« Fighting terrorism | Main | "Screw the Jews, they don't count anyway" »

The USA Today Gets a Clue... A Year Later

Never let it be said that the USA Today wasn't a year behind the blogosphere:

CIA 'outing' might fall short of crime

WASHINGTON -- The alleged crime at the heart of a controversy that has consumed official Washington -- the "outing" of a CIA officer -- may not have been a crime at all under federal law, little-noticed details [little noticed by the MSM -ed] in a book by the agent's husband suggest.

In The Politics of Truth, former ambassador Joseph Wilson writes that he and his future wife both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Neither spouse, a reading of the book indicates, was again stationed overseas. They appear to have remained in Washington, D.C., where they married and became parents of twins. (Related story: Bush waits on Rove)

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." The assignment also must be long-term, not a short trip or temporary post, two experts on the law say. Wilson's book makes numerous references to the couple's life in Washington over the six years up to July 2003.

"Unless she was really stationed abroad sometime after their marriage," she wasn't a covert agent protected by the law, says Bruce Sanford, an attorney who helped write the 1982 act that protects covert agents' identities.

When I read it, I had to double check the dateline; it is today. Amazing. This has been well known in the blogosphere for well over a year. In fact, I mentioned below that I had ignored the whole Plame story before today because we new early in the story that she was not an agent. Has everyone at the USA Today been asleep?

Via one of the top 5 best named blogs in the blogosphere.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The USA Today Gets a Clue... A Year Later:

» Conservative Outpost linked with More Rove

» Another Rovian Conspiracy - St Wendeler linked with Rove Speculation - vol. 1,723

» Kerfuffles linked with Lady Spy Plame and the Frog

» small dead animals linked with Valerie Plame: Not A Covert Agent

» ReidBlog linked with Cat in a tin foil hat, part deux

» protein wisdom linked with FREE THE KARL ROVE ONE!

Comments (44)

Then again, at least they'r... (Below threshold)

Then again, at least they're acknowledging it. Which is more than many other publications can say.

If the resolution of this w... (Below threshold)
Sean:

If the resolution of this whole thing is so simple, why hasn't the Bush Administration just stated that Plame had not been a covert agent within the past five years before her name was mentioned?

Probably because, from what I've read on blogs, Plame may not have been stationed overseas but she was working for a front company for the Company. Outing her as CIA exposes the front and makes public the fact that the company is actually the Company - putting lots of covert agents overseas in danger and exposing them.

Sean, The NYTimes ... (Below threshold)
joe:

Sean,

The NYTimes did that a few weeks back with a CIA cover airline operating out of a nondescript airport. No protests then, I noticed. I think they even gave tail numbers.

Schumer voted against the law he seeks to enforce on Rove. You see, he LIKES to expose the CIA to death and discovery as they try to do their jobs. He only switches sides when it suitd him.

"If the resolution of this ... (Below threshold)
Toby928:

"If the resolution of this whole thing is so simple,... Outing her as CIA exposes the front and makes public the fact that the company is actually the Company - putting lots of covert agents overseas in danger and exposing them."

Those are good questions Sean. I'm baffled myself, and I would add, Why didn't the CIA ask Novak not to publish that article? You know he wouldn't if they had told him it would be bad for national security?

Time will tell. (I hope)

Tob

Sean's logic is similar to ... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

Sean's logic is similar to that initially heard with the Rathergate memoes:

If the memoes aren't real, then why didn't the Administration promptly deny them?

The very fact that the Administration hasn't denied them means that they must be true!

Uh-huh.

Of course, the denial of them is then linked to guilt (If they weren't real, why bother giving them credence by denying them?), and/or to cover-up (A denial? What are they hiding?)

Is changing the subject all... (Below threshold)
frameone:

Is changing the subject all you got Joe?

This is indicative of what the entire Rove defense is right now: "Quick, look over there, Joe Wilson is a liar." "Watch out behind you, the liberals are angry!" "Heads up, the media is biased!"

Sean is right on. If Plame's cover was of no interest to the CIA why did they ask DOJ to open an investigation? Why, for the love of God, did Fitzgerald send a journalist to jail if Plame's real job wasn't classified? Paul has no answer for that -- or anything else really.

Dude, the DEMOCRATS demande... (Below threshold)
joe:

Dude, the DEMOCRATS demanded the investigation, not the CIA!

1) Democrats may have deman... (Below threshold)
frameone:

1) Democrats may have demanded an investigation but they have no legal power or authority actually get one opened. Whether the Democrats called for an investigation has no relevance to why Bush's own DOJ considered it necessary to empower a special prosecutor.

2) May I direct you to the opinion of the appelate court in the Miller and Cooper case. After several pages of redacted information the judge's opinion begins:

"In sum, based on an exhaustive investigation, the special counsel has established the need for Miller’s and Cooper’s testimony. Thus, considering the gravity of the suspected crime and the low value of the leaked information, no privilege bars the subpoenas ... The greater public interest lies in preventing the leak to begin with. Had Cooper based his report on leaks about the leaks—say, from a whistleblower who revealed the plot against Wilson—the situation would be different. Because in that case the source would not have revealed the name of a covert agent, but instead revealed the fact that others had done so, the balance of news value and harm would shift in favor of protecting the whistleblower ... While requiring Cooper to testify may discourage future leaks, discouraging leaks of this kind is precisely what the public interest requires."

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-3138a.pdf

(if you read the section of the ruling you'll know that when they say "low value" they mean "low news value" as it repeated through out the decision.)

frameone quizzes: Sean i... (Below threshold)
Krusty Krab:

frameone quizzes: Sean is right on. If Plame's cover was of no interest to the CIA why did they ask DOJ to open an investigation

I think your logic is more than a bit fried here.

Ashcroft opened the investigation after the political firestorm that erupted in Washington over the "outing". This could have started out as little more than a "cover your ass" grand jury investigation. This is just speculation, but that is all your comments amount to as well.

frameone continues: Why, for the love of God, did Fitzgerald send a journalist to jail if Plame's real job wasn't classified?

There are plenty of other reasons besides Plame's supposedly secret status. If somebody committed perjury, they may need Miller's testimony to convict. Just one example, but everything, including your hyperventilated comments, is little more than speculation.

What is not speculation is that Fitzgerald has said that the target of his investigation has changed, and that the subpoenaed testimony of the reporters is related to that new target. Now, can you wait until the grand jury completes its investigation? Quite obviously you have missed your target here (Rove) and it is only a matter of time before we learn the real story behind the

Somewhat off topic but I wa... (Below threshold)
Toby928:

Somewhat off topic but I was hoping for some help, I posted a question on another thread but have not got any answers so let me x-post here:

"On a tangentially related note, has anyone from this administration been indicted or departed 'under a cloud'? Maybe I haven't been watching closely enough or my memory is too selective, but no names come to mind. Are there any?"

Thanks in advance.
Tob

Frameone, you usually very good with links/citations. Do you know of any indictments or 'departures under clouds'?

frameone: Democrats may ... (Below threshold)
Krusty Krab:

frameone: Democrats may have demanded an investigation but they have no legal power or authority actually get one opened. Whether the Democrats called for an investigation has no relevance to why Bush's own DOJ considered it necessary to empower a special prosecutor.

We're still a democracy, and the Democrats + media hold enough power to force a grand jury investigation, so your argument simply doesn't hold any water.

Seriously, are you going to tell us you would have accepted Ashcroft's explanation that no crime had been committed and that there was no reason for a grand jury investigation? Quite honestly, I wouldn't have, even though I am obviously more moderate (less liberal) than you.

Though things have played out differently than I expected them to, I am glad there is an ongoing investigation... regardless of whether Rove is eventually exonerated in this matter. Not all grand jury's eventually conclude that a crime had been committed, let alone hand down inditements.

USA Today borrowed a clue, ... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

USA Today borrowed a clue, don't get too excited, they'll return it before too long. I'll believe they have a clue they'll stick to as soon as frameone shows some sign of having one. I'm not holding my breath.

I was of the assumption tha... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

I was of the assumption that even the Democrats knew Plame was not a covert agent but it really didn't matter. Politically it was beneficial to stretch the interpretation of the law as much as they could. I'm probably being pretty naive but I think the Bush administration was aware of how this was going to play with respect to Rove. I don't think Rove would lie to Bush about his role. Having said that, there might be others the grand jury has a greater interest in.

"We're still a democracy, a... (Below threshold)
frameone:

"We're still a democracy, and the Democrats + media hold enough power to force a grand jury investigation, so your argument simply doesn't hold any water."

If the democrats had any real sway over Ashcroft or anybody for that matter there'd be special prosecutors and independent counsels running all over DC looking into everything from the use of intelligence to lie us into war to Halliburton's war profiteering to the Gannon/Guckert scandal. It's the idea that partisan interest groups somehow pressured Ashcroft to empower Fitzgerald that's ridiculous.

And yes, Fitzgerlad may be following up perjury or obstruction of justice charges. We'll see what happens.

I'd like to also point out that I consider Rove innocent until proven guilty of whatever. I can wait until Fitzgerald finishes his job. What drives me nuts is that while Rebuplicans are demanding that everyone wait until the investigation is over before commenting, they're out there trying to undercut the legitimacy of the investigation itself: There was no crime!(and re-sliming Wilson to boot).

Krusty hit the nail right o... (Below threshold)
Lew Clark:

Krusty hit the nail right on the head. The left uses the argument "There was a leak of a covert CIA Agent by the White House or there would have been no need for an investigation".
The Administration knows the political environment. What if they just issued a statement saying there was no leak. That the CIA works for the President and the President has checked with them. Would the NYT, etc. have printed a front page article to the effect: "Bush says there was no leak, and he should know, so that's the end of this story."
Hell no! That would have led to a feeding frenzy that puts this one to shame. Immediate calls for impeachment.
So the administration took the only course they could take. Investigate a crime that never happened.
Now interestingly, during the investigation, there was evidence discovered that other crimes may have been committed. And not by the White House. Stay tuned because some darlings of the left are going down.
Of course, that will not change the tune of some. They will cry coverup and false imprisonment. But I think the big players in the Democratic party and MSM will be smart enough to totally ignore the findings and play the "move along nothing to report here" game.

Fitzgerald will have the fi... (Below threshold)
HeadInTheSand:

Fitzgerald will have the final say in the matter, not USA Today or anyone else

And I hope he's ready for t... (Below threshold)
HeadInTheSand:

And I hope he's ready for the pile of sh*t that will fall on his head when the indictments are handed down...

TIC TOC, TIC TOC

Hey frameone, let me loan y... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

Hey frameone, let me loan you a clue, I know it won't sink in, but I'll give it a shot anyway. According to the anti-corporate/communist leaning web site Corpwatch Halliburton has been investigated and is still being investigated. You should be familiar with the site, it's populated by moonbats like you. Maybe you'd feel more at home commenting there and leaving decent people alone?

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12266

Joseph Wilson acknowledged ... (Below threshold)
Palmateer:

Joseph Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said.

- AP, 07-15-05


A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.

"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times.

The Left, before: "We deman... (Below threshold)
Les Nessman:

The Left, before: "We demand an investigation because the Repubs are guilty of something!"

The Left, after: "The Repubs are guilty of something because there was an investigation!"


Nice, neat and circular.

Palmateer: Thanks for the l... (Below threshold)
Krusty Krab:

Palmateer: Thanks for the links. Just more nails in the "Plame was outed" meme.

frameone: What drives me nuts is that while Rebuplicans are demanding that everyone wait until the investigation is over before commenting.

Nobody's saying anything about commenting... at least not me. If Rove is guilty (which seems pretty remote as of today), then he should fry. Period.

Some people, like John Kerry want Rove convicted, drawn and quartered well before the grand jury even comes out with a report. I can see people legitimately complaining about that... which comes far beyond reasoned discourse.

Now, was Rebuplicans really an attempt at reasoned discourse, or was it a bit like calling you a Decromat? Inpedendents like me want to know.

"If the resolution of this ... (Below threshold)

"If the resolution of this whole thing is so simple, why hasn't the Bush Administration just stated that Plame had not been a covert agent within the past five years before her name was mentioned?"

Better things to do, I'm guessing. The Clinton administration gave us a perfect example of how much time you can waste trying to justify your behavior. And honestly, this kind of reverse-engineering logic never works out the way you hope it will. It must be really sad to want someone's head on a platter so bad when you have no chance of actually getting it there.

This is turning into "exa... (Below threshold)
Kansas Kid:

This is turning into "exactly how do you define 'is'" issue. Many of us felt the Bush administration was above this kind of parsing of words crap.

Rove outed a CIA agent. He should pay for this serious action.

Kansas kid: Rove outed a... (Below threshold)
Krusty Krab:

Kansas kid: Rove outed a CIA agent. He should pay for this serious action.

Rove's words were "I heard that, too". Very serious offense, to God, Country and Family. He should be ashamed, and vilified for eternity for committing the act of Gossip.

Krusty -- Legality... (Below threshold)
frameone:

Krusty --

Legality aside, would you keep someone on the job you knew to be a liar?

Scott MacClellan is on record as saying that when asked, Rove told him he was not involved whatsoever with the leak. That was clearly false. Reblicans can parse it all you want but Rove was not only involved, we now know that he was Cooper's source for the information and he was Rove's second source for the information. Republicans can dance around the meaning of the words "leak" and "confirm" all they want but that's not what MacClellan told the press. He said it was "ridiculous" to suggest that Rove was involved at all. I don't think anyone is saying Rove should be declared guilty of a crime. It is legitimate to ask a simple question: Why would Bush tolerate a liar in his administration?

bullwinkle -- Inve... (Below threshold)
frameone:

bullwinkle --

Investigated by a special prosecutor? I think not.
We can $70 million to uncover a blow job. The same amount to look into charges of war profiteering? Nope.

You just aren't happy provi... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

You just aren't happy proving you don't have a clue. Why do you feel it's necessary to keep reminding us?

BTW, the blowjob didn't cau... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

BTW, the blowjob didn't cause an $70 mil investigation, the perjury and obstruction of justice did. Clinton's inability to be honest caused it. And you inability to either understand why it happened or admit the truth just proves one again that you don't have a clue. That would mean you are either clueless or dishonest, so which is it?

frameone: again and again,... (Below threshold)
-S-:

frameone: again and again, you leap (or should I write, "frogmarch"?) from one bit of flimsly logic to another and then demand a response to what in full equates with nonsense.

Your last question is impossible to prove outside delusions, often paranoiod ones, within the psches of mistrustful liberals. As in, there is no proof of viable substance that the Bush Administration IS "tolerat(ing) a liar in (the) Administration" such that there's now no means by which anyone could comment upon why the Bush Administration WOULD NOT, or even WOULD.

About the rest of it...I still read no evidence from you that you are reading actual facts in this issue but that you are continually motivated by what appear to be...well...paranoid delusions.

Read the information. Pose questions about those facts that are available as they become availalbe. Otherwise, a lot of us will continue to dismiss your delusions because they represent impossible points to even discuss -- meaning, no one can discuss/respond to possibilities that are not likely to occur and/or have not, and unless someone responds to your emotions and fears, there's no ability to discuss.

SFact 1: MacClella... (Below threshold)
frameone:

S

Fact 1: MacClellan is on record saying that Rove assured him he was not involved in leaking information about Plame.

Fact 2: Comments by Rove's own lawyer, the Cooper email, and the latest leak about Rove and Novak all contradict what Rove told MacClellan and what MacClellan repeated to the press.


If you were really following this story you would know that the reason the press is so slathered up about this is not because they want to prove Rove guilty of crime or anyting like that. They're all agitated because they found that either Rove lied to MacClellan or that MacClellan lied to them.

Can you find anything in the public record that disproves either Fact 1 or Fact 2?

Based on everything I have ... (Below threshold)
JimK:

Based on everything I have heard and read to date, I have two questions:

Question 1: Was Plame overseas in the last 6 years of her employ, yes or no?

Question 2: Did she walk in the front door at Langley to do her desk job at any point during this "covert" status? Yes or no.

If the answers are no, then there is no story here. PERIOD.

If the answers are yes, the Rove has to pay for his part in it, whatever it may have been.

frameone: . I don't thin... (Below threshold)
Krusty Krab:

frameone: . I don't think anyone is saying Rove should be declared guilty of a crime. It is legitimate to ask a simple question: Why would Bush tolerate a liar in his administration?

Depends on what he lied about of course and to whom. This strikes me as business between Bush and Rove, exclusively, at this point.

Everybody lies sometimes. Except you, perhaps, assuming you are claiming that you are perfect.

Hell, some people are even paid to lie: They're called "press relations" officers and "advertisers".

The Republican response to ... (Below threshold)
Chris:

The Republican response to this whole issue follows their usual format: just throw out as much bullshit as you can and see what sticks. The public hears all of this stuff, hears people like Matthews buying it, and figures that it's too complicated to ever know the truth. The fact is, Democrats may have been saying that they think Rove committed a crime, but I'd like to see a quote from one responsible Dem insisting that Rove be convicted before the investigation concludes. What I and others will keep repeating is the simple fact that Bush and his spokesperson made very clear that the leaker of this information would have to leave the administration. It's been established that Rove was one of the leakers. And I'm sorry, but just because a reporter first broaches a subject and a government official confirms it, it's still a leak. This part of the whole issue could easily have been put to rest with a simple acknowledgement that Rove did it. Bush could say "I know I said I'd fire whoever did it, but Karl's assured me it was a slip of the tongue. As a Christian I believe in forgiveness." The Dems would howl for a while and the issue would die. Instead, it's dragged on for two years and God knows how many zillions of dollars in legal fees. All of the obfuscation about Plame's real status, Wilson's honesty, other people's involvement,etc., is just a smokescreen. Fitzgerald will ultimately tell us what the legal status of the whole issue is. In the meantime, Rove leaked but keeps his job. And I've yet to see a post from any of you moonbats that justifies it. It's really a very simple issue.

And Bullsh- er Bullwinkle, perhaps you can come up with a post that consists of something other than telling people they don't have a clue. How about some substance, you moron?

"Everybody lies sometimes. ... (Below threshold)
frameone:

"Everybody lies sometimes. Except you, perhaps, assuming you are claiming that you are perfect."

Please. Rove is a senior advisor to the President who lied in the course of supposedly doing the people's business. If we take MacClellan at his word that Rove told him he had nothing to do with the leak then Rove lied to MacClellan and MacClellan spread that lie to the press. The press then reported that lie to the American people.

The only reason why Clinton's lie about Lewinsky shocked, shocked, so many people was because he was President. We now have a President tolerating a proven liar as his top advisor. At the very least that raises questions about his judgement. Unless, of course, you think MacClellan was lying about Rove. Then Bush is supporting a liar as his press secretary.

You see there are two level... (Below threshold)
frameone:

You see there are two levels at work here:

The legal questions and issues which is entirely a question of waiting for Fitzgerald to finish his investigation.

Then there's what might be called the extra-legal level which have to do with character and ethics. On this level Bush either tolerates leakers and those who confirm leaks (Rove being both) or he doesn't.

You can quibble over the word "leak" if you want to but there is no one here who can now say with any conviction that Rove was not involved in spreading the information that started the whole controversy. He confirmed the content of a leak to Novak (who apperenlty got his info from another administration official) and then spread the content of the original leak to Cooper. If we beleive the latest leak from the GJ, these are undeniable facts.

Also Krusty I would direct ... (Below threshold)
frameone:

Also Krusty I would direct you to a comment I made above:

Dig that last paragraph of this quote from an LA Times article circa 2003. Who asked for the DOJ investigation? The CIA.

Los Angeles Times. Oct 1, 2003. pg. A.1:

"President Bush said Tuesday that he welcomed a Justice Department investigation into whether White House officials illegally disclosed the identity of a CIA agent in an effort to discredit or punish her husband, an administration critic.

Bush also dismissed calls by Democrats for the appointment of a special counsel to look into the matter. Administration critics argued that Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft is too partisan to preside over an impartial investigation ...

The remarks were the president's first on the burgeoning scandal, which burst into view over the weekend when it was disclosed that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to investigate whether senior administration officials deliberately unmasked a CIA agent married to former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson IV, a critic of Bush's handling of intelligence before the war in Iraq."

frameone: no, rather, you ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

frameone: no, rather, you might consider, if you were really reading the information, you would not be insisting on making redundant and self-conflicting statements that are often without logic and unsupportable hyperbole.

It's one thing to THINK that you know something. It's another thing entirely to prove it. Which you, and most Democrats, can't, haven't, aren't likely to beyond the hyperbole and conjecture level.

I think that's why so many liberals rely on the hatespeech method: "nazis," "hitlerbush" and similar ridiculous uglies that say far more about the author than anyone else...because you've lost repeatedly the cultural wars that allow for that sort of excitable, illogical hyperbole to succeed in the public venue and thus, without anything else to offer, all you can do is sputter nonsense.

Sometimes you make sense. About Karl Rove, you haven't, not now, not earlier, and you continue to utter these challenges ('what about this?' and 'yeah, but, what about that?' and, "why does Bush allow liers in his administration?' and other foolish, nonsensical statements that (1.) are not facts and that therefore (2.) cannot be disputed because they are not first proven).

"I think that's why so many... (Below threshold)
frameone:

"I think that's why so many liberals rely on the hatespeech method: "nazis," "hitlerbush" and similar ridiculous uglies that say far more about the author than anyone else..."

Yes, all the liberals have left the conservatives to work with are non sequiturs.

I don't THINK that Maclellan said he spoke with Rove and Rove told him he had nothing to do with the leak. MacClellan said it.

I don't THINK that Rove was actually involved in the leak. Rove's own lawyer has admitted that he was.

There's no question about either these points. These are facts, on the record.

frameone, is there any evid... (Below threshold)
Ring:

frameone, is there any evidence rove was involved with the leak? Is there any evidence that Rove called someone up, and offered them the details? Isn't this how it was supposed to have gone down? Rove, seething with anger at Wilson shopping the story about his wife for revenge. oh how far a cry it is from Rove was called about another matter and was baited into disclosing info about Plame, to which his minimalist answer is now considered a leak. I can't wait till it devolves into "Rove's sister dated a guy who's mother's cousin was called Valerie" therefore he's the leak.

Also Bush didn't say he would fire anyone involved with the leak, he said they would be dealt with. It was a journalist who put the firing words into Bush's mouth when he asked him if he would keep his pledge 'to fire anyone involved', a pledge Bush never made, but an obvious reference to his earlier pledge.


frameone @ 2:07 PM, 7-15-20... (Below threshold)
fatman:

frameone @ 2:07 PM, 7-15-2005:

"I'd like to also point out that I consider Rove innocent until proven guilty of whatever."

Bullshit. And everyone here knows it.

As the media is now "notici... (Below threshold)
LuckyDog:

As the media is now "noticing" there has been no violation of either the Espionage Act, or the more recent IIPP Act by Karl Rove. 1) She had not been a covert agent for the last six years, 2) she had not been stationed overseas in that capacity for over 5 years, 3) she did not meet the definition of a "Covert Operative" as laid out, 4) Karl Rove simply passed along to Cooper that she worked at the agency, and had pushed her husband to go to Niger, 5) Rove did not call Cooper, nor did he get his information of her employment or classified status... from classified documents, 6) Rove was told by Novak of her agency affilliation, 7) the Special Prosecutor has said that Rove is not the target of the investigation, 8) The Rove/McClellan discussion about who said what to whom is a game by the white house press to get McClellan to same something newsworthy, and 9) someone else is going to fall that is closert to the left than to the right, otherwise Miller would have given up her source by now (Rove had already relinquished her of confidentiality 18 months ago.

Frameone: The only reaso... (Below threshold)
Krusty Krab:

Frameone: The only reason why Clinton's lie about Lewinsky shocked, shocked, so many people was because he was President.

What utter tripe.

Clinton, while President, lied under oath and obstructed justice. That is why it was a big deal.

Krusty, frameone hasn't eve... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

Krusty, frameone hasn't even grasped that special prosecutors are used for investigating administration officials, not corporations, there's no possible way he'll ever undertsand that Clinton obstructed justice or admit it if he did understand it. He's driven by hate like most moonbats, can't see the forest OR the trees.

Hey fatman, when have I eve... (Below threshold)
frameone:

Hey fatman, when have I ever said "Rove is guilty"? But he did lie. That's a fact.

Fact 1. Rove told CNN during the Repub convention:
"I didn't know her name and didn't leak her name."
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/05/ip.01.html

Fact 2. "Someone who has been officially briefed on the matter" told the NY Times that:

"Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist [Novak] the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/politics/15rove.html

So, according to the NY Times' source, Rove told the GJ that he learned the name of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, on July 8, the date of his conversation with Rove. He spoke with Cooper until July 11.

If anyone can square FACT 2 with FACT 1 I'd love to hear it.

FACT 3: Rove told Cooper that "Wilson's wife" worked for the CIA.

Technically, Fact 3 and Fact 1 are not conflict, although they are opposed in spirit. Certainly we can agree that saying "Wilson's wife" is to effectively identify the woman without using her proper name. If we can't agree on that then, well, all is probably lost.

Fact 4: From the AP:
http://www.ftimes.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=28249&TM=3050.854

"In September and October 2003, McClellan said he had spoken directly with Rove about the matter and that "he was not involved" in leaking Plame's identity to the news media. McClellan said at the time: "The president knows that Karl Rove wasn't involved," "It was a ridiculous suggestion" and "It's not true."'

Is there anyone here who will refute that Rove was involved in telling Cooper that "Wilson's wife" worked for the CIA? We now know that Rove confirmed Novak's info on Plame and that he told Cooper about "Wilson's wife." I'm sure no one here will deny these facts. I know you'll all probably argue that confirming information is not a "leak," per se. For the sake of argument I'll give you that one. But Cooper did not know about Wilson's wife's job at all until Rove told him. Is that a leak? At the very least is that not dissemination of information? Knowing what Rove told Cooper, how is possible to say that he simply was not involved? If Rove told McClellan that he was not involved then he was lying, or at the very least, obscruing the truth. Are you all comfortable with that?
Are you comfortable with the fact that Rove told the President he was not involved? Or do you think Rove told Bush "I didn't leak her name, I just confirmed her name and job to one reporter and then passed that information on to another reporter." And so, naturally, it's okay to tell the press and the public that Rove was not involved. What do you call that? Being a straight shooter with the American people?

At the very least, we now know that Rove lied on air to CNN. He may also have lied to McClellan and the President, taking both Scott and Bush at their words. Of course, if Rove didn't lie to McClellan and Bush than all three are, at the least, playing fast and loose with the truth.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy