did Karl Rove commit treason?

[JackSpratts]

Originally Posted by Sinner

He was the perfect person to work in Niger.

my point was that as a career diplomat he would've been posted in a multitude of places - which your link makes clear - and he would have had solid contacts in many of them, not just niger. he may have been qualified to investigate niger, but he was undoubtedly qualified to do the same in stutgart, bahgdad or a host of other hot spots. nothing suggests he asked his wife to pull some strings to get him sent there, again, why? now it's so he could work on a gold deal? he could do that anytime...she continues to deny sending him (apparently so he could wrongly, although it turned out rightly, criticize a president he had political problems with) which is the basis of the right's smear campaign.

- js.

[theknife]

GOP Chairman then, from Hardball:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Don't you think it's more serious than Watergate, when you think about it?

RNC CHAIRMAN ED GILLESPIE: I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative -- it's abhorrent, and it should be a crime, and it is a crime.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: It'd be worse than Watergate, wouldn't it?

GILLESPIE: It's -- Yeah, I suppose in terms of the real world implications of it. It's not just politics.

GOP Chairman now:

The bottom line is Karl Rove was discouraging a reporter from writing a false story based on a false premise and the Democrats are engaging in blatant partisan political attacks.

the GOP spin on the Rove story is either inane (see above)...or irrelevant (questioning Wilson's activities, which have no actual bearing on the case at hand)... or simply false (that Valerie Plame was not covered by the disclosure laws - obviously untrue, since the CIA asked for the investigation in the first place).

but the Prez is not the man his father was. Bush Sr. has been down this road before with Rove and dealt with it quite differently:

During George H.W. Bush's second presidential campaign, Rove was fired from the campaign team because of suspicions that he had leaked information to columnist Robert Novak — the same columnist who first reported Plame's CIA role in 2003, citing anonymous administration sources.

this is how honorable Republicans used to react to stuff like this:

"Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors." - George H.W. Bush, April 26, 1999.

and this is how they react now:

Listen, maybe Karl Rove was not perfect. We live in an imperfect world. And I give him credit for having the guts.

the GOP credits Rove with having the guts to end the career of a CIA officer who's husband proved the administration was lying about Iraq. hmmm...they don't make Republicans like they used to and the apple has obviously rolled far from the Bush family tree.

the obvious question at this point is this: When did the President first learn of Karl Rove's involvement in this case?

[theknife]

meanwhile, yet another rough day for Scott McLellan:

Q Scott, you know what, to make a general observation here, in a previous administration, if a press secretary had given the sort of answers you've just given in referring to the fact that everybody who works here enjoys the confidence of the President, Republicans would have hammered them as having a kind of legalistic and sleazy defense. I mean, the reality is that you're parsing words, and you've been doing it for a few days now. So does the President think Karl Rove did something wrong, or doesn't he?

McCLELLAN: No, David, I'm not at all. I told you and the President told you earlier today that we don't want to prejudge the outcome of an ongoing investigation. And I think we've been round and round on this for two days now.

Q Even if it wasn't a crime? You know, there are those who believe that even if Karl Rove was trying to debunk bogus information, as Ken Mehlman suggested yesterday -- perhaps speaking on behalf of the White House -- that when you're dealing with a covert operative, that a senior official of the government should be darn well sure that that person is not undercover, is not covert, before speaking about them in any way, shape, or form. Does the President agree with that or not?

McCLELLAN: Again, we've been round and round on this for a couple of days now. I don't have anything to add to what I've said the previous two days.

Q That's a different question, and it's not round and round --

McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier.

Q It has nothing to do with the investigation, Scott, and you know it.

McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier today, and the President said he's not --

Q That's a dodge to my question. It has nothing to do with the investigation. Is it appropriate for a senior official to speak about a covert agent in any way, shape, or form without first finding out whether that person is working as a covert officer.

McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, you're wrong. This is all relating to questions about an ongoing investigation, and I've been through this.

Q If I wanted to ask you about an ongoing investigation, I would ask you about the statute, and I'm not doing that.

McCLELLAN: I think we've exhausted discussion on this the last couple of days.

Q You haven't even scratched the surface.

Q It hasn't started.

the White House press corps are theoretically America's senior-most media correspondents...and it has finally dawned on them that they have been lied to for the last 2 years. don't expect them to let this one go easily.

[albed]

Do you really think they're that dense knife?



Anyway I see Valerie Plame wasn't really retired, just on leave. My mistake.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/011346.html
July 04, 2005-Valerie Plame has returned to work at the CIA after a year's leave of absence. She won't, however, be resuming undercover work.

Guess her career wasn't ended either way.




And Jack why would a woman want her husband sent to Paris where love affairs among the politicos are practically expected. Seems Niger would be just the place to ensure fidelity and help him appreciate her more.




.

[daddydirt]

Originally Posted by theknife

the White House press corps are theoretically America's senior-most media correspondents...

.

[theknife]

better that than this:

[theknife]

MSNBC's Howard Fineman on the press and the Rove story:

The ferocity with which the presidential press corps went after the Karl Rove story is startling, but it shouldn’t be surprising.

Several media, political and Washington vectors intersected to create an explosive Rove Reaction.

Third thoughts on pre-Iraq reporting
Take my word, there has been a lot of soul searching in the so-called Main Stream Media (MSM) over its performance, or lack of performance, in the months leading up to the American-led ouster of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq. Specifically, did we replace what should have been professional skepticism with a certain mindless credulousness in assessing the reality of the Bush administration’s claims of imminent danger to the country and the world from Saddam’s supposedly vast stash of weapons of mass destruction, including—only months away, it was said—the nuclear kind?

If we failed, was it out of a misplaced sense of patriotic duty, or political cowardice or sheer incompetence—or all three? The press corps was spring-loaded with self-doubt over the WMD issue, and ready to snap over any story that would allow it to revisit what now looks to have been a massive—and embarrassingly successful, from the press’s point of view—propaganda campaign.

the war in Iraq is really the larger picture here...Rove's actions dovetail neatly into the White House predeliction for smearing war critics, as was done with Wilson, and Richard Clarke, and Paul O'Neill, among others. the press should be embarassed and if the Rove story is the tipping point, it's long overdue.

watch for the GOP noise machine to begin to target Patrick J. Fitzgerald, special prosecutor in the Rove case. he's the White House's biggest problem right now:

White House officials acknowledged privately that they are concerned that the investigation will lead to an indictment of someone in the administration later this year.

Randall D. Eliason, former public corruption chief at the U.S. Attorney's Office here, said Fitzgerald likely has evidence of serious wrongdoing, or he would not have gone this far.

"Right now, it's more political damage than legal damage" for the White House, Eliason said. "But it's reasonable to speculate he wouldn't go to the Supreme Court on reporters' privilege unless he had something pretty serious. You don't subpoena reporters and throw them in jail lightly. Fitzgerald is not some type of bomb-thrower."

[albed]

Feeling the need to justify the rabid ferocity the liberals are exhibiting nowdays?


So it's not so much that they hate Rove but that they let down Saddam.


And now they can't forgive themselves for their failures.


But savaging Scott McLellan will fix everything of course.

If you're interested in watching a good video on Karl Rove check out Bush's Brain over at NetFlix. It details his rise and other things he had been accused of.

[Nicobie]

U'd think this thread was about that bitch hillery (pls notice lack of respect given toward spelling & caps).

I really, really hate that slimey ####.

I betca she's pushed the button on more than one life.

[theknife]

keep your eye on the ball, from the Minneapolis Star-Trib:

[i]t’s important to look beyond the immediate political spectacle in Washington—White House spokesman Scott McClellan finally confronted by reporters who feel abused and lied to—to the reason Rove was talking to a reporter about ex-diplomat Joseph Wilson at all.

The real issue, more serious and less glitzy than whether Bush will stand by his political adviser, is the extraordinary efforts the Bush administration made to protect a case for war in Iraq from all contradictory evidence—in effect, as the British spymaster Sir Richard Dearlove put it, to “fix” the facts and intelligence so they would support a decision already made.

Enter Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA operative specializing in weapons of mass destruction.

...

It is instructive to remember that the investigation into who revealed Plame’s identity was initiated by Tenet, not by administration critics. Remember also that Wilson was correct; ultimately the White House had to retract Bush’s State of the Union statement on the Niger connection.

In addition to discrediting critics of the Niger connection, the Bush administration, through the actions of John Bolton—now nominee to be U.N. ambassador—sought to intimidate intelligence analysts who objected to conclusions about Iraq’s WMD, and to get a U.N. chemical weapons official fired so he wouldn’t be able to send inspectors back to Iraq, where they might disprove more of the case for war.

In the scheme of things, whether Rove revealed Plame’s identity, deliberately or not, matters less than actions by Rove, Bolton, Cheney and others to phony up a case for war that has gone badly, has cost thousands of lives plus hundreds of billions of dollars, and has, a majority of Americans now believe, left the United States less safe from terrorism rather than more.

That’s the indictment which should matter most.

exactly the point - the Rove matter is a microcosm of the larger scandal.

[albed]

So, in this 'did Karl Rove commit treason?' thread, the "ball" is bouncing away like a rat leaving a sinking ship.


I guess the dogs have been barking up the wrong tree. Or at the wrong ball.


I hope the liberals have the decency to apologize for their reckless accusations.

[theknife]

Karl Rove's Nondisclosure Agreement

A fact sheet released today by Rep. Waxman explains that the nondisclosure agreement signed by Karl Rove prohibited Mr. Rove from confirming the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Wilson to reporters. Under the nondisclosure agreement and the applicable executive order, even "negligent" disclosures to reporters are grounds for revocation of a security clearance or dismissal.

Today, news reports revealed that Karl Rove, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff and the President's top political advisor, confirmed the identity of covert CIA official Valerie Plame Wilson with Robert Novak on July 8, 2003, six days before Mr. Novak published the information in a nationally syndicated column. These new disclosures have obvious relevance to the criminal investigation of Patrick Fitzgerald, the Special Counsel who is investigating whether Mr. Rove violated a criminal statute by revealing Ms. Wilson's identity as a covert CIA official.

Independent of the relevance these new disclosures have to Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation, they also have significant implications for: (1) whether Mr. Rove violated his obligations under his "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement" and (2) whether the White House violated its obligations under Executive Order 12958. Under the nondisclosure agreement and the executive order, Mr. Rove would be subject to the loss of his security clearance or dismissal even for "negligently" disclosing Ms. Wilson's identity.

KARL ROVE'S NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT

Executive Order 12958 governs how federal employees are awarded security clearances in order to obtain access to classified information. It was last updated by President George W. Bush on March 25, 2003, although it has existed in some form since the Truman era. The executive order applies to any entity within the executive branch that comes into possession of classified information, including the White House. It requires employees to undergo a criminal background check, obtain training on how to protect classified information, and sign a "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement," also known as a SF-312, promising not to reveal classified information.1 The nondisclosure agreement signed by White House officials such as Mr. Rove states: "I will never divulge classified information to anyone" who is not authorized to receive it.2

THE PROHIBITION AGAINST "CONFIRMING" CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
Mr. Rove, through his attorney, has raised the implication that there is a distinction between releasing classified information to someone not authorized to receive it and confirming classified information from someone not authorized to have it. In fact, there is no such distinction under the nondisclosure agreement Mr. Rove signed.

One of the most basic rules of safeguarding classified information is that an official who has signed a nondisclosure agreement cannot confirm classified information obtained by a reporter. In fact, this obligation is highlighted in the "briefing booklet" that new security clearance recipients receive when they sign their nondisclosure agreements:
Before confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.3

THE INDEPENDENT DUTY TO VERIFY THE CLASSIFIED STATUS OF INFORMATION

Mr. Rove's attorney has implied that if Mr. Rove learned Ms. Wilson's identity and occupation from a reporter, this somehow makes a difference in what he can say about the information. This is inaccurate. The executive order states: "Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information."4

Mr. Rove was not at liberty to repeat classified information he may have learned from a reporter. Instead, he had an affirmative obligation to determine whether the information had been declassified before repeating it. The briefing booklet is explicit on this point: "before disseminating the information elsewhere ... the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified."5

"NEGLIGENT" DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

Mr. Rove's attorney has also implied that Mr. Rove's conduct should be at issue only if he intentionally or knowingly disclosed Ms. Wilson's covert status. In fact, the nondisclosure agreement and the executive order require sanctions against security clearance holders who "knowingly, willfully, or negligently" disclose classified information.6 The sanctions for such a breach include "reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions."7

THE WHITE HOUSE OBLIGATIONS UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958

Under the executive order, the White House has an affirmative obligation to investigate and take remedial action separate and apart from any ongoing criminal investigation. The executive order specifically provides that when a breach occurs, each agency must "take appropriate and prompt corrective action."8 This includes a determination of whether individual employees improperly disseminated or obtained access to classified information.

The executive order further provides that sanctions for violations are not optional. The executive order expressly provides: "Officers and employees of the United States Government ... shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently ... disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified."9

There is no evidence that the White House complied with these requirements.

Rove's disclosure of information in violation of national security regulations is no longer in question. the obvious question becomes: what did the President know and when did he know it?

QUESTION: Has the President either asked Karl Rove to assure him that he had nothing to do with this; or did Karl Rove go to the President to assure him that he . . .
McCLELLAN: I don't think he needs that. I think I've spoken clearly to this publicly . . . I've just said there's no truth to it.

QUESTION: Yes, but I'm just wondering if there was a conversation between Karl Rove and the President, or if he just talked to you, and you're here at this . . .

McCLELLAN: He wasn't involved. The President knows he wasn't involved.

QUESTION: How does he know that?

McCLELLAN: The President knows. - Press Gaggle - 9/289/03

unless everybody is lying to McClellan, either the President of the United States knew about Rove's involvement with the Plame case, and lied to the country, or Karl Rove lied to the President about his involvement. the Prez is dealing with it in his usual forthright manner:

From a White House pool report this afternoon:

On the tarmac in North Carolina, your pool was able to walk briefly alongside the president and ask if he still had faith in Karl Rove.

The question was met with a stare straight ahead, silence and a quick brush-off motion of Bush’s left hand, as if the president were swatting away an insect. - Friday, 7/15/05

[malvachat]

Originally Posted by albed

So, in this 'did Karl Rove commit treason?' thread, the "ball" is bouncing away like a rat leaving a sinking ship.


I guess the dogs have been barking up the wrong tree. Or at the wrong ball.


I hope the liberals have the decency to apologize for their reckless accusations.

Come on Albeds do you you really think there is nothing going on here?
Smokes and mirrors?
Politics will always be played.
Treason is just a word here.
This is the real world.
Do you really have faith in our system?
I hope so.
Because,If you do,truth and decency(and lots of other things)
should sit side by side.
Tall order I know.
I've been told Faith moves mountains we'll see.


"The decency to apologize for their reckless accusations"

Please think about this statment a little and reflect.
God does not pay his debts in money.

[theknife]

after a week of spin and obfuscation by Rove's lawyer and the GOP, thier act gets sideswiped by Time Magazine reporter Matt Cooper's grand jury testimony:

White House political aide Karl Rove was the first person to tell a Time magazine reporter that the wife of a prominent critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policy was a CIA agent, the reporter said in an article on Sunday.

Time correspondent Matthew Cooper said he told a grand jury last week that Rove told him the woman worked at the "agency," or CIA, on weapons of mass destruction issues, and ended the call by saying "I've already said too much."

he also implicates Dick Cheney's top aide Scooter Libby:

Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide was among the sources for a Time magazine reporter's story about the identity of a CIA officer, the reporter said Sunday.

Until last week, the White House had insisted for nearly two years that vice presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby and presidential adviser Karl Rove were not involved in the leaks of CIA officer Valerie Plame's identity.

[albed]

Originally Posted by malvachat

Please think about this statment a little and reflect.
God does not pay his debts in money.

I suppose your god pays his debts in beer.

And you must have gotten him pretty deep in hock somehow.

Don't see how it's relevant but I guess it goes back to beer.

[theknife]

the White House backpedals from this:

"If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity], they would no longer be in this administration" - September 29th, 2003

...and adds a qualifier, thereby lowering the bar or raising the threshold or moving the goalposts, whichever metaphor works for you:

"If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration." - July 18th, 2005

however, the Prez comes out firmly in favor of ferreting out the truth:

"I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts, and if someone committed a crime they will no longer work in my administration," Bush said at a news conference with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

...but declines to reveal why he can't just walk down the hall and ask the people involved. McClellan gets grilled today, to a tender golden brown, on this most obvious question:

Q Is leaking, in your judgment of his interpretation, a crime?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll leave it at what the President said.

Q What is his problem? Two years, and he can't call Rove in and find out what the hell is going on? I mean, why is it so difficult to find out the facts? It costs thousands, millions of dollars, two years, it tied up how many lawyers? All he's got to do is call him in.

MR. McCLELLAN: You just heard from the President. He said he doesn't know all the facts. I don't know all the facts.

Q Why?

MR. McCLELLAN: We want to know what the facts are. Because --

Q Why doesn't he ask him?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll tell you why, because there's an investigation that is continuing at this point, and the appropriate people to handle these issues are the ones who are overseeing that investigation. There is a special prosecutor that has been appointed. And it's important that we let all the facts come out. And then at that point, we'll be glad to talk about it, but we shouldn't be getting into --

Q You talked about it to reporters.

MR. McCLELLAN: We shouldn't be getting into prejudging the outcome.

but through it all, McClellan understands the role he is doomed to play and soldiers on pretty well:

Q Scott, I just wonder -- Scott, on a personal, human note, how are you holding out? Are you enjoying this? (Laughter.) Seriously. And are you consulting with any of your predecessors who have also gone through crises, Mike McCurry --

MR. McCLELLAN: There are so few things I enjoy more. (Laughter.) Connie, this is nothing personal. Everybody is doing their job here, and I respect the job that you all are doing in this room. And I look forward to having a continuing constructive relationship with everybody in this room.

[multi]

Tick Tick Tick

[daddydirt]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/224504.shtml

The press is claiming that President Bush has changed his pledge to fire anyone in his administration involved in leaking Valerie Plame's name - saying he's now added the qualifier, "If someone committed a crime."

But that's exactly what Bush said when he was first asked about the Plame case on Sept. 30, 2003.

"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," the president told reporters back then. "And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

Dozens of news organizations quoted Bush's Sept. 2003 proviso, "if the person has violated law", including USA Today, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, CBS, Fox and CNN.

On Monday, Bush made it clear his position hadn't changed one bit. Asked about the Plame case, he explained: "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

Still, that didn't stop the Associated Press from charging: "On Monday, however,[Bush] added the qualifier that it would have be shown that a crime was committed."

The AP cited a June 10, 2004, news conference, where according to the wire service, a reporter simply asked if Bush stood by his earlier pledge to fire anyone found to have leaked Plame's name. Bush answered, "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts."

But the full June 10, 2004 exchange was somewhat more complicated:

REPORTER: Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, suggesting that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leak the agent's name? And do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

BUSH: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts. [End of Excerpt]

Any honest reading of that exchange would acknowledge that when Bush answered, "Yes" - he meant he was standing by his earlier statement, not the reporter's distorted version: "Do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?"

Bush hadn't offered any such pledge.

But what he had said several months previous was that if the leaker had "violated the law," he'd be "taken care of."

[JackSpratts]

take your pick on that one, no?

he'll be "taken of care of" if he violated the law (what is bush now, a mobster? i don't know what the hell that means...)

- or -

do you stand by your earlier pledge to fire anyone [who leak the agent's name]? "yes." (i sure know what that means).


but he can still clear things up easily enough by simply holding a press conference and stating,

"All YOU LITTLE SHITS WILL ADDRESS ME AS MR. PRESIDENT. GOT IT!?

Now then…any leakers working for me will not be disciplined, ever, regardless of the effect on national security, or terrorism, or defense, or any policy whatsoever unless, because of that specific leak, they find themselves convicted in a court a law, and their multi-year appeals process exhausted.

Leaks are fine. I’m on the record as advocating an open administration, right? Look it up. It's ok to do that one. I encourage whisper campaigns to reporters. It's good for the process. Destroy anyone openly critical of me, my incompetence, my unquenchable thirst for power and my constant lying. That's what it's about. As President – Mr. President - I take full responsibility for the leaks done in my name and if my leakers kill American agents, destroy a war hero or three or a city or two I can live with it. Price of freedom. I was elected Mr. President not you...especially not you. Yeah I'm looking at you. Got something to say? What? No? Didn’t think so. Good. So long as it shifts attention away from me and my policies to turn America into a religious feudal dictatorship it's fine. Fine. No problem. But if the leak damages me or has the potential to damage me ever, no matter how little, the leaker will be executed and his family destroyed by my secret police. I think that covers it, huh? Let’s move on.

Anyone asking why the twins aren't serving will get a whisper campaign. A bad one heh. Audited too. For starters. NEXT QUESTION!"


now that's pretty clear.

- js.