Sort of ironic, when you consider the GOP’s past “anger” towards those they considered to be lying under oath…
Bloomberg Reporting That Rove, Libby May Be Subject To Perjury Charges
Two top White House aides have given accounts to the special prosecutor about how reporters told them the identity of a CIA agent that are at odds with what the reporters have said, according to persons familiar with the case.
Lewis Scooter’ Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney s chief of staff, told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first learned from NBC News reporter Tim Russert of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador and Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson. Russert has testified before a federal grand jury that he didn t tell Libby of Plame s identity.
Yes, it would be ironic, were it to be proven to be the case. Yet again, this is more wishful thinking than substance.
Yeah, but *who* is obstructing justice? Last I checked, the only people refusing to cooperate with the investigation were holding Press Passes.
‘Cooperation’ doesn’t entail giving false testimony and interviews to law enforcement, Farris. Which is the definition of obstruction.
While perjury charges are a distinct possibilty, it is almost an empirical certainty charges involving conspiracy, obstruction of justice, illegal disclosure of classified materials are forthcoming.
I still see no wingnuts apologizing for this illegitimate administration. In a way, this pleases me. The longer the wingnuts defend the wanton betrayal of our national security–the more difficult it will be for them to feign outrage when indictments come down.
jadegold presumably is privy to information that the rest of us mere mortals do not. How about waiting until the prosecutor finishes his job before we sentence the people involved?
Dugger News Service Flash!!
Tim Russert may be charged with perjury.
Just as possible my friends. Another slow news day in OWLand.
Dugger of the BDAaaa
All I see in that article is a case of He Said/She Said. Which means Russert could just as easily be charged here.
I don’t see anything here that is an “empirical certainty,”but if the prime suspects are indeed innocent of having committed a crime but went and pulled a Martha Stewart during the investigation, then shame on them.
Empirical certainty.
Let’s review what is not in dispute.
1. We know Ms. Plame’s identity as a CIA agent was disclosed in violation of security and classfication policies.
2. We know at least two WH senior officials have provided contradictory, false and misleading testimony before a GJ and in interviews with law enforcement.
3. We know Karl Rove considered Ms. Plame “fair game” in a concerted effort to discredit Ambassador Wilson.
4. We know a number of public statements by Rove’s attorney, Scott McLellan, and other GOP officials/surrogates have been false and/or misleading.
“How about waiting until the prosecutor finishes his job before we sentence the people involved?”
How about waiting until the prosecutor finishes before we exonerate the White House officials involved?
“Rove didn’t do it.”
“OK, Rove did it, but he heard it from reporters first.”
“No, wait. The reporters are lying.”
I fully anticipate that talking donkeys and little people who live in subterranean cities will soon become part of the Rove Excuse.
Jadegold and Mr. Curmudegeon are exactly right.
The Republican talking points went from “Rove is categorically not involved, he told us so himself” to “Let’s wait until the investigation is over.” This newfound respect for due process came when it was made abundantly clear that Rove was indeed involved. Now we know “Scooter” Libby was involved, too.
I’m also not inclined to play the Republican game in which every leak that seems to lessen the degree of Rove’s involvement is to be trumpeted to high heaven but every leak that drags him back down into the swill of it is to quietly pushed aside until the investigation is over.
No one knows where all this is going to end up but, in the immortal words of Digby the other day, “This is getting fun.”
How about waiting until the prosecutor finishes his job before we sentence the people involved?
Once he’s finished, you’ll say “how about waiting until the court finds Rove et al. guilty.” Never mind that his behavior thus far has been entirely anathema to Bush’s original platform/promise of bringing honesty, integrity and accountability BACK into the WH. (WMD anyone?)
Then, once these administration officials are found guilty, you’ll say “how about waiting until we hear the whole truth, this Wilson guy and his wife probably deserved it.” Never mind that there are already enough facts out there to knock this spin down flat.
Then, once the truth is out and the full scale of this treasonous act are completely understood, and Wilson’s original criticisms of this administration are vindicated, you’ll say “how about waiting until we see how Bush addresses the issue.” Never mind that all he’s done so far is avoid holding Rove responsible on the slim chance that his beloved “Architect” may yet find a way to slither out from underneath an indictment.
You go ahead and wait…just don’t expect the rest of us to wait with you. We’ve got better things to do than make excuses for this failure of an administration.
does it say that whether or not an agent s ststus is covert is to be decided by Joe Wilson.
And Ambassador Wilson didn’t refer the matter to DoJ–the CIA did. Are you prepared to argue Wilson controls the CIA?
The esteemed former ambassador in his book says that she hadn t served overseas since 1997.
No, his book states she wasn’t stationed overseas. IIPA requires an agent serve overseas in a given timeframe.
Glad to provide you with humor as it’s very likely you’re in for a very grim fall.
The cover-up gets you in more trouble than the crime. Every time. I still don’t know if the IIPC act was violated. But it seems more and more apparent that Rove, Libby and possibly others – possibly Novak – did not cooperate with investigators and can be charged with obstruction and, possibly, perjury.
Neo, your lame elitist (drink) attacks aside, you obviously haven’t read the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Nowehere in the act, by the way, does it say that whether or not an agent’s ststus is “covert” is to be decided by Joe Wilson. It does say that to be a covert agent, and hence have your identity protected under the act, you must be (a) currently serving overseas in a covert capacity, or (b) have served overseas in a covert capacity within the five years preceding the alleged leak (I’m paraphrasing).
The esteemed former ambassador in his book says that she hadn’t served overseas since 1997. Let’s count. 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002. That’s five. Novak’s column appeared in 2003. That would be six. Hence, no crime.
Now, as I have said above, maybe the leak of this information falls under some other Act. I haven’t seen that reported but I don’t discount the possibility.
As for Joe Wilson’s credibility, that too, has been dissected ad nasueum, as if it would matter to you.
Again, I get a kick out of the leftwingnuts’ moral indignation and righteousness. Thanks for bringing some humor to a Friday afternoon.
“1. We know Ms. Plame s identity as a CIA agent was disclosed in violation of security and classfication policies.”
We know that by her husband’s own admission, she does not meet the statutory definition of a “covert agent” as stated in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and thus, no crime has been committed unless it can be shown that some other Act applies.
“2. We know at least two WH senior officials have provided contradictory, false and misleading testimony before a GJ and in interviews with law enforcement.”
If the GJ leaks are accurate, we know at least two WH senior officials have provided testimony that appears to be at odds with the testimony of two, possibly three, reporters/journalists. We do not know which, if any, of them are providing false and/or misleading testimony.
“3. We know Karl Rove considered Ms. Plame fair game in a concerted effort to discredit Ambassador Wilson.”
We know that Time was preparing to run an incorrect story that Wilson was sent to Nigeria by Cheney. We know that Rove was trying to steer the reporter from an incorrect story. We don’t know if “outing Plame” was the primary motive, or a motive at all, and we do know that Wilson considered the administration “fair game” and has been largely discredited, depending on whom you choose to believe.
“4. We know a number of public statements by Rove s attorney, Scott McLellan, and other GOP officials/surrogates have been false and/or misleading.”
We do know that a number of public statements have, in hindsight, been false. We know that such false public statements to not give rise to a crime.
5. We also know that there is at least one more source being protected by Miller and the NY Times that is likely not Rove or Libby.
You know Hedley, no matter how many times you post these debunked lies, they are still lies. We’ve debunked these lies again and again, but you still peddle them like day old bread. For the last time- not for you, but for people that have a mind (now is where you call me elitist for calling you ignorant)
1. “We know that by her husband s own admission, she does not meet the statutory definition of a covert agent as stated in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and thus, no crime has been committed unless it can be shown that some other Act applies.”
This is a lie. He said at the moment she was outed, she was no longer covert, but that he could not discuss her previous covert status. Which means he is saying that once the Novak column appeared, she could no longer be a covert agent from that point on.
Again, why did the CIA ask for an inquiry if she was not covert? Can you answer that?
3. We know Karl Rove considered Ms. Plame fair game in a concerted effort to discredit Ambassador Wilson.
We know that Time was preparing to run an incorrect story that Wilson was sent to Nigeria by Cheney. We know that Rove was trying to steer the reporter from an incorrect story. We don t know if outing Plame was the primary motive, or a motive at all, and we do know that Wilson considered the administration fair game and has been largely discredited, depending on whom you choose to believe.
Where do we start? Cheney requested an inquiry of the CIA to check out these claims. The CIA sent Joe Wilson to Niger. Noone has ever asserted otherwise.
3. Chris Matthews called Joe Wilson, and told him that Karl Rove just said to Matthews that his wife was “fair game”. It is right on p2 of his book. Go to amazon.com, you can read that excerpt right on the site.
Why won’t you answer the real question: Why is the White House being used to smear Joe Wilson, because he wrote an article contradicting the White House?
Is that acceptable to you? It must be, you keep trying to rationalize it. What Republican actions will you stand up finally and say, no, they don’t represent me? What would Bush’s White House have to do for you to repudiate them?
We know that by her husband s own admission,
Categorically false. This is a GOP talking point based upon a rather disingenuous parsing of Ambassador Wilson’s comment that his wife ceased being a covert agent after having been exposed as such in a nationally syndicated column.
We do not know which, if any, of them are providing false and/or misleading testimony.
To the contrary. We know–in one instance–that Rove initially told FBI interviewers that he didn’t leak Ms. Plame’s CIA affiliation to reporters. This is now “inoperative.”
We know that Time was preparing to run an incorrect story that Wilson was sent to Nigeria by Cheney
Drink much koolaid? Ths notion is easily refuted by reading Amb. Wilson’s original op/ed. We also know Rove claimed that Cooper called him to talk about welfare reform–something Cooper denies.
I m beyond disgusted, a CIA official said last week. I am especially angry about the b_______ explanations that she is not a covert agent. That is an official status, and there are lots of people in this building who are on that status. It s not up to the Republican Party to determine when that status will end for an agent.
Those partisan hacks at the CIA! Why do they hate America?
That the CIA referred the matter to the DOJ doesn t mean a crime has been commited. That is for the special prosecutor, grand jury and ultimately a judge/jury to determine.
We’re going around and around on this. The point is that the CIA considered Plame covert, which is why they bothered asking Justice to investigate. And they’re the ones who should know.
Hedley,
Why won t you answer the real question: Why is the White House being used to smear Joe Wilson, because he wrote an article contradicting the White House?
Dave, a great post, but unfortunately the traitor apologists have their fingers in their ears yelling “I can’t hear you”.
Randi Rhodes and others have another interesting take on it, and point to Douchebag for Liberty’s column after the famous outing. He mentioned Plame’s front company, Brewster-Jennings, in that article, implying that Plame was “lying” about her employment when she donated to Gore 2000.
Why would he do this? He certainly didn’t investigate this on his own, even though he could have found this info in public records or on web sites. He wanted to twist the knife further, and by doing so, he compromised an outfit that had infiltrated Aramco, the Saudi state oil company.
Dave M.
Pretty good points: why would the CIA have referred if they were sure there was no crime. But that doesn’t mean the inverse is true. Using your same type logic: if it were so simple to say there has been criminal behaviour (beyond the reporters), why wouldn’t we know it by now. But the fact that there was a referral merely means the CIA wants to find out if there was a criminous behaviour. There are instances, of course, of referrals not resulting in criminous findings. And there are undetermined issues here, which could easily impact findings either way. As far as your quotes of magazines and unspecified sources, they prove nothing and mean no more than you and I BSing.
Dugger
Dugger,
The CIA referred the case because a covert agent’s identity was blown. They did not know, as you say, if it was done “criminally”. But there can be no doubt that the CIA deemed her identity covert. That part we can be sure of. Whether a crime was committed is something Fitzgerald will have to find out.
A violation of the IIPA requires that the “covert agent” be “serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States.” Wilson’s book says she came home in 1997. The quotes from Dave M above coroborate this fact.
That the CIA referred the matter to the DOJ doesn’t mean a crime has been commited. That is for the special prosecutor, grand jury and ultimately a judge/jury to determine.
Again, maybe there was a violation of some other act and not the IIPA. If however it was the case that she was not serving overseas in the 5 years preceding Novak’s article, then her status does not fall under the IIPA. Of course maybe although not stationed overseas in those 5 years she has traveled overseas for a weekend or a week or two. In that case would her status qualify under the IIPA? Is that “serving” overseas? Do you have to be stationed overseas to be “serving” overseas? Those are legal questions which would be a reason for the CIA to refer the matter in order to get such a determination and set a precedent for the future. A 2 minute phone call would not answer those questions.
As to why the “White House being used to smear Joe Wilson.” We don’t know that it was. The jury is still out. Isn’t that for the investigation to determine? We still need to determine who Miller and the NY Times are protecting. Of course, at this point, the investigation appears to be focused on the events occuring during the investigation and not the events which caused the investigation.
This case isn’t as black and white as most of you hope it is, but you are unable to see or admit it. Must be those damned talking points.
With regard to Ms. Wilson’s covert status a couple of points that Hedley, Dugger et al, never mention or discuss
1. The CIA referred the matter for a criminal investion in the belief that the cover of one of their operatives was illegally compromised. It strains credulity to believe that the agency itself would have referred the matter for prosecution if Ms. Wilson/Plame did not have an official covert status.
2. Any prosecuter investigating a case for potential filing goes over the evidence to determine if all the elements of the crime can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Step one in this case – was Ms. Wilson/Plame a covert agent. i.e., did the relevant statutes apply to her? A simple 2 minute phone call by Fitzgerald would have cleared that up at the outset. It’s hard to believe that Fitgerald didn’t sit down and discuss the matter with CIA brass to get an idea of what the case was about before he set out on his investigation. He is by all accounts meticulous.
If Ms. Wilson/Plame wasn’t covered by the statute, the investigation would have ended 2 years ago. There would have been no grand jury proceedings and the principals, Rove, Libby, Miller, Cooper, et al wouldn’t be in any trouble because there wouldn’t have been any need for them to testify in the first place.
3. Just for further edification here’s what a couple former CIA agents (as well as an unidentified current agent) have said about Ms. Wilson/Plame and her status (from Time magazine): “CIA sources say Plame held highly sensitive jobs during the past two decades. In the late 1990s she was serving as an NOC, working as an analyst with Brewster-Jennings & Associates, a CIA front company that has been shut down. … But in 1997 she moved back to Washington. The New York Times has reported that the CIA feared that her cover had been blown to the Russians by double agent Aldrich Ames. Her marriage to a high-profile former diplomat further limited her ability to fly under the radar. She began working at CIA headquarters in Langley, assigned to the directorate of operations, the CIA’S clandestine branch that manages its human spying overseas and is one of the agency’s most secretive directorates. …
… But while she may no longer have been a clandestine operative, she was still under protected status. A U.S. official told TIME that Plame was indeed considered covert for the purposes of the Intelligence Identities Protection law. And even if the leak was not illegal, intelligence officials argue, it is not defensible. “I’m beyond disgusted,” a CIA official said last week. I am especially angry about the b_______ explanations that she is not a covert agent. That is an official status, and there are lots of people in this building who are on that status. It’s not up to the Republican Party to determine when that status will end for an agent.”
And one more from Newsweek: “To get an idea of how destructive (a leak such as this can be), I talked to Melissa Mahle, a former CIA covert operative turned author whose career parallels Plame’s. She explained what happens when someone’s cover is blown. It isn’t pretty, especially when, like Plame, you have been under “nonofficial cover” (working for a phony front company or nonprofit), which is more sensitive than “official cover” (pretending to work for another government agency). The GOP’s spinners are making it seem that because Plame had a desk job in Langley at the time she was outed, she wasn’t truly undercover. As Mahle says, that reflects a total ignorance about the way the CIA works. Being outed doesn’t just waste millions of taxpayer dollars; it compromises hundreds of other people in the field you may have worked with in the past. [Jonathan Alter, "Why the Leak Probe Matters," Newsweek, July 25, 2005]
Finally, what Mr. Wilson said about his wife’s status is totally irrelevant and without any legal force to the question of whether his wife was covered by the statute at the time of the leak. And in fact, such a statement isn’t an “admission” at all in the legal sense since he isn’t the person affected by the statement nor is he a party to the possible criminal action.
Maybe Fitzgerald is taking a broader view than commenters here.
Maybe his focus isn’t on the disclosure of Valerie Plame’s name, but on the disclosure-by-association of other operatives who worked with her.
Is that what he’s thinking? Beats me. At this point, it’s a fool’s errand to guess who will or won’t be charged and what they can or can’t be charged with.
Farris is attempting a dive with a high degree of difficulty and technical merit.
Yes, the CIA—run by a GOP hack named Porter Goss–is off and running a covert operation against AWOL George. Of course, John Ashcroft–then-head of the DoJ—is in on the plot to discredit our boy from Andover.
Oh my! Farris rotated too much during his conspiracy-spinning. That’s gotta hurt.
1. why did the CIA ask for an inquiry if she was not covert?
The potential reasons run the gamut. We first need to find out exactly WHO authorized the investigation. We already know from Wilson himself that there was a faction inside the CIA that was actively working against the Administration. Maybe this branch of the CIA authorized it. But even if it came from the Tenet wing, it could merely be a cover-your-a## request because Tenet knew that if he hadn’t referred the matter, people like Oliver, neocons, etc. would go batty screaming “Cover Up!!”.
3. The CIA sent Joe Wilson to Niger. Noone has ever asserted otherwise.
But WHO in the CIA authorized it? That’s the whole question. If Plame authorized it, or had any part in authorizing it, then we have a clear ethical violation by Plame.
Why won t you answer the real question: Why is the White House being used to smear Joe Wilson, because he wrote an article contradicting the White House?
Now we come down to it. Your real question is: Why should Republicans be allowed to defend themselves? Sorry, but that’s life.
BD and elrod, I agree with you both. Clearly the CIA deems her to have been covert. That doesn’t mean, however, that a crime was committed, nor does it mean that she meets the statutory requirements to be covert as defined in the IIPA. The fact that the CIA referred the matter does not automatically mean that a crime was committed. That is for the special prosecutor to determine — and he probably already has. Only now he is focusing on whether a crime was committed during the course of the investiation. We’ll likely know by October.
“Farris is attempting a dive with a high degree of difficulty and technical merit.”
And again, he’s diving into an empty pool.
elrod,
Where was it the CIA said Ms Plame was covert – at the time of Novak’s column? I missed it.
Dugger
Where you been, frameone? That day arrived long, long ago.
Farris –
It’s been evident for a while now that Plame had no authority to send Wilson anywhere in an official capacity. Her bosses asked her to recommend someone and she recommended Wilson who, while he is her husband, has more than enough qualifications for undertaking a fact finding mission to Niger. It was Plame’s bosses who okayed Wilson and authorized his trip. This is one reason why Rove’s assertion that he was merely trying to correct a false story is so misleading. The only people who ever asserted that Plame authorized the trip and sent Wilson on it is the administration itself.
Indeed, the CIA has raised questions about portions of the State Department memo that mention Plame because the memo is the first place, that I know of, that asserted Plame was directly involved in sending Wilson to Niger. The CIA had a problem with that characterization of Plame’s role in the matter because the guy in the State Department who wrote the memo wasn’t at the meeting when the decision was made. This is at least how I understand the story as reported.
Second of all, the idea that a group of agents in the CIA was “working against the administration” is an utterly absurd way of looking at it. The more reasonable reading is that there were a group of agents and analysts who were doing their jobs to get the best intelligence they could about the threat Hussein posed and that the evidence they found didn’t jibe with White House claims. It is a strange day indeed when reporting the truth is automatically considered “working against the administration.”
It is a strange day indeed when reporting the truth is automatically considered working against the administration
Indeed. So why are you so upset at Rove for reporting the truth to Cooper about how Wilson got the job?
It’s interesting to see that no one has been able to answer neoconsrloopy’s question about using the White House to smear Wilson.
Remarkable how the wingers think this story is so insignificant, that they all come out of the woodwork and comment ad nauseum to convice everyone else its insignificant.
“Indeed. So why are you so upset at Rove for reporting the truth to Cooper about how Wilson got the job?”
Dude, when will you get it. Rove told Cooper that it was “wilson’s wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip.” But she didn’t authorize the trip! Let me say it again: she did not AUTHORIZE the trip! She recommended him for the job but it was her superiors who made the final decision and sent Wilson to Niger. So Rove told Cooper something that was not true. Are you saying that Rove was trying to correct Cooper’s story by telling him something that wasn’t true?
From former CIA agent and prosecutor, James Marcinkowski:
http://www.davidcorn.com/ (go to page and scroll to transcript).
A quote that seems apt: “There is a very serious message here. Before you shine up your American flag lapel pin and affix your patriotism to your sleeve, think about what the impact your actions will have on the security of the American people. Think about whether your partisan obfuscation is creating confidence in the United States in general and the CIA in particular. If not, a true patriot would shut up.”
Dugger –
And since you bring it up…
From Rove’s original column:
“Two senior administration officials told me Wilson’s wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him.”
Here’s what’s oddd. Rove says his White House sources, one of which we now know was Rove, told him Plame SUGGESTED Wilson for the trip. That’s consistent with what we now know. But so why did Rove tell Cooper that it was, and I quote from Cooper’s email, wilson s wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who AUTHORIZED the trip ? Between first speaking with Novak and then speaking with Cooper, it appears that Rove added a little embellishment, or maybe, he got his hands on the State Department memo that first implied that Plame sent Wilson on the trip. Who knows. But once again there are more differences and discrepancies in what Rove said to whom and when.
Curioser and curioser …
And maybe Cooper got it wrong. As likely or unlikely as the other possibilities you raise.
You’re right of course. Reporters are infallible. Thanks for settling that tricky issue.
Yes, of course, Hedley, it’s possible that between hanging up with Rove and turning right around to send an email to his editor, Cooper changed “suggested” to “auithorized” and thus set in motion a long cherished GOP talking point.
So because its possible that reporters make mistakes, thats clearly the case here. Not Rove, no not at all. Wait, I thought Rove didnt even talk to Cooper? No he did, but Cooper leaked Plame’s identity to Rove. Or was it Novak. Oh I know, Rove told Copper it was Wilson’s wife, but didn’t mention her by name specifically. But hey, it didnt even matter cause she wasnt undercover. Which one was it again? Does anyone know what the talking point du jour is?
Frameone,
If that as meant for me, don’t follow.
Dugger