Breaking: We May Get a Perp Walk Yet In the CIA Leak

Status
Not open for further replies.

bountyhunter

member
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
3,421
Location
Fascist-Fornia
I think it was Jay Leno who recently quipped that the first piece of legislation the repubs will be introducing is a law to give the death penalty for prison rape........ :neener:


Freed after 85 days in a federal detention center, Miller was to testify Friday for Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation about her conversations in July 2003 with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby.



Miller Agrees to Testify in CIA Leak Probe

By JOHN SOLOMON
WASHINGTON (AP) - Finally agreeing to testify, New York Times reporter Judith Miller's grand jury appearance throws a damaging spotlight once again on a White House whose credibility has been undermined in the criminal probe into the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity.

Freed after 85 days in a federal detention center, Miller was to testify Friday for Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation about her conversations in July 2003 with Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby.

Until a few months ago, the White House maintained for nearly two years that Libby and presidential aide Karl Rove were not involved in leaking the identity of Valerie Plame, whose husband had publicly suggested that the Bush administration twisted intelligence in the runup to the war in Iraq.

The timing of the criticism by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson was devastating for the White House, which was already on the defensive because no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. The president's claims of such weapons were the main justification for going to war.

Libby met with Miller just two days after Wilson blasted the Bush administration in a Times op-ed piece.

Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper has testified recently that Rove and Libby had spoken to him about Wilson's wife that same week in July 2003 when Miller spoke to Libby.

In October 2003, with the criminal investigation gaining speed, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said of Rove and Libby: ``Those individuals assured me they were not involved in this'' leaking of Plame's identity.

Miller has been in custody in Alexandria, Va., since July 6. A federal judge ordered her jailed for civil contempt of court when she refused to testify.

The disclosure of Plame's identity by syndicated columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003, triggered a criminal investigation that could still result in criminal charges against government officials.

``My source has now voluntarily and personally released me from my promise of confidentiality regarding our conversations relating to the Wilson-Plame matter,'' Miller said in a statement Thursday. Her newspaper identified Libby as the source, saying that Miller and Libby spoke in person on July 8, 2003, then talked by phone later that week.

Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. said that ``as we have throughout this ordeal, we continue to support Judy Miller in the decision she has made. We are very pleased that she has finally received a direct and uncoerced waiver, both by phone and in writing, releasing her from any claim of confidentiality and enabling her to testify.''

White House aides signed waivers earlier in the probe, but Miller wanted and received personal assurances that her source's waiver was voluntary. Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, did not return a phone call seeking comment.

Fitzgerald spokesman Randall Samborn declined to comment.

President Bush has given varying accounts of the circumstances under which he would fire leakers in the Plame probe.

In September 2003, Bush said ``we'll take the appropriate action'' and his spokesman said ``they would no longer be in this administration.'' In June 2004, Bush reiterated the pledge, answering ``yes'' when asked if he would fire anyone in his administration who leaked Plame's name. In July, amid revelations that Rove and Libby had been involved in the leaks, Bush said that ``if someone committed a crime'' he would be fired.

The federal grand jury delving into the matter expires Oct. 28. Miller would have been freed at that time, but prosecutors could have pursued a criminal contempt of court charge against the reporter if she continued to defy Fitzgerald.

Of the reporters swept up in Fitzgerald's investigation, Miller is the only one to go to jail.

Novak apparently has cooperated with prosecutors, though neither he nor his lawyer has said so.

Novak's column in July 2003 said two senior administration officials told him Plame had suggested sending her husband to the African nation of Niger on behalf of the CIA to look into possible Iraqi purchases of uranium yellowcake.

Wilson's article in the Times, titled ``What I Didn't Find In Africa,'' had stated it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

Miller is a veteran national security reporter. In the 1980s, she became the first woman to be named chief of the Times' Cairo bureau in Egypt. For her work on Osama bin Laden in 2001, she won a Pulitzer Prize for explanatory journalism as part of a small team of Times reporters.

Starting in 2002, her stories about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq helped bolster the Bush administration's case for toppling Saddam Hussein. The failure to find the weapons prompted heavy criticism of Miller and the Times as well as of the Bush administration.

Netscape News
 
If the 'leak" in the Plame drama was anyone with an "R" behind their name, Miller wouldn't have spent a nanosecond in jail and would have left skidmarks all the way to Capitol Hill to testify. :cool:
 
It's illegal to "out" an operative who is operating under cover. It is not illegal to "out" somebody who once was operating under cover. Plame hadn't been under cover for some two years or more. Rove could have done his "outing" on any of the Sunday talking-head shows without breaking the law, if he indeed was the one doing this "outing".

Drifting a bit: Fifty years ago my mother got a CIA job, thanks to then-Senator LBJ. She worked in the Philippines, with the office of President Magsaysay on his land reform efforts. It was not public that she was CIA, but nobody talked about that aspect. No way was she an "agent". The "secrecy" was to avoid any brouhaha from the Communists.

I have no way of knowing for sure, but I'd bet that Plame was in a similar sort of deal.

To me, this is just more of the usual Beltway politics, much ado about very little...

Art
 
Salivating, hystrionic, ininformed leftists aside, there were plainly no laws broken. I'm glad they're still trying to squeeze some life out of this thing.

Thinking people do notice...
 
This may fall into the same category

..as the conspiracy of the month club that the Republicans harrassed Clinton during his presidency. Lots of huff, no real crimes found, and the accusers later coming out in some cases to admit they were given orders to make up allegations to damage their opposition. The partisanship has gotten ridiculous.

Beneath all of this, however, are some interesting issues about press freedoms, confidentiality and court orders.
 
It's illegal to "out" an operative who is operating under cover. It is not illegal to "out" somebody who once was operating under cover. Plame hadn't been under cover for some two years or more. Rove could have done his "outing" on any of the Sunday talking-head shows without breaking the law, if he indeed was the one doing this "outing".

Back when, I read the actual text of the law pertaining to the "outing" and it is unlikely Rove (or anybody else) will ever be convicted. I recall it requires the person know that the agent is covert, the agent had to be "covert" in a recent time period..... I don't think Rove will get charged.

HOWEVER!

1) We don't know what Rove or Libby told federal investigators during the investigation. We KNOW they both lied to the white house press secretary because he looked like an idiot swearing that they had told him they were not involved.....

Then later, Rove's attorney was tap dancing and saying that Rove had only "restated" something somebody else had said..... ie, Rove did indeed say it but only after somebody else said it first.

If Rove lied to investigators, he will get the Martha Stewart treatment.... they have zero tolerance for that. Rove may have been to smart to do that, as he knows they would slap an OOJ charge on him.


2) Even if Rove verified Plme's name after somebody else, it will still require he be fired from his present job because it requires a high level security clearance. I personally read the secrecy agreement Rove (and all of them) have to sign to serve and he violated it NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. The agreement says he may not speak anything that may be confidential without first verifying it had been declassified. Just because somebody else leaked info that was possibly secret does not declassify it. And clearly, Rove failed to check if it had been declassified before he repeated the info.

Rove's White House security clearance, governed by Executive Order 12958, apparently required both a criminal background check as well as training in the protection of classified information. To receive security clearance, Rove agreed, in writing (SF-312 Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement), not to divulge or confirm classified information to individuals (including reporters) not authorized to have it. According to Rove's attorney's public statements, Rove has admitted to violating SF-312 agreement.[80]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove


Bush will have no choice if it is made public that Rove did confirm Plame's identity. His security clearance will have to be revoked and he will have to leave his position.








http://www.davidsirota.com/2005/07/precedent-shows-roves-security.html



Precedent Shows Rove's Security Clearance Must Be Revoked

It is appalling that during an ongoing investigation, a White House adviser who has acknowledged helping leak classified information to the media still has access to the government's most secret information. That's right - Karl Rove still can peer into all the secret material he wants, maybe even to punish another honest opponent of the Bush administration. It's why critics are rightfully demanding that, short of firing Rove, President Bush must at least immediately revoke Rove's security clearance. And if the past is any guide, that request has historical precedent.

As a quick review of the last decade of news shows, the government has quickly revoked the security clearance of lower-profile figures that Rove when they have become embroiled in allegations of leaking or mishandling classified/sensitive material:


SECURITY CLEARANCE REVOKED FOR ALLEGATIONS OF PASSING CLASSIFIED INFO TO MEDIA: "Mr. Maloof's Pentagon career was damaged in December 2001, when his security clearances were revoked. He was accused of having unauthorized contact with a foreign national, a woman he had met while traveling in the Republic of Georgia and eventually married. Mr. Maloof said he complied with all requirements to disclose the relationship. Several intelligence professionals say he came under scrutiny because of suspicions that he had leaked classified information in the past to the news media..." [NY Times, 4/28/04]

SECURITY CLEARANCE REVOKED FOR REVEALING CIA SECRETS TO MEDIA: "Richard Nuccio, a former State Department specialist on Guatemala whose top-secret security clearance was revoked last year for allegedly exposing CIA secrets" to the New York Times. [AP, 3/20/97]

SECURITY CLEARANCE REVOKED FOR MISUSE OF SECRET INFO: "[Former CIA Director] Deutch's intelligence clearances were revoked last year because he had violated security rules by keeping classified information on computers at his house." [NY Times, 2/6/00]


These past examples were very serious matters. That's why the government moved to revoke security clearances - and that's why Rove's clearance also need to be revoked. Clearly, these past examples are in the same league of seriousness as a top White House official leaking classified information to the media and compromising national security in order to punish a political opponent. That's why the exact same response is warranted. No person - not even the President's top political guru - should be above the law, and above historical precedent in protecting America's national security.




http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Lautenberg_to_Bush_Nix_Roves_security_0711.html

Lautenberg to Bush: Nix Rove's security clearance
RAW STORY


United States Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) issued the following statement to RAW STORY today in light of the recent revelation Karl Rove was responsible for revealing the identity of a covert CIA agent.

“Karl Rove has accused liberals of not understanding the consequences of 9-11, but he’s the one who blew the cover of a covert CIA agent. The President should immediately suspend Karl Rove’s security clearances and shut him down by shutting him out of classified meetings or discussions.

The excuses offered by Karl Rove’s lawyer don’t pass the laugh test. Naming someone’s spouse is the same as naming them. And as a 31-year veteran of politics, Karl Rove should know that if you want to keep a secret, you don’t tell a reporter.”
 
Last edited:
t's illegal to "out" an operative who is operating under cover. It is not illegal to "out" somebody who once was operating under cover. Plame hadn't been under cover for some two years or more.

No, it's illegal to out an agent who had been on a covert assigment within the last five years:


Six years later, in July 2003, the name of the CIA officer — Valerie Plame — was revealed by columnist Robert Novak.

The column's date is important because the law against unmasking the identities of U.S. spies says a "covert agent" must have been on an overseas assignment "within the last five years."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-14-cia-wilson_x.htm
 
No one will do any time because of this, it's a non-event.
Au contrare, Judith Miller already clocked about three months in Club Fed.

Oh...... you meant the actual CRIMINALS won't do any time........

Yeah, you're probably right about that.
 
I have no way of knowing for sure, but I'd bet that Plame was in a similar sort of deal.
The CIA sure didn't think so. At the time, they said even though outing her name may not cause her immediate danger, it did threaten the groups and people she had dealt with back when she was under cover (who were still out there).

They were furious about it and have been the loudest voice calling for the heads of the people who did it.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40012-2003Oct3?language=printer


Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm

By Walter Pincus and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, October 4, 2003; Page A03

The leak of a CIA operative's name has also exposed the identity of a CIA front company, potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure, Bush administration officials said yesterday.

The company's identity, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, became public because it appeared in Federal Election Commission records on a form filled out in 1999 by Valerie Plame, the case officer at the center of the controversy, when she contributed $1,000 to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign.

After the name of the company was broadcast yesterday, administration officials confirmed that it was a CIA front.
 
bounty's right. The danger, in a criminal liability sense, arises from any alleged obstruction of the investigation, not the non-crime itself, a la Martha Stewart.

All the more reason to take 5 and be a good fence post when the FBI comes over for fruit and tea. :D

Brewster-Jennings? Good grief, is there anyone with a pulse that did NOT know that was a Christian front? :uhoh:
 
And Sandy Burgler walks out with his pants full of classified documents that he admits to destroying. What was his punishment again??? Oh, I forgot he's a lying POS Democrat, They always get a free pass.
 
bountyhunter, I'm a bit confused: Your quote (from CNN?) said six years. Was it six years from the time Plame came out from the under cover work? If so, then the five-year rule applies, does it not?

Art
 
And Sandy Burgler walks out with his pants full of classified documents that he admits to destroying. What was his punishment again???
So, you're saying that torching classified material so NOBODY can see it is worse than plastering it onto the front page of a news paper?

Whatever....
 
bountyhunter, I'm a bit confused: Your quote (from CNN?) said six years. Was it six years from the time Plame came out from the under cover work? If so, then the five-year rule applies, does it not?

Art
If I understand it correctly, it was six years from the time she was taken off the "covert" assignment which would mean Rove is exempt from being prosecuted because the law says that the agent must have been "covert active" withing five years of the disclosure.

That is how it has been presented and when I read the text of the law, I think it's correct. It also accounts for Rove's lawyer being so sure the charge won't stick.

I don't think anybody is in danger of being nailed on that law. But maybe OOJ if they lied to investigators. For sure, the security clearances MUST be revoked because statements of record by both Rove and his lawyer show he violated his SF-312 agreement.

The real damage from the affair is not just law violation:

1) Bush flatly said he would fire anybody who leaked and repeated it two times after that. When it was revealed Rove and Libby were leakers, he retracted it and said he would fire anybody who was found to have broken the law.

That flip-flop was pounced on and used to show the hypocrisy and lack of moral center in the admin.

2) Rove may escape prosecution because statute of limitations, but that will be "getting off on a technicality" in the minds of most honest people. He did EXACTLY what the law was designed to prevent, and he did it to get revenge on a political adversary.

That sucks and again, really makes the admin look bad.

If Bush does not revoke his clearance, he will lose any shred of credibility he has remaining because he will be ignoring a very clear violation of secrecy under the agreement.

That would be the end for Bush.


Edit-add: The source for Ms Miller wasn't Rove. A guy named Libby. The news article (FOX; Gingrich) says the law says "Knowingly" as to any undercover work (separate from ordinary CIA employment) and any harm in any exposure.
Correct that she was protecting Libby. Rove was named as a source by a different reporter and Rove admitted to it, but tried to deflect it by saying he referred to her as "Wilson's wife" and not by her name.

On 2 July 2005, Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, said that his client spoke to Time reporter Matt Cooper "three or four days" before Plame's identity was first revealed in print by commentator Robert Novak.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove
 
Followup: The source for Ms Miller wasn't Rove. It was Libby. The news article (FOX; Gingrich) says the law says "Knowingly" as to any undercover work (separate from ordinary CIA employment) and any harm in any exposure.

One thing I quit doing a long time ago was predicting the end of any politician. I remember Chappaquiddick.

Art
 
[under oath]"I did not have sex with that woman...Ms. Lewinsky."[/under oath]
I am no fan of Slick Willie, but to be fair, this was a crime commited DURING the witchhunt, not a crime FOUND by it. And at any rate, marital infidelity is not illegal. It certainly speaks to the lack of integrity, but I consider the efforts to nail him in a sex scandal as a disgusting waste of tax money.

Clinton had faults-a-plenty but some of the attacks againt him were purely partisan. The Repubs have been gunning for a Presidential payback ever since Nixon.

Now ask me about what I think of Clinton's trigger-happy murderous knee-jerk reaction to OBL's embassy bombings, and I have a different view entirely.
 
Quote - And at any rate, marital infidelity is not illegal. It certainly speaks to the lack of integrity, but I consider the efforts to nail him in a sex scandal as a disgusting waste of tax money.

Marital infidelity is illegal if you are in the military - the military where Slick Willie was the boss. Willie wasn't subject to the UCMJ but numerous military folks that he fired for marital infidelity sure were. Slick Willie is lower than a snake's belly in a wagon rut.
 
Bountyhunter and his ilk can't win at the ballot box so they use the court system and judges to impose their will.

This CIA leak thing will now fade away, they milked it for all its worth. Frist and Delay will walk, not because they are connected but because there is nothing to the trumped up charges and accusations.
 
That would be the end for Bush.
The 'end for Bush' will come on January 20, 2009 when the next president is inaugurated. In the interim, you might want to better expend your efforts by helping develop some kind of coherent opposition. Just some friendly advice. :)
 
My source has now voluntarily and personally released me from my promise of confidentiality regarding our conversations relating to the Wilson-Plame matter,'' Miller said

Sounds to me like Scooter's got his story well-orchestrated now. Took awhile, but he figured out some convulsions like "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
 
Sounds to me like Scooter's got his story well-orchestrated now

Libby's attorney, Joseph Tate, says he and his client released Miller to testify more than a year ago. Tate said he was surprised when her attorneys again asked for a release in the last few weeks.
Sounds to me like more liberal BS, no GOP source was holding anybody back from talking to Fitzgerald.
 
the military where Slick Willie was the boss.
Just for a little background, I was on deployment when he got in trouble, and my 6 month deployment turned into a 10 month deployment when we had to go fight in Operation "Tail Wags The Dog" or Operation "Bill & Monica" or as it was actually known, Operation Desert Fox.

I respect nothing about the man save for his verbal ability.

But Ken Starr ranks pretty low with me too. Ugly ole witchhuntin' tax-waster.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top