "legends," including in this case the creation of a CIA front company that helped lend plausibility to her trips overseas. "Compounding the damage, the front company, Brewster-Jennings & Associates... apparently also was used by other CIA officers whose work now could be at risk, according to Vince Cannistraro, formerly the agency's chief of counterterrorism operations and analysis. "Now, Plame's career as a covert operations officer in the CIA's Directorate of Operations is over. Those she dealt with - whether on business or not - may be in danger. The DO is conducting an extensive damage assessment. "And Plame's exposure may make it harder for American spies to convince foreigners to share important secrets with them, U.S. intelligence officials said. (Knight Ridder article, two years ago) So, where is the DO's report? Has Congress been informed of the results of the investigation? Has CIA Director Goss covered it up? How far are they willing to go to cover their passionate destruction of our national security apparatus, in favor of telling the world that the US is too weak to protect itself, except by terrorizing the innocent, for oil and illegal airbases.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#32)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:05 PM EST
    Posted by Poker Player (aka Jim) at September 16, 2004 06:14 AM et al - So, another Democrat comes and says the memos were fake, but correct. Uh-huh. Sure. What a nice way to slide. I'd like to know how much coaching she received. When a demo is accused of lying this is what we get from PB&J, when a Repub is accused of wrongdoing we get "explanations" from PB&J. Simple really, wrong is wrong. I know calling PB&J names is wrong, but I ain't committin' no felony. Just adding an exclamation point to the obvious.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#33)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:06 PM EST
    Scott - Thanks for the kind words. And JL does have a point. I do tell people to read some history when it is obvious they haven't. ;-) JL writes:
    If you are so dense (and I assume you are) to assume that a substantial portion of readers here do not feel there was a political motive on either side and need to explain it,
    Dense? Well, you are the one who attacked me for "defending" Rove when the whole comment was centered on motives. And yes, I think that it is helpful to remind many who comment here of the motives of BOTH sides. In fact, I offered you your choice of who had the worst motives, since both were bad. As for your quote, from 9/16/04, why didn't you provide the whole quote, or at least link to it? What we have here is a few sentences with no context. Frankly, I consider that dishonest, and as much as we disagree, I thought better of you than that. But, based on my memory, I believe you are referring to the 80 plus year old lady who the CBS/Demos attempted to use to shore up the rapidly collapsing fake TANG memos. Come to think of it, I now know why you didn't provide the context. BTW - You sure picked a great example to talk about lying. BTW - You can compare Saddam to Hitler quite easily. It took Hitler years and years to kill 6 million plus people. If Saddam had been successful in building a couple of nukes, he would have had al-Qaida do it in 10 seconds. Different technologies, different times. Same type of killers. You write:
    PB&J has not been consistent with his opinion or debating integrity on issues, his stance on issues varies greatly with the party accused of wrongdoing.
    I assume you meant PPJ, otherwise known as me.... I invite you to show where I have not been consistent. I don't believe you can. I have supported the WOT and the polices there of. I have supported social liberal issues. Show me a flip. PIL - As someone who has posted he didn't give a flip about Clinton's BJs and thought the Repubs' strategy in '98 was stupid, I think I am qualified to understand the current situation. We can argue about Rove's hair splitting, but there was no doubt about Clinton's. Et al - I note that none of you have challenged the motives I specified.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:06 PM EST
    Jim: "If Saddam had been successful in building a couple of nukes, he would have had al-Qaida do it in 10 seconds." Absolutely not one shred of evidence to support that claim. And no nuclear program. A disarmed country, under the most extensive (and successful) monitoring program in human history. Instead, a genocide to install airbases, based on paperthin LIES like you spread all day long. What part of keeping us safe was leaving Tuwaitha and the other eight nuclear dumps WIDE OPEN for a full month? We've done this list before, but you're all out of wild cards -- except for killing more Americans through one of Genghiz Bush's four patented methods: • Negligence and long vacations • Failure to plan for obvious exigencies • Pre-existing conspiracies to achieve geopolitical goals that violate law and treaty across the board • Greed and a profit motive that ignores all graft, all theft, all mishandling of American funds Jim: "I think I am qualified to understand the current situation." HILARIOUS. Really, truly, hilarious. You have committed genocide. And you dare compare that to a foolish sexual act, the sort of act that 90% of your Congressmen have committed. And still you suck Satan's thumb, like the true babe in the woods you pretend to be. Repugnants is right.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#35)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:06 PM EST
    PB&J: As for your quote, from 9/16/04, why didn't you provide the whole quote, or at least link to it? What we have here is a few sentences with no context. Frankly, I consider that dishonest, and as much as we disagree, I thought better of you than that. Because the sentence before it was a snarky comment to another poster and beared no relevance, but here it is in its entirety: Posted by Poker Player (aka Jim) at September 16, 2004 06:14 AM Mike B - Wanta buy a bridge? Hardly used. Near NYC and other points of interest. ;-) et al - So, another Democrat comes and says the memos were fake, but correct. Uh-huh. Sure. What a nice way to slide. I'd like to know how much coaching she received. You of course KNEW that I did not crop out the post, but figured you could get away with casting an accusation of intellectual dishonesty on my part. Here was my stance on Rather: Posted by Jlvngstn at September 16, 2004 06:49 AM Tex: I think Rather should resign based on his approval of the story. The 3 experts they had all said that they refused to authenticate the docs and he went with it anyway. He had to see that. Do I think Rather lied? No. Does that matter? No. He ran with a story that had serious implications and an obvious and significant hole. Checks and balances in the run up to the war might have made a difference in the decision to go to war. But the media has been on a play it first check it later mentality for years and I for one would like to see greater accuracy and balance in the media. Let dan be the poster boy for an enema of the system.... Consistency in moral values and ethics is something you are completely devoid of PB&J. Making excuses for Karl Rove outing a CIA officer bespeaks of what a hypocrite you are and demonstrates your lack of patriotism. You do not defend what is correct in a situation, you defend the RIGHT.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:06 PM EST
    Dadler, thanks for the link yesterday - good article. Jlvngstn, I didn't know about any past history re posts, commenting styles, etc. I was just going by what I saw. But you're right; I'll stick to the subject, and let people fight their own battles. I just think the insults drag the discourse down -- but make for good reading. Re what I think about the actual subject, Rove-Plame: short answer, Rove gotta go. Longer answer, Based on what is known, and can reasonable be assumed, there are 3 possible actions: 1) Rove gets indicted and charged with a felony for purposely outing Plame (perhaps as a 1a, charged for committing perjury before a grand jury); 2) Rove gets fired/resigns; or 3) he gets one of those Freedom Medals (or another one). Only 1 and 2 matter at this point. 1) I don't see him charged with this crime because it's a very narrow legal definition. She has to be covert, he has to know she's covert, he has to have a certain security clearance with access to certain info (sorry for the vagueness, can't remember the particulars right now). He may be charged with perjury, everything will be much clearer when Miller talks. That will be important. None of this legal maneuvering should be enough to save him. And I agree that saying he didn't out her 'cause he didn't actually use her name is, well, stupid. Actually, much more than stupid, but you get the idea. Which brings me to 2). 2) Gotta go. I believe he needs to resign or better, the President should demand his resignation. The fact is, he said he had nothing to do with it, the admin. went to bat for him, said if anybody's involved they have to go, and that if he talked to anybody it was after the fact (Cooper's email shows this isn't true). Even if you believe this wasn't a purposeful outing to get back at Wilson, and it was a mistake, it was a huge one, and he has to pay. The next person from this admin. to get fired will be the first one, so get on with it.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#37)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:06 PM EST
    JL&bs - I ask why you couldn't provide the complete quote and you are concerned about someone's feeling's? And you could't clip the complete quote???
    Because the sentence before it was a snarky comment to another poster and beared no relevance, but here it is in its entirety:
    Hey JL&bs. You can clip part or all of words, sentences, paragraghs. And your next excuse is?

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:06 PM EST
    Posted by Poker Player (aka Jim) at September 16, 2004 06:14 AM Mike B - Wanta buy a bridge? Hardly used. Near NYC and other points of interest. ;-) et al - So, another Democrat comes and says the memos were fake, but correct. Uh-huh. Sure. What a nice way to slide. I'd like to know how much coaching she received. There it is PB&J. The whole quote, what does that say for your argument? It brings nothing to the argument and again proves your distortion and dishonesty.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#39)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:06 PM EST
    Scott, thanks, I agree it does lower the discourse level tremendously and I shoul demonstrate far more restraint, however I cannot help myself after 2 years of reading PB&J's hypocritical rationalizations. The pleasure he took in seeing the demise of rather, combined with his "outrage" over rather's behavior and his general opinion of anyone "anti-bush" only goes to argument as he declares himself a social liberal and not a Bush or Right defender.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:06 PM EST
    More PB&J on Rather: Posted by Poker Player (aka Jim) at November 24, 2004 11:15 PM glanton - Cleverness is not your strong suit. "If you really think he lied on purpose to get Bush then i can see why you think he's disgraced. But the facts don't support that." The question is simply, what facts do you have that don't support Rather's desire to attack Bush - you do remember his famous exchange with GHWB, don't you? - and his general position as carrying the water for the Demos. Then we have the fact that he rushed the memos into the limelight, even though his own experts were urging caution. And don't blame the female producer. Rather had 100% editorial control and he excercised it. And even after any reasonable person would have backed away, we have him arguing that they were fake, but accurate, using a very aged person. At the same time, he was ignoring the family who were in total disagreement. Reasonable reporters don't make mistakes like that. They just don't. He wanted an October suprise and to get Bush.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#41)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:06 PM EST
    JL&bs - Nope, that dog won't hunt. It won't even get off the porch. You provided a paragraph, with no context. No link. Nothing except a date and time. You and I both know that it is possible to dig back through the archives without a category and/or thread's name, but very time consuming. I mean, why didn't you provide a link? That would have brought anyone interested right to the thread, and the comment. Oh, I remember. You didn't want to hurt someone's feeling's?? Better check your own work, JL&bs. So you made the comment to try and make me look bad, thinking that I wouldn't be able to comment and defend it. Problem was, my meory, though less than what it was, still isn't bad for an old man.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:06 PM EST
    Who said I did not want to hurt someones feelings? It added nothing to the comment, other than demonstrate your lack of ability to insult with a buy a bridge joke. If your memory is so good, why is there no defense to the quote? All I see are weak attempts to attack me, which of course is a definite "tell" on your part. I guess you are right, I will post the links to make it easier for people to access: Hypocrite and a fraud, as I said, your mum should have done a better job raisin ya. http://talkleft.com/new_archives/007900.html#007900 http://talkleft.com/new_archives/007948.html#007948

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:06 PM EST
    Can't believe this. I just wrote the mother of all posts, the most eloquent, beautiful piece of crap I've ever done, but I was timed out and lost it. The gist of it was, I'm confused as to Valerie Plame's actual status. I've read she was a covert agent working out of a front company in Boston, but I've also read she was compromised years earlier in the Aldrich Ames case, and was brought back into an open position working in WMD. This would gel with the 'worst kept secret on the cocktail circuit' story; more importantly, I read her recommendation of Wilson was written on CIA letterhead and signed by her (not very James Bond). Doesn't do too much for Rove (I said above he should at least be fired), but it at least makes it plausible that the evil genius thought she was just what he said she was (at least to Cooper): a CIA employee in WMD who recommended her husband for an assignment. So which of her designations is correct?

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:06 PM EST
    Jlv, don't know your history with PPJ regarding Rather, and don't want to visit Danny Boy now (much better stuff going on), but in the interest of full disclosure, I thought Rather was a fraud and a fool, and took great pleasure in his fall.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#45)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:06 PM EST
    Thanks for providing that Scott, nice to have some context around views for the sake of discussion. I will try to behave more appropriately for the sake of all the other readers, it is rather selfish when I am not.

    Re: Rove's Lawyer's Admission: Nothing New Here (none / 0) (#46)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:08 PM EST
    scott, if revealing her name had no legal consequences, do you think an independent council, in a republican controlled government, would be going after this so hard? plame worked for the CIA in a capacity that was harmed by her "outing". if that weren't the case, i doubt there'd be anything going on around this. but there is, in a big way. and let's be honest, reverse the roles here. what do you think the right would be doing with charges like this against the left? in that context, the left has been very light on the rage. but it's only going to get worse. count on it.