Further evidence tying Rove to Plame-outing

--

 

C'mon. What do you "Rove is the devil and we're gonna nail him now" lefty conspiracy theorists REALLY think is going to happen to Rove?

Absolutely nothing.

For him to have "outed" Plame means there has to have been a crime committed in the first place. It is doubtful there was one.

Here, read a rational view of what has actually happened.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010989.php

Or a feeding frenzy on Big Soccer.

 

If that's the case, how do you reconcile this w/ a reporter sitting in jail right now?

 

The reporter is sitting in jail because she refused to cooperate with a prosecutor and his grand jury activities. And why is she doing it? You think she is doing it to protect Rove? Hell no...she's doing it for the principles of journalistic integrity.

She, in the end, may have nothing in the way of ammunition for Fitzgerald.

Right now, my speculation is that the violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is a dead end for Fitzgerald. What he is trying to do now is see if he can't catch anyone who has engaged in perjury.

Its the same tactical approach Starr used on Clinton. See if you can catch somebody in a lie.

Don't be surprised if this all fizzles out.

 

Karl,

1. She had NOC. So part 1 CLEARLY applies regarding her status.

2. Novak used the word "operative." In previous columns, he always used that word to apply to the type of agent covered by this law. The only way Rove skates here is if Rove told Novak she worked for the CIA, but somebody else told Novak she was undercover. I don't see that as being likely, at all, but admit it's possible. With what we know, it's highly likely Rove was one of the leakers. And we know the leakee knew she had NOC. If Rove is proven to be one of the leakers, to be acquitted, he's gonna have to convince a jury that someone else told Novak she had NOC. In which case, that other person is the one who will do time. But I have to reiterate...does that seem likely to you?

3. As far as establishing a pattern...there were 6 journos called. That's a pattern. Now, if the idea is that Rove can walk because he wasn't trying to out agentS, plural, but only one agent, well, as I read the excerpt, you're right. I have a hard time believing that'd work in court, unless Congress was exceptionally stupid when writing the law. But, again, it's possible. The law, if Powerline can be trusted, does say "activities intended to identify and expose covert agents."

4. Powerline themselves say they don't know if she worked outside the US in the preceding 5 years. They ADMIT it. They don't know. But we DO know that the CIA asked for the investigation. Please, Karl, explain why the f*** they would do that if Plame hadn't been outside the US in the previous 5 years, or why the investigation lasted more than a couple of months? Possible, but IMO extremely, extremely unlikely. It's like Bush asking for an investigation into how Gore stole the 2000 election. It's counterfactual.

5. "It is doubtful whether Rove or any other administration source knew of Plame's affiliation with the CIA through access to classified materials." They assert here, with no backup. It's crap. Why is it "doubtful??????"

6. Powerline writes "As to the third situation covered by the statute, neither Rove nor any other administration source identified Plame as part of a "pattern of activities intended to identify or expose covert agents" for the purpose of impairing national security." Please find anything about intent in the law. It ain't there. Again, this is crap. It's like the poster assumed nobody would think critically about what he wrote. He threw the word "purpose" in there just to make a "point." And you fell for it.

7. Following up on that, the last possibility is that Rove will argue he didn't realize exposing her would "impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States." (Karl, that's what's really in the law, if you trust the excerpt.) Um, good luck with that one, Turd Blossom.

Powerline loses all credibility when they try to argue she wasn't undercover. That's been well, well, established. Her "employer" was a CIA front company. This has become this bizarre right wing meme that's developed directly in the teeth of the facts. It's a great example of repeating a lie to gullible people enough that they believe the lie instead of their own eyes.

Karl, can you outline, by yourself, the scenario by which he skates, if he's the guy? Cuz I don't see it, barring the bizarre scenario under which some other Scooter told Novak she was an "operative."

Alternative ending: Karl, even the people you cite are stupid retards.

 

I am not going to take the time to refute everyone of your idiotic counterarguments, but if I were you, I would learn to read the statute (and perhaps, learn to read in general.

You know, you lefty moonbats are all hot and bothered about the rights of the accused at Gitmo, but the rights of our citizens, if they especially happen to be Karl Rove, are conveniently ignored.

 

Its amazing what Karl scrapes off his wet ass as a counter-argument. Dave made a series of serious points, and all you can say is read the statute, and make a ridiculous analogy to Gitmo. Stunningly weak.

 

From Isikoff's Newseek article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8525978/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098

Emphases mine.

[/font]

 

Karl, I'm gonna have to quote myself here.

If we assume it was Rove, for the sake of argument, then we KNOW:

1. Rove told Novak about Plame
2. Novak knew she was an "operative."

So unless there's a 3rd party that told Novak she wasn't merely a CIA employee, but also had NOC, then you're wrong here.

Karl, please explain some other method by which Novak could have come to know she was an "operative?"

Like I wrote, there's that slim reed of hope that Rove told Novak she was CIA, and someone ELSE (who then is the criminal) told him she was an operative. But is THAT what you're hanging all this on?

 

Karl, I read the Isikoff blurb, and I come back to the same unanswered question...how did Novak find out she was an operative?

But I must laugh at you putting in bold a) a quote from an anonymous source close to Rove and b) a quote from Gold Bar Luskin.

Well of course. He's in over his head. THAT'S the reason he won't refute each point I was making.

 

First, to violate the statue, you have to KNOW that someone is covert agent. If you don't know it, you simply can't be convicted of it. This simple concept is difficult for you, I know, but hey, there's only so much you can keep in your tiny little cranium.

Second, once again, you are comparing me to an insane murderer.

And you have the nerve to accuse me of making a "ridiculous analogy?"

Ah, you lefties. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

 

We get that, Karl. But if not from the leaker, how did the leakee find out she was an operative?

Stop dodging the question, you coward.

 

But hey, are anonymous sources what the great liberal beacon The New York Times and its Reporter, Judith MIller, are doing their best to keep sacrosanct.

Once again, you don't want things both ways...you just want it YOUR way. That's why you will never have political power.

Meanwhile, let me give you this questions. If it's so clear to you that Rove violated the Act, why haven't we seen an indictment?

This is all a tempest in a teapot. Look, think about this possibility.

Rove wasn't trying to out Plame. He was being quoted on "super deep background" that Wilson's trip was authorized by his wife. That there wasn't some CIA or administation effort to hush up Wilson's trip, but that his trip was outside of SOP, and the Cooper should be careful putting any credence in it.

So that means:

a) Rove had no intention of revealing her name publicly

b) That there is no indication that he KNEW she was a covert agent (a necessary condition for violating the Act, despite your assertion).

 

First, you have to be a "covert" operative.

Second, you have to KNOW it when you reveal it.

As to the answer to your question, I don't know Nowak's source. But it's clear Fitzgerald does.

So, in that case, answer MY question. Why no indictment?

 

Why would Rove talk to a reporter about Plame if she wasn't a CIA operative? It seems to me the very fact that Rove made to effort to talk to these reporters proves he knew she was undercover. Do you really think he would talk to Nowak about an agent of the FAA or the Bureau of Indian Affairs? Get real.

What also hasn't been explained is the entire lack of anger on the part of the right at an act of treason that has compromised a CIA front, years of undercover work and intelligence, taxpayer money and, according to AAR, one CIA agent killed. Rove's actions, whether knowingly or not, has caused a serious break of national security and he should be punished. And the only two options for Rove are if he knowingly outed Plame then he is corrupt and if he didn't then he is grossly incompetent.

 

It was nice to see the press corp finally have some balls and question Scott McClellan at today's briefing. He refused to answer any questions regarding this, but the press kept coming back at him.

 

How do you tell three different reporters the same thing without intending to make it public?

 

Sweet - from ITN's favorite reporter, Dan Froomkin:

 

--

 

Vouching for Karl - A good link.

 

The transcript of today's press conference:

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/11/briefing-711/

This affair just may zap what little political power Bush had left.

 

I wish those reporters had been that relentless all along.

 

And, yet, it was. Andrea Mitchell admitted as much on Hardball.

 

Wow, who replaced all our usual lazy "journalists" with all these relentless ones?

Loved this comment:
"QUESTION: Scott, is Karl Rove in fact a half-human android built from mutant and possibly radioactive DNA?
MCCLELLAN: Again, I think you’re asking that question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and as I’ve said we’re just not going to answer until the investigation is completed.

Comment by Michael — July 11, 2005 @ 3:19 pm "