Heh. Love that header. Linked.

Asked by investigators how he knew enough to leave Mr. Novak with the impression that his information was accurate, Mr. Rove said he had heard portions of the story from other journalists

Ace,

It's just "innit", as in "Isn't it" not "innit it", as in "Isn't it it"...

It was Wilson. Film at eleven. So is the amp.

CNN poll today is "Should Rove be sacked?" Go vote.

That troll izzadem must not have made it from the subway grate he slept on last night to the library yet. He hasn't showed up to call Ace a "twat wingnut".

Couldn't find the poll.

But I did find this!

Which may be the funniest headline I've read all week.

Heh. 'Probe.' Heh.

You know, a reasonable person could almost think Rove and Bush really are fly-fishing with these Dems.

Look at this response from a lefty when my husband told her to 'moveon:'

"...what if it IS cheney and the neocon cabal that fitzgerald is after and rove
>is just the red meat keeping the public occupied while the investigation
>quietly reaches right into the VP office"

Now they're fixated on Cheney again.
I tell you, its just too friggin easy.

Hey moveon types! Here's a better one:

What if Mr. and Mrs. Wilson took lessons from Sid Blumethal and said one thing in grand jury testimony and contradicted that testimony in spinning it for the MSM?

I really do suspect that Bush and Rove are using the rope-a-dope strategy yet again. Why change a strategy that works every time?

It always goes like this. The Democrats and their MSM subsidiaries get the notion that such and such is an important scandal. Then they keep building it up and puffing it up to the point they think it could bring down the McHitlerburton administration once and for all!

And it's fed by total silence coming from the White House, which even troubles the more defeatist-minded Republican allies. "Why isn't the White House mounting a defense against these provably false allegations? Does it mean there's actually *something* to them? I'd probably better start rewriting my resume and get ready for the return of our permanent Democratic overlords." And the media: "Scott McClellan once again refused to deny allegations of cannibalism and ritual human sacrifice at the White House."

And then the sharks, smelling blood in the water, go into an even deeper frenzy. Impeachment hearings could be only days away! Or maybe we'll skip all that and go straight to public lynchings!

And then... and *only* then... does the administration reveal everything, and it only exonerates them and makes the opposition look like clueless morons blinded by their own hatred.

For people so paranoid about Dark Lord of the Sith Karl Rove's omnipotence, they fall into this trap with alarming regularity....

RE: Dave's comment...

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/Cartoons/06-25-2005.gif

And I think it's pretty cool. Why?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/248ipzbt.asp

Lileks brings up a good point about that entire CIA covert operation with the charter planes, that was outed recently; what newspaper did that? I know its in the archives here somewhere.

Ace --

In re your comment on Grand Jury secrecy.

My understanding is that only the prosecution and jurors are barred as a matter of law from reporting on what happens in at a GJ proceeding.

During the Clinton-Lewinsky scandals, most of the clinton admin. witnesses -- Blumenthal, Clinton's secretary, etc. (or really, their lawyers) had agreements in place where they liberally shared what they told the grand jury with each other.

Remember also that many of the witnesses -- Blumenthal most memorably walked right up to a bank of microphones and told the reporters exactly what they just told the GJ.

I certainly could be wrong but that is how I think it goes.

RE: the GJ stuff. It's not illegal for the testifier to later reveal what he said in the GJ and it's likely this revelation comes as a result of Rove sitting down with X and saying 'Here's what I told the GJ and/or Fed. Investigators.' So who's the source of this leak (ie who spoke with Rove)? The Times described this person as 'officially briefed.' That doesn't mean they're in the DOJ. Karl might have 'officially briefed,' say, McClellan (and if I was McC, I would demand an 'official briefing' after Terry Moran went buck wild on him the other day.

Here's what I wanna know now:
1. Who was Novak's original Senior Administration source who's 'no partisan gunslinger?' ( Powell?) Why isn't this the central question to this whole thing? How come we know nothing bout this? Novak says he's waiting till the GJ's done, but if the press is gonna go 'wilding,' why aren't they wilding on this point?

2. Who's Miller protecting? A lot of people are saying it might very well be Wilson. Hey, press! Go nuts on Miller! What? Can't do that? Why not?

3. Read NRO today. Who leaked Plame's 'covert' status to Corn? Wilson? Hey, press....

lauraw, it was the NYT

How could I have forgotten that

I don't know, but I'm sure Pinch is grateful.

I didn't think of it either. These days I see stuff like that in the Times and it doesn't even register anymore, I'm like "oh look, another 'we hate America' article in the Times. Must be Tuesday".

Thought this was interesting.

Apparently while Reid was trying to get Rove's security clearance revoked, Frist was trying to do the same thing...to Reid.
RedState thinks this is childish sparring, but it actually kind of gives us a little hope that the Republicans may actually want to stop eating shit someday.

lauraw, one hopes. A recess appopointment of John Bolton would be a nice touch.

Can you just imagine how much fun we'd have watching the implosion?

or recess appointment. I'd be happy with either.

appopointment sounds like a Bushism anyway

Well I suspect that Rove's lawyer is the leaker as he would be familar with what's going on between Rove and prosecution. Isn't odd how this grand jury leak is favorable to Karl? I personally think leaking what's going on in grand jury is always a bad idea. But I guess it's ok to leak things if its gonna make you look better ;-)

Why can't people admit that having the White House press secretary say," it's ridiculous to say that Karl Rove or Libby Scooter were involved." And when Karl Rove turns out to be involved in whatever way, it's very Clintonian.

"Why can't people admit that having the White House press secretary say," it's ridiculous to say that Karl Rove or Libby Scooter were involved." And when Karl Rove turns out to be involved in whatever way, it's very Clintonian"

Because when Scott made that statement the question was whether Rove was the leaker. He's not. Don't be naughty and lump Libby and 'whatever way' into this as it's irrelevant.

I was just getting the quote right sorry where Scott mentioned he spoke with both Scooter Libby and Karl Rove and neither was involved.

Ok let's say the question was "Is Karl Rove the leaker?"

Scott could have answered it several ways. He could have said, "Neither gentleman was involved."

He could have said,"Karl Rove is not the leaker."

Instead he said this is on september 29 2003,McClellan told reporters that the president was certain that Karl Rove was not involved in leaking Plame's identity. When asked how he knew that the president knew, McClellan said: "Well, I've made it very clear that it was a ridiculous suggestion in the first place. I saw some comments this morning from the person who made that suggestion, backing away from that. And I said it is simply not true. So, I mean, it's public knowledge. I've said that it's not true. . . . [T]here is simply no truth to that suggestion. And I have spoken with Karl about it."

And again on Sept 29.2003,"Let me make it very clear. As I said previously, he was not involved, and that allegation is not true in terms of leaking classified information, nor would he condone it. So let me be very clear."

So you see the difference right? There is a big difference between saying Karl didn't leak and that he wasn't involved at all. Clearly he was involved.

Sourcing for the quotes. In case you wanted to know.
l
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030929-7.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031010-6.htm

The second quote was Oct. 10 2003. My bad on the typo.

BSDl

I'm not trying to play semantics but the context of those quotes was specifically whether Karl Rove leaked information to Bob Novak regarding Valerie Plame. He had no involvement in that. If you want to somehow, in retrospect, broaden the scope of those questions be my guest. I'm just not buying it.

So many mis-statements, so little time.

Rove heard the rumor from Novak, not the other way around.

a) If Rove confirmed the rumor, he revealed classified info. That's a felony.
b) Rove also gave the info to Cooper. That's also a felony.

Look, it seems a lot of reporters knew about the very non-covert Ms. Plame. Andrea Mitchell admitted this.

Right. And Fitzgerald is investigating someone in the White House, who spread this to the reporters.

The law is crystal clear. There's no wiggle room. Rove, and someone else in the White House, has revealed classified info, not only blowing the cover of Valerie Plame, but compromising any intel ops involving her, and making suspect anyone anywhere who's been associated with her.

This is a serious mess, and schoolboy excuses of "he said it first!" are not going to cut it.

Funny the press doesn't question grand jury leaks when a Republican is being investigated, innit it?

Funny how every single leak is another lame alibi for Rove, isn't it?

So many mis-statements, so little time.

Rove heard the rumor from Novak, not the other way around.

a) If Rove confirmed the rumor, he revealed classified info. That's a felony.
b) According to Cooper's email, which no one disputes, Rove also gave the info to Cooper. That's also a felony.

Look, it seems a lot of reporters knew about the very non-covert Ms. Plame. Andrea Mitchell admitted this.

Right. And Fitzgerald is investigating someone in the White House, who spread this to the reporters.

The law is crystal clear. There's no wiggle room. Rove, and someone else in the White House, has revealed classified info, not only blowing the cover of Valerie Plame, but compromising any intel ops involving her, and making suspect anyone anywhere who's been associated with her.

This is a serious mess, and schoolboy excuses of "he said it first!" are not going to cut it.

Funny the press doesn't question grand jury leaks when a Republican is being investigated, innit it?

Funny how every single leak is another lame alibi for Rove, isn't it?

Rove's guys must be really getting desperate if they are trying to argue that providing official confirmation of a rumor does not constitute a leak.

Have you heard that when Karl Rove stands in front of a mirror, he doesn't produce a reflection?

Yes, I have heard that too.

I don't see how you cannot say he leaked information when he confirmed the information on Plame. Standard protocal is to neither confirm nor deny such information. Since he confirmed classified information I would count that as a leak.

I have heard that the chupacabra is actually the offspring of Karl Rove and a puerto rican midget porn actress.

Yes, I have heard that too.

Whether Valerie was covert or not (she was) whether she authorized the Niger project or not (she didn't) whether the Vice President"s office intiated it or not (they did) are just smokescreens trying to obscure the basic fact: Rove revealed classified information (if you work for the CIA, even your employment is classified info) . Even if it doesn't rise to the level of a felony (that is for Fitzpatrick to decide) the fact that a person in a high level position would do this, which burned not only Plame but the company which was her official, and who knows how many people she worked with, shows that this person cannot be trusted in a sensitive position. Period. This person in the midst of a war on terror will freely compromise an asset. This person does not want to win the war on terror, he just wants to make sure he stays in power.

Guys, I know it hurts. You almost had him. The Dark Prince. The puppetmaster. This close. You could taste it.

Look, when it gets to hurting real bad, I mean real bad, just remember.... you'll always have Gannon. You'll always have that pelt.

Better luck next time noble foes.

" you'll always have Gannon"

damn you.... the pain of that tragedy had almost subsided.

Funny, I was thinking about Jeff today. Remembering his brave eyes, his shining shield.

His sacrifice will not have been in vain!

GANNONNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Guy,

Lol! The "L" on their collective foreheads is close to becoming indelible!

"I don't see how you cannot say he leaked information when he confirmed the information on Plame"

Well, let me help you then. First, go here and look up the meanings of "leak" and "confirm". When you're done, raise your hand and we'll continue.

P.S. I was going to grammer flame you but, lets be honest, you're probably a moron and what would be the point.

But don't feel bad because I'm a self-admitted moron who can't spell.

Sure, Rove heard it from Novak. Sure, he did.

By the way, there's a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Interestingly, the Dems who were screaming for his head on Monday and Tuesday are backing off.

I wonder why?

hmmmmmmm

Speaking publicly about testimony made to a grand jury is NOT illegal. (Nor, presumably, would lying about testimony as long as it's not under oath.)

The Clinton analogy is insane - not only was Clinton cleared off all charges (except, of course, perjury over a...), but the "leaks" were always unsubstantiated accusations against Clinton. Most of these "leaks" are supportive of Rove's spin and game of legal hopscotch.

I believe that a NY Times reporter is in jail to protect her anonymous source, Karl Rove; or possibly some other high ranking member of Bush's administration.

Mfff. Huh a huh *cough*
*mfff!* phew.

BWAAAAA HAA AHHHHAAAAAAA
*GASP*
HAA HAA HAAA HAAAAAA HAAA HAAA
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

O Gannon

O Gannon! O friend
We need your leading questions.
Rove's time drawing short.

Pitch Bush a softy,
drawing arrows to your breast!
Sacrificial lamb.

Gannon! Where are you
Too young to die. Too old to
pose for gay porn sites.

"not only was Clinton cleared off all charges "

WTF? He had his license to practice law taken away for God's sake. You think that happened for no reason? Just because you're not tried and convicted doesn't mean you're not guilty. If that would have been you or I we would still be in jail. Bill Clinton had to be the most morally and ethically bankrupt President this country has ever had, bar none.

lauraw
is on haiku fire tonight
inspired by Gannon

Covert ops haiku

Valerie, you minx
I dare not breathe your secrets
C.I.A. vixen

Secret's safe with me!
And your neighbors, and your friends.
And the D.C. press--

No one else need know
What time you punch your time-card
nine-to-five ninja!

Judith Miller said
my source must have been coerced,
why is he giggling?

shit. I can't top nine-to-five ninja.

BrewFan - Dictionary meanings of words are quite different than legal ones. Confirming classified information is a violation of several statutes dealing with classified information. Clearly you do not know that. (Valerie Plames identity is just one possible crime.)

Because of the leaks, a CIA front company, Brewster Jennings and Associates was destroyed. But I guess that's ok with you. You see there are consequences for leaking classified information.

Oh course you are a pure partisan and national security be damned.

I suggest you read portion of the some of the relevant statutes; Here's the Intelligence Identities Protection Act relevant portion.

"Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

First off it says identify. It doesn't say name. Identifing Joe Wilson's wife as a CIA operative fits that that portion of the statute. Furthermore it doesn't say anything about the intent of the leaker. Correcting a story? - sorry still a violation. On double secret background? Sorry still a violation.

While my opinion of Clinton isn't as low as yours, he made several monumental fuckups. The one here was his veto of HR2507 - That bill had a section in it (303) that would have made any leak of classified information punishable by a 10 year jail sentence.
Section 303 Read section 798a.
Grammar flame? Dude it's blog comments area. I hardly have time to proof-read my own posts.

Sorry - it's three years jail time in Hr2507. The Identities statute is 10 years.

Brian,
Everybody but you seems to agree that there was no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Even the New York Times agrees with this. What are you arguing about? While it was a long time ago, I held a Top Secret (codeword) security clearance and worked at the NSA for two years. Does that qualify me to have an opinion or do I have to send you a copy of my DD214?

"(if you work for the CIA, even your employment is classified info) ."

Hey zen_less, do you know anyone who works for the CIA? I do, and they have business cards with the CIA logo on them!

There are some people who are open employees of the CIA, and some who are covert.

you too Brew?

I had a TS with a cryptographic endorsement 15 years ago when I worked for the military industrial complex.

don't tell anybody though

Dave,

Yeahp. Had mine courtesy of the big green machine. I was a Vietnamese linguist/voice intercept op. Many moons ago :)

I don't know if there was a violation of Intelligence Identities Protection Act. That's why the CIA referred it to Justice and that why we have a special prosecutor looking into it. What I am arguing about is that two senior official leaked to Bob Novak secret information. We now know that one of these officials was Karl Rove. Despite Rove's lawyer leaking things to the NY Times like "He heard it from Bob Novak." Sorry a leak from a grand jury hearing is meaningless

As a result an important intelligence asset dealing in WMD (namely Brewster Jennings and Associates) was destroyed.

People defending Karl Rove act like this is no big deal. It was. Take it seriously. I am willing to wait for the special prosecutor but quite frankly compromising intelligence assets in a time of war is silly.

So if the leaks are to be believed, Rove claimed that he learned about Plame's identity from somebody in the press, but couldn't remember who. Frankly, this seems kind of implausible (Rove is out to discredit Wilson and doesn't even bother to check that Plame really does work for the CIA?) but it means that at least for a conviction under the Identities Protection Act, prosecutors in the position of having to prove a negative--that nobody in the press told Rove about Wilson's wife. However, if a reporter actually did give this information to Rove, there is clearly no protection of confidential sources issue involved. So will anybody come forward and admit that they told Rove about Wilson's wife?

People defending Karl Rove act like this is no big deal.

Waiting to hear what the results of the investigation (that the NYT screamed for) is not the same as defending Rove.

twit.

Most the of people on this thread have not said,"Let's wait for the end of the investigation. Then we will know." Many of them have reflexively ran to Karl Rove's defense.

Here's some examples,
BrewFan
"Everybody but you seems to agree that there was no violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act"

If the act wasn't violated why did the CIA refer it to the Justice Department? I guess they were just bored. Aren't we waiting for the investigation to be complete. I guess not since BrewFan says no laws were violated.

The title of this thread, "NYT Clears Rove Without Quite Admitting It"

Folks intelliegence assets were destroyed. An entire CIA front company ruined.

Some anonymous troll calling me a twit without responding to my central point (namely intelligence assets were destroyed) is frankly childish.

Rove was involved. He was source #2 for Bob Novak. The real criminal here is probably source #1 who apparently still nameless. I will wait for the investigation to be complete. Why people feel the need to defend Rove is beyond me. If he broke the law, Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor will bring an indictment. In the mean time stop declaring his innocence. No one knows yet as no one has been charged. The investigation is still ongoing.

Oh, shut up, Brian. You are in no position to tell other people what they can and cannot declare. You've been speculating all over the damn place that some wrong doing occurred. So far, you have convinced no one but yourself.

Twit.

Oh Shut up? How old are you? Great response. I wasn't telling any what they can and cannot declare. I merely point out your previous, "Waiting to hear what the results of the investigation (that the NYT screamed for) is not the same as defending Rove." Most of the people on this post were saying,"Let's wait for the investigation to be complete."

What speculations? Most of my posts references original source material that I found materially important to the situation. Was the Indenties act violated? I suspect so but I will wait for the investigation. I do know one clear after effect of the outing of Valerie Plame - the destruction of Brewster Jennings and Associates - the CIA front company.

I notice that no one else has even touched that point. I am not trying convince anyone that Karl should be fired. I am merely pointing out the serious consequence of outing a covert CIA operative. (Please let's not debate whether she was a NOC. The CIA said she was so she was.) Assets were destroyed because someone in the White House wanted politcal payback. That's a problem.

BSD

Replace "were saying" with "weren't saying"

I wasn't telling any [one] what they can and cannot declare.

Oh really? You: In the mean time stop declaring his innocence.

I merely point out your previous, "Waiting to hear what the results of the investigation (that the NYT screamed for) is not the same as defending Rove."

I didn't post that.

(Please let's not debate whether she was a NOC. The CIA said she was so she was.)

There you go again: telling people what they can and cannot discuss. Good luck with that. The CIA does not make the final determination since it would preempt the role of the prosecutor to charge it and the role of the jury to determine whether it is true. Since, she has been sitting at a desk at Langley for over 5 years now and apparently telling all her neighbors she is with the CIA, you are going nowhere this. It must be hard to be people like you.

I merely point out your previous, "Waiting to hear what the results of the investigation (that the NYT screamed for) is not the same as defending Rove."

I didn't post that.

Ok well since you are posting anonymously I could not tell. I guess that was another anonymous poster. Just scroll up to read the comment above my friend.

"There you go again: telling people what they can and cannot discuss. Good luck with that. The CIA does not make the final determination since it would preempt the role of the prosecutor to charge it and the role of the jury to determine whether it is true. Since, she has been sitting at a desk at Langley for over 5 years now and apparently telling all her neighbors she is with the CIA, you are going nowhere this. It must be hard to be people like you."

I am not telling people what discuss. Sorry the prosecutor determines whether a crime has been committed and whom to indict when that determination has been made. The NOC status is something that the CIA determines, not the special prosecutor.

As far as telling her neighbors, got a source for that besides the RNC talking points. The sourcing I have found indicates her neighbors didn't know.
"He recalled his incredulity on July 14, 2003, when his wife, Victoria, spotted in The Washington Post, in a syndicated column by Robert Novak, a line identifying their neighbor by her maiden name and calling her an "agency operative." Ms. Tillotson kept calling out: "This can't be! This can't be!"

The Wilsons' neighbor on the other side, Christopher Wolf, was similarly aghast."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/politics/05wilson.html?ei=5094&en=df481fba22d3d077&hp=&ex=1120536000&partner=homepage&pagewanted=all

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58650-2003Oct7?language=printer

It's not particularly hard on me. I hardly care. I am done debating anonymice. It was ok talking with people that stood by their opinions like BrewFan with aleast an email address. Take care and don't get upset when someone gets indicted.

Just because you're not tried and convicted doesn't mean you're not guilty.

Uh - yes, it actually *does* mean you're not guilty. That's called law. Further, Clinton wasn't tried because the accusations against him were laughed right out of court. So, yes, Clinton was cleared of all charges.

Your opinion of how evil a bastard Clinton was, is not by itself admissible as evidence in a court of law.

Thank you for playing.