So we've come back full circle. We said a couple of days ago, there would be another shoe to drop that would shed more light on the whole Plame/Wilson/Novak/Rove/ etc. saga, and last night we got two. The AP reports:
Chief presidential adviser Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of an undercover CIA officer but that he originally learned about the operative from the news media and not government sources, according to a person briefed on the testimony.
The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, told The Associated Press that Rove testified last year that he remembers specifically being told by columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, the wife of a harsh Iraq war critic, worked for the CIA.
And Joe Wilson himself says his wife was not a clandestine officer at the time Novak's column "outed" her:
But at the same time, 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.
And there's indication Plame's employer was not much of a secret to begin with:
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.
"Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here. ... The agency never changed her cover status."
Mr. Rustmann, who spent 20 of his 24 years in the agency under "nonofficial cover" -- also known as a NOC, the same status as the wife of Mr. Wilson -- also said that she worked under extremely light cover.
In addition, Mrs. Plame hadn't been out as an NOC since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, married Mr. Wilson and had twins, USA Today reported yesterday.
Perhaps now the Democrats will act like grownups and drop the matter. We aren't holding our breath.
More from Wizbang, Michelle Malkin, The Anchoress, David Limbaugh, and Captain's Quarters.
Even under the circumstances described in today's stories, was Rove's behavior ethically acceptable? And if so, why didn't he come forward sooner?
Did press secretary Scott McClellan know Rove was Novak's second source when he insisted that it was ridiculous to suggest that Rove was involved? What did Rove tell Bush about this, and when?
And who is this new anonymous leaker?
And of course, we still don't know about Novak's first source and his or her motives.
Then there's the:
"The Jonathan Randel Leak Prosecution Precedent"
Randel was a Drug Enforcement Agency analyst, a PhD in history, working in the Atlanta office of the DEA. Randel was convinced that British Lord Michael Ashcroft (a major contributor to Britain's Conservative Party, as well as American conservative causes) was being ignored by DEA, and its investigation of money laundering. (Lord Ashcroft is based in South Florida and the off-shore tax haven of Belize.)
Randel leaked the fact that Lord Ashcroft's name was in the DEA files, and this fact soon surfaced in the London news media. Ashcroft sued, and learned the source of the information was Randel. Using his clout, soon Ashcroft had the U.S. Attorney in pursuit of Randel for his leak.
By late February 2002, the Department of Justice indicted Randel for his leaking of Lord Ashcroft's name. It was an eighteen count "kitchen sink" indictment; they threw everything they could think of at Randel. Most relevant for Karl Rove's situation, Court One of Randel's indictment alleged a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641. This is a law that prohibits theft (or conversion for one's own use) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes. But its broad language covers leaks, and it has now been used to cover just such actions.
Randel, faced with a life sentence (actually, 500 years) if convicted on all counts, on the advice of his attorney, pleaded guilty to violating Section 641. On January 9, 2003, Randel was sentenced to a year in a federal prison, followed by three years probation. This sentence prompted the U.S. Attorney to boast that the conviction of Randel made a good example of how the Bush Administration would handle leakers.
Karl Rove may be able to claim that he did not know he was leaking "classified information" about a "covert agent," but there can be no question he understood that what he was leaking was "sensitive information." The very fact that Matt Cooper called it "double super secret background" information suggests Rove knew of its sensitivity, if he did not know it was classified information (which by definition is sensitive).
United States District Court Judge Richard Story's statement to Jonathan Randel, at the time of sentencing, might have an unpleasant ring for Karl Rove. Judge Story told Randel that he surely must have appreciated the risks in leaking DEA information. "Anything that would affect the security of officers and of the operations of the agency would be of tremendous concern, I think, to any law-abiding citizen in this country," the judge observed. Judge Story concluded this leak of sensitive information was "a very serious crime."
Comment by Ghost Dansing — July 15, 2005 @ 12:59 pm July 15, 2005
Also,
There are stories circulating that Rove may have been told of Valerie Plame's CIA activity by a journalist, such as Judith Miller, as recently suggested in Editor & Publisher. If so, that doesn't exonerate Rove. Rather, it could make for some interesting pairing under the federal conspiracy statute (which was the statute most commonly employed during Watergate).
Comment by Ghost Dansing — July 15, 2005 @ 1:04 pm July 15, 2005
Ghost,
"Even under the circumstances described in today’s stories, was Rove’s behavior ethically acceptable?"
If he took a call from Novak, what would be unethical about that?
"Did press secretary Scott McClellan know Rove was Novak’s second source"
If Novak in fact called Rove and told Rove Plame's identity, then Rove was not Novak's source.
The stuff about Randel and all of comment #2 seem to be lifted from this John Dean column. That's a real no-no.
Thanks for visiting and commenting.
Comment by The Editors — July 15, 2005 @ 3:16 pm July 15, 2005
"If he took a call from Novak, what would be unethical about that?"
It is not that he answered the phone, it is what he said while speaking on it!
"If Novak in fact called Rove and told Rove Plame’s identity, then Rove was not Novak’s source."
Since you pretend to be a real editor of a real news source, you of all people should no that a reporter needs someone to corroborate a possible fact before it is considered a fact. This is where Rove comes into the picture, as he himself has admitted. You are right in that Rove appears not to be the source, but he is the corroborator of the information gathered from the "source" Even though he is not the source, he is still in violation of the law and is clearly in the wrong. However, there will be someone else which deserves to burn as well. It will be interesting to see who this "source" is!
In case the above is to elementary for you to understand;
Think of H2O (water). Just like a fact, it needs TWO elements. In the news that would be a "source" and a
"corroborator". In this case it is "hydrogen" and "oxygen". One may argue that the "source" is the most important element, much like Hydrogen since it's responsible for two thirds of the equation. But in reality, even though Oxygen only makes up one part and a corroborator is secondary to the "source" the final result is moot without them. No Oxygen, no water. No corroborator, no fact. Both elements are needed for their respective equations.
H2 + O = water
source + corroborator = fact (A fact which was leaked)
Still to tough for you to grasp conceptually? Yea, I know it is hard to think sometimes. Here, let me spell it out even easier for you Ed;
Unknown Person + Rove = those RESPONSIBLE
*yawn*
Comment by Jim — July 16, 2005 @ 3:37 pm July 16, 2005
Dean was stating the fact that Rove faces a real legal precedent, endorsed by Dubya and his Republican administration.
Dubya's White House is one of the most secretive in American history. This part of it is just the tip of a very unsavory iceburg that could just sink his Titanic; and he knows it.
I agree with this guy:
"Rove leak is just part of larger scandal" By Daniel Schorr
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0715/p09s02-cods.html
Comment by Ghost Dansing — July 16, 2005 @ 3:56 pm July 16, 2005
In response to Jim, comment #4:
"Still to tough for you to grasp conceptually? Yea, I know it is hard to think sometimes. Here, let me spell it out even easier for you Ed;"
Why is it so difficult for those on the left to be civil?
"...a reporter needs someone to corroborate a possible fact before it is considered a fact. This is where Rove comes into the picture, as he himself has admitted. You are right in that Rove appears not to be the source, but he is the corroborator of the information gathered from the “source” Even though he is not the source, he is still in violation of the law and is clearly in the wrong."
You think he's in violation of the law, but it's very doubtful he is. Rove claims he heard of Plame's identity from a journalist. If journalist A told Rove Plame's identity, and then journalist B(Novak) also told Rove Plame's identity, and Rove said, something like "yeah, that's what I heard", there's no apparent wrongdoing involved there at all, let alone a legal violation.
Comment by The Editors — July 16, 2005 @ 6:30 pm July 16, 2005
In response to Ghost, comment #5:
Dean was stating his opinion, and you quoted him without attribution, which is plagiarism.
"Dubya’s White House is one of the most secretive in American history. This part of it is just the tip of a very unsavory iceburg that could just sink his Titanic; and he knows it."
I understand that many paranoid and embittered leftists often make that assertion. It is both baseless and unoriginal. President Bush strikes us as a very decent, honorable man, and a fine president.
Thank you again for visiting.
Comment by The Editors — July 16, 2005 @ 6:34 pm July 16, 2005
"Why is it so difficult for those on the left to be civil?"
Who said I am on the left idiot! I voted Republican [expletive deleted]!
Go find some of my posts at Think Progess. There, will you see, young idiot, that I do not let my judgements of truth fall along party lines. I am objective, as you yourself should be young idiot!
"...Rove said, something like “yeah, that’s what I heard”, there’s no apparent wrongdoing involved there at all, let alone a legal violation."
Well now this is where the debate comes in ins't it? Rove IS IN THE WRONG. Even IF he did not know her, he still should not have commented on it when asked. You cannot disagree. Just because someone says, "Hey. so and so did this," and you know that person does not have the security clearance to know such things, you cannot say, "yeah, that’s what I heard". It is at the very least, morally wrong! Like I said, the legality of it is what is up for debate. Not whether or not Rove is "WRONG".
Comment by Jim — July 17, 2005 @ 6:45 am July 17, 2005
Here, for you Ed. This shows my previos posts where I confronted a Dem on my stance in favor of a Rep.
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/07/15/more-brains-and-less-brawn-please/#comments
*yawn*
And before you say, "Jesus was civil. Why not you?" Um, I'm TRYING to be like Jesus, I'm not there yet.
Comment by Jim — July 17, 2005 @ 6:48 am July 17, 2005
We understand, Jim, that there exist some uncivil, foul-mouthed people who claim to be Republicans.
"Rove IS IN THE WRONG."
Putting your assertions in all caps doesn't make them more true, Jim.
Thanks again for visiting.
Comment by The Editors — July 17, 2005 @ 8:06 am July 17, 2005
However, the Downing Street Memos and the ongoing scandal involving Dubya's most trusted advisor are tied together. They show the lengths that this Republican administration will go to in convincing Americans to accept a unnecessary war. They also show how the White House bullied and discredited anyone who got in its way.
If the Republican administration's spin-effort on the pre-war intelligence would be investigated, it would be impeachment time for Dubya.
Comment by Ghost Dansing — July 17, 2005 @ 8:59 am July 17, 2005
The war to liberate Iraq is necessary and justified though; you're wrong about that, Ghost.
The White House isn't bullying anyone. Joe Wilson was discredited because he was shown to have lied repeatedly.
There's no basis whatsoever for an impeachment of President Bush. That's nothing but crazy talk.
Thank you again for visiting.
Comment by The Editors — July 17, 2005 @ 10:02 am July 17, 2005
"Putting your assertions in all caps doesn’t make them more true, Jim"
Putting them in all caps was not meant to designate them as true. It was my way of making it easy for you to read, and hopefully less prone to misunderstanding them.
Whoever started the gossip aside, Rove took part in it. That makes him guilty of something! Possesion of stlolen property is just as bad as stealing them... so the logic goes.
What I will agree on is that whoever is the SOURCE, they need to be found. Rather than have this Administration go from "We need to find him" to "it's no longer a big deal", is absurd to say the least. The special prosecutor should re-subpoena the reporter and re-ask who was the source. In my opinion the reporter never answered the question in the first place. The prosecutor should continue to go after this issue with as much zeal as they had before Rove was fingered. In fact, I would almost agree to let Rove off legally if the real source could be identified.
Comment by Jim — July 17, 2005 @ 10:22 am July 17, 2005
"We understand, Jim, that there exist some uncivil, foul-mouthed people who claim to be Republicans"
Did I say I WAS a Republican? Do you even read at an adult level??? Read the link I posted and then recant what you implied!
Comment by Jim — July 17, 2005 @ 10:26 am July 17, 2005
"Whoever started the gossip aside, Rove took part in it. That makes him guilty of something!"
You're taking part in it, thus you're guilty, by your own standard.
Comment by The Editors — July 17, 2005 @ 12:37 pm July 17, 2005
"You’re taking part in it, thus you’re guilty, by your own standard"
There is a difference idiot.
1st. When Rove took part, the information was NOT Public Domain. It WAS CLASSIFIED information.
2nd. AFTER the publishing of the information, it BECAME PUBLIC Domain.
Do you not even know what the issue is? It is the discolsure of classified information. It is a bad thing because once it was disclosed to the public, it NO LONGER could be classified.
Please tell me your not this stupid... please! You can argue for the sake of arguing, but at the very least, don't look ignorant while doing so.
I suppose I should remember to dumb down my statements and comb them like a lawyer might.
Comment by Jim — July 17, 2005 @ 1:57 pm July 17, 2005
Why are you liberals so persistently uncivil, Jim?
Rove claims he did not know of Plame's employer from classified information, but from the press, the same way you learned her identity. She was apparently so concerned about keeping her identity secret that she posed for pictures in Vanity Fair.
Comment by The Editors — July 17, 2005 @ 3:17 pm July 17, 2005
Well I think that the findings of the Rove scandal are going to lead to calls for impeachment. Dubya is just far too impeachable for it not to happen!
Comment by Ghost Dansing — July 18, 2005 @ 4:21 pm July 18, 2005