Join 3,495 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


it was rove
July 2, 2005 10:29 AM   Subscribe

it was rove
"MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Documents Reveal Karl Rove as Source in Plame Case"
posted by specialk420 (157 comments total)

 
Oh my god!

/smiles
posted by delmoi at 10:33 AM on July 2, 2005


YES! I sure hope this is true and this fecal appendage to the U.S. government finds himself in PYITA prison.
posted by Kickstart70 at 10:34 AM on July 2, 2005


Bares repeating...

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 10:34 AM on July 2, 2005


Me doubts it. Hope this isn't bait like the Bush guard memo.
False evidence of a truth seems to be exculpitory nowadays.
posted by Busithoth at 10:37 AM on July 2, 2005


Miller argued that it was pointless to imprison her because she will never talk.

Oh, that makes a lot of sense...
posted by delmoi at 10:38 AM on July 2, 2005


Let a thousand turds blossom.
posted by Falconetti at 10:44 AM on July 2, 2005


I am afraid Busithoth makes sense. Rove is an evil genius and he's been turning this moment over in his mind for months and months now. You know he's got a plan, an evil one.
posted by wsg at 10:49 AM on July 2, 2005


Rove is not as smart as people give him credit for, or else Bush wouldn't have blown his advantage after reelection. Like Custer or Nixon, these people began to believe their own press clips and overreached.

It's gonna be NO CARRIER for this dude.
posted by inksyndicate at 10:52 AM on July 2, 2005


*grabs popcorn and big gulp*

this should be quite entertaining
posted by pyramid termite at 10:56 AM on July 2, 2005


Bares repeating...

rove bears all.
posted by quonsar at 10:59 AM on July 2, 2005


Yeah, if these people were so smart how come we're fucked to the high heavens in Iraq? Hmm?

I've heard stories about rove doing the dirtywork before (starting whispering campains against opponents, etc).

But according to Dailykos in order to get a perjury conviction, you need two witnesses, so unless Judy WMD miller talks rove walks.
posted by delmoi at 11:00 AM on July 2, 2005


But according to Dailykos in order to get a perjury conviction, you need two witnesses, so unless Judy WMD miller talks rove walks.

For Perjury, yes. For spilling the beans about Plame, no.

Which means either Fitzgerald wants to nail Rove for both, or there's somebody else being nailed for perjury -- and it would be someone who testified.

God, could we get Rove and Novak in a stereo frogmarch?
posted by eriko at 11:03 AM on July 2, 2005


I thought this was an interesting comment from the Hullabaloo blog on how apparently some of the Washington media knew about this for months:
Moreover, is it normal that members of the press know the answer to a major mystery but they withhold it, as a group, from the public? I thought their job was to reveal the answers to major mysteries. In fact, this seems like the scoop of the decade.....This is a very interesting professional and ethical question for the media. Does the reporter's privilege extend to his friends? Here you apparently have quite a few members of the DC press corps with a piece of very juicy information (allegedly) about the most powerful political operative in the United States --- information that also has to do with an important matter of national security and a Justice department investigation.....And during the time they say nothing an election is held in which the political operative in question works feverishly to smear his client's opponent with scurrilous charges of borderline treason and cowardly behavior during wartime.
posted by Staggering Jack at 11:08 AM on July 2, 2005


Let's not start sucking each other's dicks just yet, gentlemen.

/the wolf.

I really, really, REALLY hope this is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. However, I'm a bit nervous because of the very reasons Busithoth mentions. I don't know that this whole thing is an evil scheme on Rove's part, but these guys are very good at escaping from the claws of justice. The fact that the report, according to O'Donnell, is being published in Newsweek, so recently "discredited" for its "false reports" about "alleged" prisoner abuse, furthers my fear.

That said, I've got my fingers crossed that this asshole is going to be occupying a cell shortly. I'd love to watch the Administration flounder with their chief political terrorism mastermind out of the picture.
posted by papakwanz at 11:11 AM on July 2, 2005


I'm just going to feel even more bitter when USians turn a blind eye to this, also.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 11:11 AM on July 2, 2005


But according to Dailykos in order to get a perjury conviction, you need two witnesses, so unless Judy WMD miller talks rove walks.

Kinda makes you wonder what Novak told the grand jury.

Still, I'll be amazed if anything comes of this. Even if pursued it will take years, Bush will be gone and Rove will be a footnote. Affirmation for some and positive proof of a Bush hating liberal media/judiciary for others.
posted by cedar at 11:12 AM on July 2, 2005


was dick cheney involved? ... ah yes, its safe to assume. how much?
posted by specialk420 at 11:13 AM on July 2, 2005



Miller argued that it was pointless to imprison her because she will never talk.

She asked the judge for "very restrictive home detention," if confined at all, including an electronic bracelet and excluding Internet access and cellular phones. As an alternative, she asked to be sent to the federal prison camp for women in Danbury, Conn.


OK Let's stick this bitch in maximum security prison in the hole. You choose to be an accomplice to a federal crime and then want us to let you cherry pick spot. Hell naw lets stick her in the hole.
posted by Rubbstone at 11:14 AM on July 2, 2005


They can't possibly arrest Rove. Who would whisper into Georgie's secret thingie box when he has to do live TV?
posted by digaman at 11:15 AM on July 2, 2005


Moreover, is it normal that members of the press know the answer to a major mystery but they withhold it, as a group, from the public? I thought their job was to reveal the answers to major mysteries. In fact, this seems like the scoop of the decade.....This is a very interesting professional and ethical question for the media.

I think the big problem was that it was "to good to be true". Like, if I said it was Rove for sure, I'd come across as a crackpot. Lots of people whispered Rove's name, but I just figured it was wishfull thinking (and it still may be)
posted by delmoi at 11:17 AM on July 2, 2005


Rule of law! Rule of law! Rule of law!

Send him to Gitmo for giving aid and comfort to the terr'ists!

To the gibbets wit' 'im!
posted by vhsiv at 11:17 AM on July 2, 2005


That said, I've got my fingers crossed that this asshole is going to be occupying a cell shortly.

Not gonna happen. Don't forget the valued tradition of Presidential pardons... it's not like it would be new and who better than the lame duck Bush?
posted by cedar at 11:17 AM on July 2, 2005


OK Let's stick this bitch in maximum security prison in the hole. You choose to be an accomplice to a federal crime and then want us to let you cherry pick spot. Hell naw lets stick her in the hole.

How 'bout gitmo?
posted by delmoi at 11:17 AM on July 2, 2005



posted by Heywood Mogroot at 11:19 AM on July 2, 2005


Just because you, as a reporter, know something, doesn't mean you have the evidence to go to press with it.
posted by aaronetc at 11:19 AM on July 2, 2005


OK, so Karl Rove, in his role as a political advisor, would not be in a position to know the identity of a CIA agent such as Plame in the first place, which means he must have gotten this information from, say, Cheney.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:21 AM on July 2, 2005


more on rove -> cheney -> bolton, the niger docs etc...
posted by specialk420 at 11:24 AM on July 2, 2005


There's a whole side to this which isn't known. They've got enough of it in the public knowledge so it can proceed (hopefully in a fair manner), however we don't have the full story.
posted by nervousfritz at 11:26 AM on July 2, 2005


As much as I think he needs to answer to the public for this, I don't think it's going to happen. much bigger news will overshadow this. A quick glance on all the major news sites shows no headline about this. Had to dig pretty hard to find the FPP link.
posted by menace303 at 11:32 AM on July 2, 2005


Humour me (as partizan as necessary): what is this about? I know who Rove is, but who is Plame?

Bonus points for one syllable words, if, for some reason, you're keeping score.
posted by NinjaPirate at 11:37 AM on July 2, 2005


Well as the story goes, some reporters leaked the undercover identity of a CIA operative, and blew her cover. Her name was Valerie Plame. Maybe there's some more details someone else can add.
posted by nervousfritz at 11:41 AM on July 2, 2005


As far as I can tell, this rumor just started surfacing last night. The McLaughlin Group (at least in my market) airs on Sunday Night, but is taped Friday. The fact that the story hasn't broken on a larger scale between last night and today based on one reporter's rumoring isn't shocking. If emails from Karl Rove (which is what the rumor says) outing a working spy fall into the public record will undoubtably follow. There isn't any "old news" spin for this story.

My question is this: if there is one primary source (Rove's emails, which I assume can be varified as having come from him), is that enough to convict on perjury? I would think that is the equivalent having him on tape leaking the information to a reporter. Wouldn't that be proof enough for any charge?
posted by aburd at 11:42 AM on July 2, 2005


NinjaPirate: If you have some time to kill, might I suggest Joshua Marshall's extensive coverage. It's not a story that can really be explained in one paragraph, and Joshua has been covering the story since the beginning.
posted by crawl at 11:44 AM on July 2, 2005


If emails from Karl Rove (which is what the rumor says) outing a working spy fall into the public record will undoubtably follow.

I meant to say, "large scale media coverage will undoubtably follow."
posted by aburd at 11:45 AM on July 2, 2005


Ninja, it's hard to put her job in one syllable words:
Investigator of Weapons of Mass Destruction for the CIA.
She worked undercover, until her cover was blown by Novak in an off-hand column. It was more a message to others that if you fuck with Bush Co., your family is fair game.
It's a good thing Bush never placed a lot of importance on WMD hunting.
This is a federal crime, BTW, outing a CIA officer.

why keep score? we're all losing with this kind of shit going on.
and, dammit, exculpatory. (little late, but still)
posted by Busithoth at 11:46 AM on July 2, 2005


I've heard the CIA is in general not happy with this administration, imagine how much more unhappy they will be if this is the case?
posted by edgeways at 11:46 AM on July 2, 2005


on preview, what crawl said.
posted by Busithoth at 11:46 AM on July 2, 2005


If he is arrested it will just be spun into a sign that there is a god.
posted by TwelveTwo at 11:47 AM on July 2, 2005


Ha! I'll have you know that a highly placed White House source has emphatically told me it was not Karl Rove.

It was John McCain's mixed-race baby.
posted by orthogonality at 11:47 AM on July 2, 2005


is that a real picture of rove?
posted by Satapher at 11:49 AM on July 2, 2005



posted by ericb at 11:51 AM on July 2, 2005


Bonus points for one syllable words, if, for some reason, you're keeping score.

Plame, in the past, was a spy. She was the wife of the guy who whent to niger to look at the bright colored U cake sale to Iraq. He thought it was not true, and told the bush white house. The bush white house did not belive him. So he did talk to the press.

In order to get back at him, some one in the white house also told the press, three people in the press, that plame was a CIA op. They told every one that and then Plame could no longer be a spy.

Now we think it was Karl Rove who told the three press dudes.
posted by delmoi at 11:51 AM on July 2, 2005


Also, the name of color of the U cake has two sylables and starts with a "yell". It's the collor or big bird, you know. Its a stuff that is rich in U, actualy rust of U, with Oxy.
posted by delmoi at 11:59 AM on July 2, 2005


BUSH PARDONS WEINBERGER, FIVE OTHERS TIED TO IRAN-CONTRA
Calls Weinberger "true American patriot
By Dian McDonald
USIA White House Correspondent

Washington -- President Bush December 24 granted pardons to former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and five other individuals for their conduct related to the Iran-Contra affair.

Bush said Weinberger -- who had been scheduled to go on trial in Washington January 5 on charges related to Iran-Contra -- was a "true American patriot," who had served with "distinction" in a series of public positions since the late 1960s.

"I am pardoning him not just out of compassion or to spare a 75-year-old patriot the torment of lengthy and costly legal proceedings, but to make it possible for him to receive the honor he deserves for his extraordinary service to our country," Bush said in a proclamation granting executive clemency.

The president also pardoned five other persons who already had pleaded guilty or had been indicted or convicted in connection with the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages investigation. They were Elliott Abrams, a former assistant secretary of state for Inter-American affairs; former National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane; and Duane Clarridge, Alan Fiers, and Clair George, all former employees of the Central Intelligence Agency.

Explaining those pardons, Bush said the "common denominator of their motivation -- whether their actions were right or wrong -- was patriotism." They did not profit or seek to profit from their conduct, Bush said, adding that all five "have already paid a price -- in depleted savings, lost careers, anguished families -- grossly disproportionate to any misdeeds or errors of judgment they may have committed."

The Iran-Contra affair involved the secret sale of weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of American hostages held in Lebanon by pro-Iranian terrorists and the diversion of money from that sale to provide support for anti-communist resistance fighters in Nicaragua known as the "Contras."

Weinberger had been charged by independent counsel Lawrence Walsh with four counts of lying to congressional Iran-Contra investigators in 1987 and to Walsh's prosecutors in 1990. His case involved allegations that he had concealed from congressional investigators his personal notes that detailed events related to Iran-Contra and which reportedly undermined what then-President Reagan said about the origins and operations of the covert arms-for-hostages dealings. Weinberger had pleaded not guilty and said he was being unfairly prosecuted.

Although a president has unlimited pardon powers, it is highly unusual to pardon someone before trial and conviction. The best-known precedent -- following the Watergate political scandal during the Nixon administration -- was former President Ford's pardon in 1974 of former President Nixon, who was never indicted.

posted by The Jesse Helms at 12:01 PM on July 2, 2005


A lot of this wishful thinking about perp walks and jail time for Rove is a result of a gross overestimation of the intelligence of the American public, I think. The issues are too subtle. There are more than two people involved. This confuses the populace.

If someone finds footage of Rove personally acting in and directing a snuff film financed by Social Security money, then we might see some substantive consequences.
posted by gramschmidt at 12:04 PM on July 2, 2005


NinjaPirate, Short version:

Valerie Plame was an employee of the CIA married to Joe Wilson. Back in 2002 Wilson was sent to Niger to investigate reports of enriched uranium being sent to Iraq. After Bush used the Niger-Iraq allegation in a speech Wilson wrote an op-ed for the NY Times stating, in essence, that Bush lied.

Shortly afterwards Robert Novak reported that Wilson was sent to Niger at the behest of his wife, a CIA employee. It is Wilsons belief that her employment as a CIA operative was leaked in reaction to Wilsons disgreement with the Bush administration.

While Plames status at the time is subject to various interpretations, there is reason to believe that whoever fed Novak that little tidbit committed a felony by outing Plame as a CIA employee.
posted by cedar at 12:04 PM on July 2, 2005


Wow, what a weekend . . . I feel like either Christmas or the Apocalypse is around the corner. Or both.

I have not seen anyone connect the O'Connor retirement announcement with this, but consider that the SCOTUS looked at the same documents the lower courts saw in ruling Miller and Cooper in contempt, and the SCOTUS refused to intervene. Those documents must contain the reason Fitzgerald needs Miller and Cooper to testify, which reasonable legal minds are saying must be for a perjury or obstruction charge to come out of the grand jury, since Novak himself could and should be the confirmation of the leaker him/herself. Now just suppose that Sandra Day O'Connor has been wavering on retirement, voting regularly in moderate ways that contravene the administration's right wing agenda, and maybe even feeling some remorse for the damage to her reputation after she knelt in fealty in Bush v. Gore. She watches the climate in the country shift, subtly but surely, against the war and the administration's conduct in recent months. And then she reads incontrovertible evidence that someone *big* in the admin is going to go down for perjury, obstruction, or maybe even espionage, and maybe mroe than one person, and maybe someone big enough that this will really tarnish the administration, If ever the climate existed for a quick and honorable exit, failry sure in the knowledge that a disgraced adminsitration will be in no position to use her replacement to leverage their criminal agenda, this would be it. Just a guess. But consider what she just learned. And how she voted.

I can dream. Or maybe we all can wake up from a nightmare here. I do believe that if Rove goes down for OJ or perjury the Bush administration is cooked wth the public and the dems will sweep the '06 elections with a mandate for impeachment. These kinds of sea changes happen rapidly, and brutally, when people finally wake up and have had enough. Hubris. It was ever thus.
posted by realcountrymusic at 12:06 PM on July 2, 2005


I think Tenet resigned in order to testify.
posted by frecklefaerie at 12:09 PM on July 2, 2005


And how she voted.

Whoops. We don't know this, since the decision was simply to decline to hear the case. But I must say that O'Connor -- other than Bush v. Gore -- has struck me as a reasonable and thoughtful conservative I can stand all along. Could she be another of the many traditional conservatives in the GOP getting serious cold feet?
posted by realcountrymusic at 12:10 PM on July 2, 2005


Presidential pardon? Not good enough. In Bushland, loyalty is gold. Word is bond. Trust is stock. No attack goes unpunished times infinity plus one.

It's time to declare martial law, bitches!
posted by catachresoid at 12:11 PM on July 2, 2005


I think O'Conner resigned because she wanted to.
She did in 2000, and waited till that tainted term ended.
Thanks for that, anyway.
posted by Busithoth at 12:15 PM on July 2, 2005


"But I must say that O'Connor..."

O'Connor rocked.

I disagree with many of her opinions but when you get right down to it, she was the compassionate conservative that Bush claims to be. I want nothing more than for realcountrymusic to be right.
posted by cedar at 12:17 PM on July 2, 2005


Rove is a waste of human skin.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 12:22 PM on July 2, 2005


President Bush on the Plame investigation (October 6, 2003)
QUESTION: Mr. President, on another issue, the CIA leak-gate. What is your confidence level in the results of the DOJ investigation about any of your staffers not being found guilty or being found guilty? And what do you say to critics of the administration who say that this administration retaliates against naysayers?

PRESIDENT BUSH: First of all, I'm glad you brought that question up. This is a very serious matter, and our administration takes it seriously. As members of the press corps here know, I have, at times, complained about leaks of security information, whether the leaks be in the legislative branch or in the executive branch. And I take those leaks very seriously.

And, therefore, we will cooperate fully with the Justice Department. I've got all the confidence in the world the Justice Department will do a good, thorough job. And that's exactly what I want them to do, is a good, thorough job. I'd like to know who leaked, and if anybody has got any information inside our government or outside our government who leaked, you ought to take it to the Justice Department so we can find out the leaker.

I have told my staff, I want full cooperation with the Justice Department. And when they ask for information, we expect the information to be delivered on a timely basis. I expect it to be delivered on a timely basis. I want there to be full participation, because, April, I am most interested in finding out the truth.

And, you know, there's a lot of leaking in Washington, D.C. It's a town famous for it. And if this helps stop leaks of -- this investigation in finding the truth, it will not only hold someone to account who should not have leaked -- and this is a serious charge, by the way. We're talking about a criminal action, but also hopefully will help set a clear signal we expect other leaks to stop, as well. And so I look forward to finding the truth.
posted by ericb at 12:24 PM on July 2, 2005


ROVE = OVER
posted by ericb at 12:26 PM on July 2, 2005


Plame Grand Jury Wants Records for Air Force One Phone Calls [Editor & Publisher | July 2, 2005]
posted by ericb at 12:30 PM on July 2, 2005


This may just be another evil scheme. We will end up locking up Rove, but it will be a robotic clone. The real Rove will take up the alias Rover Carlson, adding only a small mustache to complete the illusion.
posted by TwelveTwo at 12:31 PM on July 2, 2005


Don't forget the bow tie. And while I have the floor, apologies for the quasi-dyslexic abundance of metathesis in my longer post above. Bum keyboard.
posted by realcountrymusic at 12:34 PM on July 2, 2005


It doesn't matter. If it's true, he'll be arrested, and the ensuing investigation will last until roughly 2008, when Bush pardons Rove.

Who cares if he committed an act of treason? I mean, he did it for all the right reasons, right?

Feh.
posted by FormlessOne at 12:35 PM on July 2, 2005


Oh man, I should have went that direction. Thanks realcountrymusic, ruin my day by showing me the better joke to take.
posted by TwelveTwo at 12:35 PM on July 2, 2005


The Turd Blossoms
posted by ericb at 12:36 PM on July 2, 2005


presuming Rove gets a presidential pardon, would there be any action the left could take, and would the pardon cost Bush anything that matters, politically?

There're supposed to be checks and balances, but with the right dominating like they are, what's to keep them from just committing whatever crimes they want, and pardoning every actor?
posted by modernerd at 12:43 PM on July 2, 2005


when Bush pardons Rove

Ya think? Sounds like near suicide for the GOP to me.

If this whole thing is a Rove trick, I will finally accept that all the people who call him a genius are right. I don't believe it's possible to base a devious trick on such a high-stakes and unpredictable foundation as a federal special prosecutor and a grand jury investigation.

You know who must be laughing hard? Bill Clinton. Kharma is a bitch.
posted by realcountrymusic at 12:44 PM on July 2, 2005


This may just be another evil scheme. We will end up locking up Rove, but it will be a robotic clone. The real Rove will take up the alias Rover Carlson, adding only a small mustache to complete the illusion.


No TT, I feel this is far more sinister. The GOP push to control PBS is in fact a ruse to distract the public from the secret GOP relocation program. Rove in fact will be relocated and return as GRover on our beloved Sesame Street.

And already the plans are in place to have Delay return as Laymo. (notice considerable size difference)

"Come on baby lets eat the rich..eat the rich!" Motorhead.
posted by Mr Bluesky at 12:47 PM on July 2, 2005


". . . if Rove goes down for OJ . . ."

Rove was the real killer?
posted by ijoshua at 12:52 PM on July 2, 2005


"If this whole thing is a Rove trick...

This is no trick. This is simply hubris and a misplaced sense of infallibility coming home to roost.

Rove is no genius. Everything these clowns have done they have gotten caught at. Every little thing from lies about WMD, the No Child Left Behind doubletalk, the politicization of the Park Service, Halliburton in Iraq and other corporate giveaways to Cheneys secret energy committee. This is an administration that has filled its roster with felons and suspected criminals reaching all the way back to the Nixon administration.

Busted. Every. Single. Time.

They aren't smart, we're (the collective we, as in 52% of American voters) just *really* stupid. It's dumb and dumber and the distinction is so minute that it was bound it was bound to cross-over eventually.
posted by cedar at 1:14 PM on July 2, 2005


Rove is no genius.

My oft-stated opinion as well. We made him into a scary genius and made him seem invincible in the process. The first trick to speaking truth to power is to *laugh* at the powerful. Rove, you clown, I think you are going down.

You know, I've never met a reasonable conservative who liked or was proud of Rove. I hope he experiences his Lee Atwater conversion experience while he is in Leavenworth.
posted by realcountrymusic at 1:18 PM on July 2, 2005


Busted. Every. Single. Time.

But they're still here, in power, and act without conscience, responsibility, or really much forethought.

Anything that can be done to even make scrutiny stick to them is greatly appriciated/derided.

There are a lot of people in this country who, for some reason, see this administration as the white army bathed in Godlight beating back the heathenous hoards. No transgression can be unjustified. No crime unrewarded.

I could see Rove being Bush's apointment to the SC slot in light of all this.
posted by Balisong at 1:23 PM on July 2, 2005


Gore Vidal in December 2003:
MARC COOPER: Yet you saw in the '60s how the Johnson administration collapsed under the weight of its own hubris. Likewise with Nixon. And now with the discontent over how the war in Iraq is playing out, don't you get the impression that Bush is headed for the same fate?

GORE VIDAL: I actually see something smaller tripping him up: this business over outing the wife of Ambassador Wilson as a CIA agent. It's often these small things that get you. Something small enough for a court to get its teeth into. Putting this woman at risk because of anger over what her husband has done is bitchy, dangerous to the nation, dangerous to other CIA agents. This resonates more than Iraq. I'm afraid that 90 percent of Americans don't know where Iraq is and never will know, and they don't care.
posted by ericb at 1:25 PM on July 2, 2005


> A lot of this wishful thinking about perp walks and jail time for Rove is a result
> of a gross overestimation of the intelligence of the American public, I think. The
> issues are too subtle. There are more than two people involved. This
> confuses the populace.

Yep, like they're all confused about Bush's June attack on Iran, predicted by Scott Ritter and thoroughly masturbated over by everybody around here. Which (June being behind us) must be going on full blast right now right this minute, yet it's being completely ignored by the iggerunt public.

fuller suggests that the time to gloat over Rove doing the perp walk is when you see Rove doing the perp walk.
posted by jfuller at 1:26 PM on July 2, 2005


"...but these guys are very good at escaping from the claws of justice.

You got that right, and it should be remembered, however...

"The fact that the report, according to O'Donnell, is being published in Newsweek, so recently "discredited" for its "false reports" about "alleged" prisoner abuse, furthers my fear.

Payback's a bitch.
posted by rougy at 1:28 PM on July 2, 2005


With a Presidential pardon, not only does Rove walk, he can actually continue to occupy his current job.

So, even if there IS a smoking gun, it's unlikely that things will change much. The situation will continue to be as I (and many others) have said all along, and the Bush-bots will continue to yell that there's nothing wrong.

Busted. Every. Single. Time.

Unfortunately details like the truth don't appear to matter at this junction in history.
posted by clevershark at 1:30 PM on July 2, 2005


Someone with photoshop NEEDS to take a close look at that .png file.

Why post it in that format?

If it IS a fake it could easily be a move by the Cheney Administration to muddy the waters.

To quote, " Me doubts it. Hope this isn't bait like the Bush guard memo.
False evidence of a truth seems to be exculpitory nowadays."

posted by Busithoth at 10:37 AM PST on July 2 [!]"
posted by metaculpa at 1:31 PM on July 2, 2005


Here's the Newsweek article: "The Rove Factor?"
posted by ericb at 1:31 PM on July 2, 2005


And in that case it is essential that the LEFT-blog-o-sphere breaks the news.
posted by metaculpa at 1:32 PM on July 2, 2005


Wouldn't it be sweet if found Osama and the anthrax terrorist as well? Just say'n.
posted by filchyboy at 1:34 PM on July 2, 2005


Satapher: my picture is real. Rove briefly took a seat in front of Air Force One sometime before the election for some reason.
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:34 PM on July 2, 2005


Yep, like they're all confused about Bush's June attack on Iran, predicted by Scott Ritter and thoroughly masturbated over by everybody around here. Which (June being behind us) must be going on full blast right now right this minute, yet it's being completely ignored by the iggerunt public.

But we couldn't get Bolton confirmed in time to issue the required resolutions to act, yet.
This whole Iraq mess has gone beyond even the most pessimistic analysis professionals' published pre-war.
They're way behind scedule.
It'll happen, in due time. Just the way they planned. They just forgot to square the timeline schedule.
posted by Balisong at 1:35 PM on July 2, 2005


fuller: don't you want this clown, if he did intentionally burn a working spook for political reasons, put away too?
posted by Heywood Mogroot at 1:37 PM on July 2, 2005


John Dean at FindLaw's Legal Commentary (October 10, 2003):
The White House Need Not Have Leaked to Have Committed a Crime
Bush's press secretary Scott McClellan has chosen his words carefully in denying that anyone at the White House was involved with the leak. To remain credible, a press secretary cannot be caught in either a lie, or a serious misstatement based on ignorance.

McClellan's response reminded me of the Nixon Administration. Nixon's press secretary, Ron Zeigler, took the line that no one presently employed in his administration was involved in the Watergate break-in. That was technically correct, but only technically.

It is entirely possible that no one at the Bush "White House" or on the President's personal staff, was involved in the initial leak to Novak. It could have been someone at the National Security Council, which is related to the Bush White House but not part of it.

In fact, Novak wrote in one of his later columns, that the leak came from a person who was "no partisan gunslinger." That sounds like an NSC staffer to me. And as Newsweek also reported (you can count on Michael Isikoff to dig this stuff out), Valerie Plame's CIA identity was likely known to senior intelligence people on the NSC staff, for apparently one of them had worked with Ms. Plame at the CIA.

But even if the White House was not initially involved with the leak, it has exploited it. As a result, it may have opened itself to additional criminal charges under the federal conspiracy statute.

Why the Federal Conspiracy and Fraud Statutes May Apply Here
This elegantly simple law has snared countless people working for, or with, the federal government. Suppose a conspiracy is in progress. Even those who come in later, and who share in the purpose of the conspiracy, can become responsible for all that has gone on before they joined. They need not realize they are breaking the law; they need only have joined the conspiracy.

Most likely, in this instance the conspiracy would be a conspiracy to defraud - for the broad federal fraud statute, too, may apply here. If two federal government employees agree to undertake actions that are not within the scope of their employment, they can be found guilty of defrauding the U.S. by depriving it of the "faithful and honest services of its employee." It is difficult to imagine that President Bush is going to say he hired anyone to call reporters to wreak more havoc on Valerie Plame. Thus, anyone who did so - or helped another to do so - was acting outside the scope of his or her employment, and may be open to a fraud prosecution.

What counts as "fraud" under the statute? Simply put, "any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful function of any department of government." (Emphasis added.) If telephoning reporters to further destroy a CIA asset whose identity has been revealed, and whose safety is now in jeopardy, does not fit this description, I would be quite surprised.

If Newsweek is correct that Karl Rove declared Valerie Plame Wilson "fair game," then he should make sure he's got a good criminal lawyer, for he made need one. I've only suggested the most obvious criminal statute that might come into play for those who exploit the leak of a CIA asset's identity. There are others.
posted by ericb at 1:45 PM on July 2, 2005


jfuller: I'm probably as far to the left as anyone around here.. but, and it's a big one, I do not believe that an individual who threatens the safety, in violation of federal law, of a public servant should be given a free pass. Do you disagree?

Rove, Libby (my best guess), Bolton, McClellan or the Dickster himself... as far as I know the ol' POTUS himself shared a lemonade with Novak and 'slipped'. It makes no difference who it was, what matters is that the White House promised a full investigation and subsequently have only acted in an obstructionist manner. I know, they lie all the time and I should get over it, national security and all, but, you know what, I'm not getting over it and I'm not alone.

Am I the only person who finds it disturbing that the CIA is looking more sensible than the executive branch?
posted by cedar at 1:57 PM on July 2, 2005


It looks to me that there is a lot of unwarranted optimism here.

Remember Iran-Contra? This is small scale nothingness compared to that.

During Iran-Contra, America actually had a legislative branch that was not part of the Executive. Today, not so much.

And yet, even then, Iran-Contra was a blip. It didn't really hurt the already senile Reagan. Bush I still got elected. Bush II was able to take office and appoint some traitorous Iran-Contra villains to important positions. Oly North, he's a real American hero for taking a shit on the Constitution! And it was his idea!

Even if this plays out like it looks like it might, it won't matter a whit. Americans really don't care about this shit any more. Republicans have been very successful in convincing folks that government and politicians are evil. So who cares if they commit the occasional crime? Vote R: we'll give you a tax cut!

And thus the American decline continues... I hope I'm wrong, but I don't know if there's an optimist left in me.
posted by teece at 2:16 PM on July 2, 2005


Iran-Contra . . . Oly North

It's a really good point. But the underlying difference I would say between then and now, is the $80 billion / year we are looking at for a war which the people didn't agree with. The scale of it, both our financial cost, and, I do think, there are still some, despite the assertions otherwise, foreigners who are strongly upset by it.

Well foreigners against it or not, who cares, we have a $80 billion "leak" which imparts to so many things a sense of urgency...

Another difference, self referential though it may be, is there is an internet these days, and if something upsets people, they have a greater forum for it. The only public comms back in the 80s really was network news. (big 3 at that)
posted by nervousfritz at 2:25 PM on July 2, 2005


> fuller: don't you want this clown, if he did intentionally burn a working spook
> for political reasons, put away too?

Yes I do, and though I am a moderate conservative (which makes me a raving brownshirt, on metafilter) I'm no fan of Mr. Rove. But I'm not all a-lather just because it might be Rove who did the deed and who might be going to swing for it. It appears Rove was one of Cooper's sources for the Plame story but we don't yet know he was the source, the one who did the outing. For all we know as of today all he gave Cooper was the time of day--and lied about that.

I just find it morbid the way lefty-loosy posters on this site, and righty-tighty posters on others, cream all over stories like this one in which something might be going to happen and it confirms my world view so it's just as good as if it already actually happened.

I repeat, the time to gloat over Rove doing the perp walk is when you see Rove doing the perp walk. But that's no fun, is it?
posted by jfuller at 2:42 PM on July 2, 2005


"For all we know as of today all he gave Cooper was the time of day--and lied about that."

Well, the lesson we learned from Clinton was that it doesn't matter what you lied about. You lie under oath, you eat peanut-butter poo poo.
posted by Busithoth at 2:51 PM on July 2, 2005


"We need more human intelligence. That means we need more protection for the methods we use to gather intelligence and more protection for our sources, particularly our human sources, people that are risking their lives for their country.

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

- George H.W. Bush, the Dedication Ceremony for the George Bush Center for Intelligence, 26 April 1999
posted by ericb at 2:54 PM on July 2, 2005


"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 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." - Section 421 of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982
posted by ericb at 2:55 PM on July 2, 2005


You need to put the quote in its proper context, ericb -- GHWB used to be CIA director, so to him CIA agents mattered.

Dubya, on the other hand, seems to have magically sauntered from executive board to executive board while surfing on a wave of Saudi cash. The loyalty he does know is that of an executive who doesn't 'rat' on the misdeeds of his fellow board members.
posted by clevershark at 2:58 PM on July 2, 2005


nervousfritz: "... for a war which the people didn't agree with..."

This is the problem. It is a war that 'people' did agree with. November '04 wasn't all that long ago and while support for the war is dropping with every new poll, make no mistake... lots of folks want to kick some Iraqi (Iranian, Saudi, Pakistani, Afghani... hell, any Koran toting motherfucker will do) ass.

A whole shitload of Democrats jumped on the 9/11 bandwagon and voted for it. The '02 mid-terms further consolidated that support and '04 pretty much locked it. We got exactly what we wanted and this insanity says more about the American voter than it does about any individual.
posted by cedar at 3:07 PM on July 2, 2005


Following up on cedar's earlier post - "They aren't smart, we're (the collective we, as in 52% of American voters) just *really* stupid. It's dumb and dumber and the distinction is so minute that it was bound it was bound to cross-over eventually."

so what are the chances that the dems will field a credible candidate in '08, as opposed to trotting out Hilary & giving us 7 more years of this kind of shit in the process?
posted by Pressed Rat at 3:11 PM on July 2, 2005


Following up on cedar's earlier post - "They aren't smart, we're (the collective we, as in 52% of American voters) just *really* stupid. It's dumb and dumber and the distinction is so minute that it was bound it was bound to cross-over eventually."

so what are the chances that the dems will field a credible candidate in '08, as opposed to trotting out Hilary & giving us 7 more years of this kind of shit in the process?
posted by Pressed Rat at 3:11 PM on July 2, 2005


All, many thanks for the catch-up; small decomposing neurons fired up at the mention of weapons inspectors, the rest came naturally.

delmoi - really nice try, man, but Iraq has two.

posted by NinjaPirate at 3:18 PM on July 2, 2005


I fully understand the desire to nail Rove, but seriously, this Plame story was kind of a non-starter from the beginning. What exactly was so bad about outing Plame again? She wasn't exactly an active CIA field agent; hadn't her identity already been fingered by a double agent years before? Also, I think the law protecting the identities of CIA agents is more frequently invoked to keep people from investigating those nefarious bastards. (I mean how good a secret agent are you if it gets to the point you have to invoke a law to protect your identity?) Plame herself was the one who recommended her husband for the "fact-finding" mission to Niger according to the Senate report on the matter -- even though Wilson denies this in his book. That's not exactly protecting yourself, especially if your husband plans to come out swinging in the media against the President.

Secondly, Wilson's motivations always struck me as smarmy and dishonest. If you're an impartial Republican you don't go out and be feted at banquets hosted by the Nation, do Vanity Fair photo spreads and promote books. Also, as far as I know the original British intelligence report in part cited by the administration linking Niger -> yellow cake -> Iraq has never been discredited. I don't think it's far fetched to believe that Saddam's intelligence people were trying to gather info/materials on nuclear weapons and Niger seems like a likely source.

What the Plame affair is really about is the CIA's was institutional opposition to the White House's plans for regime change. So it seems to me like they were actively trying to undercut the President by orchestrating things like Wilson's trip and subsequent media blitz against the White House, trying to undermine their credibility. The White House was merely biting back; exposing the CIA's political agenda by leaking Plame's identity. That would explain the Porter Goss purge shortly thereafter.

Anyway, I'm not justifying the invasion of Iraq - far from it. I'm just pointing out that Plame/Wilson/CIA all had political motivations and were actively provoking Rove and the White House. And as such, the issue will never gain much political or legal traction.

Rove can easily paint himself as the victim (*ugh*) of the evil CIA and their political operatives, particularly since Wilson was so fast and loose with the facts:

"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger."

Wilson has opened himself up to a lot of critques that we haven't begun to hear; if Rove gets dragged into this, the dirty tricks machinery will go int high gear. I'd bet Wilson, (and Plame by association) gets destroyed long before Rove is tarnished in any meaningful way.
posted by Heminator at 3:34 PM on July 2, 2005


If Rove was the source why did all these news organizations cover for him and Bush all during the 2004 election? Doesn't pass the smell test. If Rove was the leaker somebody would have nailed him before the election.
posted by TetrisKid at 3:37 PM on July 2, 2005


TetrisKid, it's easy. The reporters kept it quiet because they had integrity. They, and I include nasty old Novak (at least until he pussied out and cut an immunity deal), decided that it was better to face the wrath of the judiciary than to reveal a source.

They were wrong, as we all know, freedom of the press does not extend as far as protecting a felon. Federal grand juries are not known for speed and the timing has far more to do with court orders and the law than it does with Coopers, Millers or Novaks employers agendas.
posted by cedar at 3:46 PM on July 2, 2005


November '04 wasn't all that long ago and while support for the war is dropping with every new poll

Cedar, it's interesting. My only ground for saying we didn't agree with the war, was after Afghanistan, which people believed was responsible for the WTC attacks, there was a long lead up to the Iraq invasion. At that time, I distinctly remember, polls said most people didn't support the invasion of Iraq. There was the discussion of the pre-emptive strike policy which didn't go over very well, and I really do think that many people didn't buy the WMD even then. But, I recall, Bush kept coming back and saying, we're going to do this.

Well, maybe it's true that Bush's re-election gave implicit agreement to everything that went before.

I personally find the whole thing wrong, starting with all those police actions, and that 30 (90?) day window in which the Commander in Chief can take over the armed forces, I thought the original intent was that a war could only be started by the congress. Iraq, whether it happened then or 2 months later, I don't think it was that pressing. Afghanistan on the other hand, I still remember the numb shock of that period, and, unfortunately it made sense.

The idea that everyone wants to go kill, that the majority of Americans want to kill the peoples of the world that are Islamic. . . Maybe you're right, but I hope not. Even if you're wrong, it could become true if there are more Islamic-based terrorist attacks--God forbid, of course. But this is one argument for Republican government is that the people in their irrational exuberance, can come to conclusions that are wrong and have a mob mentality that does the wrong thing. If the majority of the people of American want war with Korea and the Islamic world, then personally I would feel like that point has been reached. The only rational objective can be peace, ultimately. At this point, the potential ways to work for peace outnumber the resources for killing on hand.
posted by nervousfritz at 3:49 PM on July 2, 2005


Tetris Kid, she was an active agent in deep cover, and outing her not only endangered her, but everyone on our side that she had ever worked with. Forgive me if I didn't read the rest of your posts -- you really need to do your homework.
posted by digaman at 3:51 PM on July 2, 2005


at the end of the day - watch what wilson has to say about this - he's a stand up guy who has worked for republican and dem administrations.... and is actually believable when he says he cares about the national security of this country.

his wife was endangered by these creeps - simply because he spoke up and said the niger/iraq/nuke/yellowcake claims were b.s. he's a serious fellow ... and one can guess at the end of the day he'll get some payback on the clownies in the whitehouse.
posted by specialk420 at 3:56 PM on July 2, 2005


Heminator writes "if Rove gets dragged into this, the dirty tricks machinery will go int high gear."

Evidently you've started doing your part.
posted by clevershark at 4:04 PM on July 2, 2005


Anybody see the recent episode of American Dad with Karl Rove as Satan? It was hilarious.

He is dressed in a hooded robe, at one point he tries to enter the church, starts sizzling and turns into a number of bats that fly away.

I almost fell off the couch laughing.
posted by joedharma at 4:05 PM on July 2, 2005


"But one of the two lawyers representing a witness sympathetic to the White House told NEWSWEEK that there was growing "concern" in the White House that the prosecutor is interested in Rove."
posted by specialk420 at 4:05 PM on July 2, 2005


I am certain this will have negative consequences for Karl Rove.

Like, maybe he will have to let someone else use his sweet parking spot for a week.
posted by wakko at 4:11 PM on July 2, 2005


anyone have that bush quote about "wanting to get to the bottom of the wrongful/illegal outing" and "holding whoever was responsible to account"?
posted by specialk420 at 4:23 PM on July 2, 2005


Clevershark, thanks for taking on the case I bothered to make AT LENGTH. I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

Please explain how what I'm doing constitutes "dirty tricks." Forgive me for taking the eminently reasonable position that when it comes to political scandals, frequently neither side has pure or just motivations.

Or should I just be gleefully optimistic about Rove being thrown in prison?
posted by Heminator at 4:23 PM on July 2, 2005



from a White House press briefing, 9/16/03:

Q On the Robert Novak-Joseph Wilson situation, Novak reported earlier
this year -- quoting -- "anonymous government sources" telling him that
Wilson's wife was a CIA operative. Now, this is apparently a federal
offense, to burn the cover a CIA operative. Wilson now believes that the
person who did this was Karl Rove. He's quoted from a speech last month as
saying, "At the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether
or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in
handcuffs." Did Karl Rove tell that --

MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't heard that. That's just totally ridiculous. But
we've already addressed this issue. If I could find out who anonymous
people were, I would. I just said, it's totally ridiculous.

Q But did Karl Rove do it?

MR. McCLELLAN: I said, it's totally ridiculous.

White House briefing, 10/1/03:

Q Ambassador Wilson says that he was told by a reporter that Karl Rove
said, "Wilson's wife is fair game." I know you've spoken with Karl, does
he deny that?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q Does he deny that he ever used those words, "Wilson's wife is fair
game"?

MR. McCLELLAN: Look, the issue here, and this came up earlier, the issue
here is whether or not someone leaked classified information. That is a
serious matter and it should be pursued to the fullest. I have seen
comments from Mr. Wilson. And I have seen him back away from those
comments later. It seems to be, he said one thing previously about Karl
Rove, and then he backed away from it. And now he's saying other things.
There's a changing of the issue here all of a sudden. The issue here is
did someone leak classified information, and, if so, who was that person,
and then the appropriate action should be taken.

Q You have said previously from the podium that these types of accusations
against Karl are "ridiculous."

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes.

Q On the very line that Ambassador Wilson says that Karl used, "Wilson's
wife is fair game," is that wrong?

MR. McCLELLAN: I've just said, he has said a lot of things and then backed
away from what --

Q Scott, I want to know --

MR. McCLELLAN: -- and then backed away from what he said. So I think part
of your role is to do some further questioning there.

Q I'm asking you, that's why we're asking, to make sure -- I mean, we
don't want to continue to report something that's inaccurate.

MR. McCLELLAN: If Mr. Wilson -- well, he made some comments earlier and
then he backed away from them, and those comments were reported
previously.

Q Does Karl deny that he said that?

MR. McCLELLAN: What were the words again?

Q "Wilson's wife is fair game."

MR. McCLELLAN: And who did he say it to?

Q To a reporter that then repeated it to Wilson.

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, this is -- the issue here -- what is the issue here?
Did someone leak classified information? Is that the issue?

Q It could be about changing the tone, too.

MR. McCLELLAN: All of a sudden now, we're trying to change the topic in
this room.

Q There's a legal issue, there's an ethical issue, too. Going after a
man's wife is unethical.

MR. McCLELLAN: 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. But I'm not
going to -- we're not going to go down every single allegation that
someone makes. That's just -- we can do that all day long. Let's stay
focused on what the issue is here.


posted by digaman at 4:26 PM on July 2, 2005


Hermanator is the sounding like the son of Novak. Plame didn't need to recommend Wilson, as Bush I had personally called him a 'hero'. If one believes that correcting a president's assertions which are blatantly false is offensive and an attack, then yes, Wilson must be a treasonous bastard. So are the majority of people inside the reality-based community.

Plame wasn't 007, sure. She was much more useful in the real world. A detonated loose nuke is going to destroy the tether of scorn that the right and left use to communicate through.

The meaning of your scorn of Wilson is that if the President asks you to look into something, and ignores your results, keep your mouth shut, because he's the president, and he wants to utter something, true or not.

The intelligence Bush quoted was discredited, and kept from previous speeches repeatedly beforehand. I haven't heard anyone defend it since Condi scowled at the question, and took responsibility for it being in the speech, when it had no excuse being included. But what are you supposed to do when the president insists on inserting untrue statements over and over in speeches to the public? Keep your mouth shut and get a medal of freedom? Or speak up and say it stinks?

on preview: Devil's advocate isn't regurgitating lies. Put forward views which explore ulterior motives. something. or am I wrong in this?
posted by Busithoth at 4:38 PM on July 2, 2005


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

- George H.W. Bush


If this is true, it's is all playing out like some horrible greek tragedy. Which, in turn, makes me think it may just be true after all. GHWB is responsible for bringing Rove into the Bush family fold in the first place; helping him shore up his political legs. Rove introduced H'Dubya to Lee Atwater, who in turn helped Dubya's daddy reach the WH.

And this is how Rove repays the Bush family? By outing an operative from H'Dubya's beloved agency?

Maybe Rove will find God in the same way Atwater did...at the end of an inoperable brain tumor. Seriously, Karma is a bitch.

Lee Atwater: "My illness helped me to see that what was missing in society is what was missing in me: a little heart, a lot of brotherhood...*snip* It took a deadly illness to put me eye to eye with that truth, but it is a truth that the country, caught up in its ruthless ambitions and moral decay, can learn on my dime. "
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 4:42 PM on July 2, 2005


Rove is known for his unconventional political tactics of dirty tricks. In 1970, at the age of nineteen and while a protege of Donald Segretti (later convicted as a Watergate conspirator), Rove sneaked into the campaign office of Illinois Democrat Alan Dixon and stole some letterhead, which he used to print fake campaign rally fliers promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing," and distributed them at rock concerts and homeless shelters. Admitting to the incident much later, Rove said, "I was nineteen and I got involved in a political prank." (via: Wikipedia)

Jesus...Rove really is a bastard isn't he? He's been at this evil shit since the age of 19?
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 4:49 PM on July 2, 2005


"It was in Washington that Rove met the younger Bush. He fell, politically speaking, in love. 'Huge amounts of charisma, swagger, cowboy boots, flight jacket, wonderful smile, just charisma -- you know, wow,' Rove recalled years later."

"Wow," indeed.
"Politically speaking," indeed.
posted by digaman at 4:57 PM on July 2, 2005


Busithoth - again, the intelligence involving Iraq and Niger was never discredited. (Forgive the wingnut parent website -- that was the only site Google spit out when I searched for the FT article which is unavailable on the web).

As I said before, originally it cam from a British intelligence report that still stands and has been not been disowned. This was also supported by other European intelligence agencies. There was that nonsense involving the forgeries with the shady Italian businessmen and even some wild speculation involving French intelligence, but that has no bearing on the original British intelligence reports on Niger which date back to 1999.

The fact that Niger was involved in this stuff seems to be supported by a lot more than some wild claim the Bushies made, as much as I wouldn't put it past them to make such a claim. What compelling evidence did Wilson offer to the contrary? Other than later recanting many of his claims saying he "misspoke"?

And I'm sorry just because Wilson was called a hero by Bush I doesn't mean that he's an honest broker w/o a political agenda.

As for the Son of Novak crap, bite me. Being "reality based" doesn't mean shutting out contrarian views. You want an honest assessment about what the fallout from this might be, and I gave it based on political reality -- not twisting events and facts to encourage my hopes that Rove be locked up.
posted by Heminator at 5:05 PM on July 2, 2005


Or should I just be gleefully optimistic about Rove being thrown in prison?

Yep.
posted by realcountrymusic at 5:06 PM on July 2, 2005


Talking Points Memo:
There's one other point worth noting here. As we've seen, federal law recognizes no reporters' privilege or confidentiality. But if recollection serves, there are DOJ guidelines which say that prosecutors should exercise a great deal of discretion when trying to compel testimony from journalists. They're not supposed to do it just to tie up a few loose ends, but only if there's real and significant crime they're trying to prosecute. And before they do so, they're supposed to have exhausted all other possible ways to get at the information.

Now, I'm away from my office. And it's the holiday weekend, so I can't get an expert on the phone to confirm that recollection. So leave that as a contingent assertion. If it turns out I've misrecollected this I'll let you know in a subsequent post. But I think I remember it correctly.

Now, you'll also remember that a couple months back the usual ducks on the right were clucking about the whole investigation coming to an end -- and apparently the whole thing had come to nothing.

That particular cluck never quite computed to me because Fitzgerald shouldn't be pressing matter of jailing journalists unless he thinks he's on his way to prosecuting a serious crime.

So just a question: Would Fitzgerald have pushed to get Cooper and Miller in the slammer if some other party in the White House weren't in a lot of trouble?
More food for thought. Anyone notice that this broke on the Friday before a three-day weekend?
posted by jperkins at 5:09 PM on July 2, 2005


Prediction to follow...

The press will tell the population not to care about this by giving it less attention than they gave to Michel Jackson and who ever that run-away bride was. After all, as Tom Brokaw used to say in order to justify to himself the reporting of what once would have graced the pages of a third rate tabloid on the evening national news, "We can't be above the news."

Rove will continue answering to no one, Bush will continue answering to no one. In three weeks this will be forgotten completely, just like last time.
posted by 517 at 5:10 PM on July 2, 2005


Rove will continue answering to no one, Bush will continue answering to no one. In three weeks this will be forgotten completely, just like last time.

Then this is when we grab our torches and pickforks and begin our march on Washington.
posted by mr.curmudgeon at 5:17 PM on July 2, 2005


I guess we just disagree on 'political reality', Heminator.

I'm not falling over myself with fantasies of Rove in jail.
I'm actually trying to imagine what kind of havoc he could unleash, freed from Bush's orbit, post-pardon, a free radical in the GOP political landscape.

I hear criticisms of Wilson that he was motivated by personal gain and political agenda. It's a little crackpot to lay blame on someone for not proving a negative. Prove Niger didn't discuss it with Iraq, among others.

Show me anyone who's enlisted by the president for a job and comes away from unpoliticized.
posted by Busithoth at 5:36 PM on July 2, 2005


Then this is when we grab our torches and pickforks and begin our march on Washington.

Can I burn the Capitol?
posted by kika at 5:41 PM on July 2, 2005


Can I burn the Capitol?

Only if you're Canadian.
posted by bigbigdog at 5:51 PM on July 2, 2005


Can I burn the Capitol?

Canadians... ;)
posted by jperkins at 5:51 PM on July 2, 2005


I think you've got the moral and legal calculus of it all wrong, Heminator. So both sides have political agendas -- and maybe both sides have motives, even sinister motives (I don't think that intending to do what you can to make sure what the President is telling the American people is true is a bad motive, but have it your way).

What remains is that one side at best did shoddy detective work while the White House broke the law by outing and perhaps endangering a secret agent. You can discredit Wilson all you want, but the White House broke the law in trying to discredit him and, well, you go to jail for that kind of thing.

(And if you like, you can read back posts of Josh Marshall's blog to see how unlikely it is that the Niger memos were at all reliable, but that's not really the issue.)
posted by ontic at 5:56 PM on July 2, 2005


Hahahahahahaha!

You fools...
posted by George W. Bush at 5:57 PM on July 2, 2005


Hi, George. So is Jeff Gannon hung or what?
posted by digaman at 6:03 PM on July 2, 2005


Bust Bob Novak!
posted by ericb at 6:21 PM on July 2, 2005


Great link ericb.

Isn't this, like, you know, treasonous:

Now [Novak] says 'the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else.' But the fact remains that he was asked not to name her [by the CIA]- and he did." ["NOVAK TURNED A LEAK INTO A MUGGING," Philadelphia Daily News, October 9, 2003]
posted by joedharma at 7:19 PM on July 2, 2005


the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else.

Number of times I've tried a similar excuse: Numerous...

Number of times it worked: 0
posted by dial-tone at 7:27 PM on July 2, 2005



posted by ericb at 7:33 PM on July 2, 2005


I can't be bothered to read 108 comments or the article. But can someone confirm that it was Special Agent Cooper who discovered this, please?
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:34 PM on July 2, 2005


"Name That Bush Scandal" Contest

Valerie Plame CIA Outing - Treasonable Doubt
- Whack-a-Mole
- Intimigate
- Nobody to Plame
- Plamethrower
posted by ericb at 7:36 PM on July 2, 2005


ontic: What remains is that one side at best did shoddy detective work while the White House broke the law by outing and perhaps endangering a secret agent.

Well, it's more complex than that. From what little we do know, Plame wasn't working under anything like "deep cover" in the spy movies. However, she was traveling overseas as the representative of a certain company. Intelligence services can work their way back through her travel records. Where did she go? Who did she meet with? What parties did she attend? Where did she buy her groceries? What local banks did that company use? Who else is employed by that company, and with whom did they meet?

This is a form of intelligence called traffic analysis, and has been practiced since the days of radio during WWI. Confirming one link in the chain, allows you to identify other suspect links in the chain.

I don't think we will see a conviction come out of this. But what the left can do is make it such that the stench of Rove within 100 miles of a candidate for the midterm elections becomes the kiss of death. What we need to do is start demanding of our representatives, senators, and candidates, "Key members of our current administration and congress have been involved in a number of ethical scandals, what do you intend to do about it?"
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:10 PM on July 2, 2005


Let's keep some perspective here. I hate Rove, but the root of this-- the myriad lies to justify this war-- are common knowledge, but we relected this motherf@cker anyway. To me this is a misdemeanor in the crime against humanity that is the Bush administration.

Sure I like to see Rove humiliated, but he is still a small part of it all.And before S@L and D*^s respond, look at the number of Iraqi causalities. We're talking about a hundred thousand since the first gulf war.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 8:32 PM on July 2, 2005


metaculpa: Someone with photoshop NEEDS to take a close look at that .png file.

The Rove-getting-the-frog-march picture linked to by mr.curmudgeon (I assume that's the picture you mean, since it's the only PNG associated with this thread, as far as I can tell) is, in my entirely inexpert opinion, very, very obviously faked. The lighting on Rove's head is all wrong; you can even see the reflection of overhead fluorescent lighting on his bald pate - rather atypical for an outdoor shot. I don't think we should worry that it's a part of some elaborate plot.

Why it's a PNG is anyone's guess. An 85% JPG version of the image consumes less than 1/6th the storage/bandwidth and looks virtually indistinguishable from the original.
posted by Western Infidels at 8:33 PM on July 2, 2005


KirkJobSluder: Why would a prosecutor try so hard to get reporters at some of America's biggest-name publications thrown in the pokey, and let that issue go all the way to the nation's highest court, if he thought the strong possibility of getting a conviction of someone wasn't in the cards? Why all the doubt here?
posted by raysmj at 8:52 PM on July 2, 2005



Karl Rove as remembered from the playground.
posted by ericb at 9:02 PM on July 2, 2005


raysmj: Why would a prosecutor try so hard to get reporters at some of America's biggest-name publications thrown in the pokey, and let that issue go all the way to the nation's highest court, if he thought the strong possibility of getting a conviction of someone wasn't in the cards? Why all the doubt here?

Well, I think the answer is in the question. Getting some appeals court decisions regarding source confidentiality is certainly a powerful motivation even in the absence of a conviction. But I think it's a long way between here, and a jury conviction, and a long time in between. Bush can render the point moot with a lame duck pardon, and Elliot Abrams and John Poindexter prove that one can have a rich political afterlife after a pardon.

My point is that waiting for a conviction can take years. Meanwhile, the Democrats could gain by turning Rove and DeLay into a political liability.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:08 PM on July 2, 2005


Can I burn the Capitol?

Only if you're Canadian.


Ehrm, actually I'm Dutch...
posted by kika at 9:36 PM on July 2, 2005


KirkJobSluder: He's a prosecutor Why would getting an opinion regarding the reporters matter? What's the motivation? It's something to do? He's not a foundation-sponsored attorney here, out trying to change precedent and make a name for himself and his organization, or fulfilling some longtime ideal. A prosecutor's job is to have people sent to prison.
posted by raysmj at 9:43 PM on July 2, 2005


Oh--and his job, in this case, was to get to the bottom of what happened here and try his best to insure that the people responsible for it are locked up. The reporters are small fish, and hardly worth the amount of time and money involved in getting info out them otherwise. His goal, and job, was not to send these media people to prison, in other words, no matter how big their organizations. It's the last thing he probably wants to do, since sending them away would only mean they haven't talked.
posted by raysmj at 9:48 PM on July 2, 2005


raysmj: He's a prosecutor Why would getting an opinion regarding the reporters matter? What's the motivation? It's something to do? He's not a foundation-sponsored attorney here, out trying to change precedent and make a name for himself and his organization, or fulfilling some longtime ideal. A prosecutor's job is to have people sent to prison.

Because a precident can be used in other prosecutions to send other people to prison. But at this time, my impression is that this case is still very much of a fishing expedition. We know that a crime was committed, we don't know if there is enough evidence to support an indictment. At this stage the prosecutor's job is gathering evidence, and I don't think anybody really knows how much evidence or how strong of a case it really is.

The reporters are small fish, and hardly worth the amount of time and money involved in getting info out them otherwise. His goal, and job, was not to send these media people to prison, in other words, no matter how big their organizations.

Well, these reporters are small fish, but the press as an institution is a big fish, and I don't know of many prosecutors who wouldn't snap at a chance to argue a precident that will shape press immunities for the next generation. Certainly, his job is to get at the bottom of the Plame case, but he's probably well aware that pushing on the issue of press immunity will be what gets him into the textbooks.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:16 PM on July 2, 2005


There seem to be a lot of smart folk in this thread, but you have to wonder how many really have the inside track on this stuff, while the rest are frenzied troglodites at home huddled over a laptop in their underpants. I wish I could be assured that we really are about to witness the messy demise of this toad...
posted by marvin at 10:37 PM on July 2, 2005


KirkJobSlouder: I'm not convinced. Sorry. His going after the reporters so hard doesn't make any sense unless he desperately wants to get to someone else. This is the man who issued the first indictment against bin Laden in 1998, and won a conviction against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Something else has gotta be driving him here. And the Court had already said long before that reporters could be forced to name names if a prosecutor could prove that he genuinely needed the information, and couldn't get it anywhere else. This time, the Court just declined to hear the case.
posted by raysmj at 10:45 PM on July 2, 2005


while the rest are frenzied troglodites at home huddled over a laptop in their underpants.

But they're *clean* underpants.

Seriously, yes, TPM has it right. DoJ has specific guidelines, going back to the 80s, that treat journalists as "semi-privileged" although the privilege does not exist iin federal law, and was refuted directly by SCOTUS. The guidelines have been ignored and abused on occasion, but they are taken quite seriously by the career professionals there, from what I read. I sincerly doubt someone as pro as Fitzgerald is trying to test those guidelines for the sake of testing them, or out of an ideological quest to rein in the press. (It gives me some pause that he was appointed by Ashcroft, however. I just trust the widespread opinion of his colleagues that he's an honest bulldog.) It seems very unlikely to me that this is *about* the reporters and making some kind of example of them.

It just fascinates me that the members of the SCOTUS (and no doubt their clerks) and the federal district court know exactly where this is going, because they have seen and approved of whatever the rationale was for holding Miller/Cooper to the fire. I do not believe the moderates on the SCOTUS would have let the contempt finding stand if this were actually *about* the convention of limited privilege. And they'd look stupid or corrupt if they did refuse such a case when the truth came out. That's why I profferred my O'Connor conspiracy theory above.

My theory: it takes out *several* WH figures for obstruction, maybe perjury, possibly extending deeply into Cheney's staff. Various other, more exotic theories are circulating. But I think Rove is a red herring here, maybe to be charged, but not the whole show.
posted by realcountrymusic at 12:12 AM on July 3, 2005


ERIC B: stop with the inline images already, k, thx, bye.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:40 AM on July 3, 2005


I. Am. Afraid.

When Rove and Cheney get cornered like the rats they are, what will they be likely to do in defense? Pull out the Terror Card!

Anybody remember the Anthrax attacks? Anybody think Rove and Cheney know the scoop on who ordered them?
posted by zaelic at 3:13 AM on July 3, 2005


I repeat, the time to gloat over Rove doing the perp walk is when you see Rove doing the perp walk. But that's no fun, is it?

I agree, Mr "moderate conservative" (certainly more moderate than, say, Lynndie England or Edgar Ray Killen, yes, but that's not really much to write home about if you ask me. but keep patting yourself on the back about it)

what I do find funny, certainly funnier than the possibility (very remote, I think) that Rove is going to jail for this, is that the only MeFi GOP Fanboy who has the marginal balls to comment in a big-ass thread like this (about treasonous GOP operatives after all -- if it was a Democrat admin you'd be screaming for executions right now) only to derail about Iran (memo: you haven't invaded Iran because the US military is too busy getting slaughtered in Iraq, not because Bush and Cheney wouldn't love it).

oh, and besides the Iran derail, you manage only to come up with the "don't gloat" shit. yes, because all you guys taught us how you never ever gloat about stuff, right? MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

*snicker*

(guess now you'll have to look for those wmd's yourself, fuller, now that Judy Miller cannot help anymore)
posted by matteo at 5:43 AM on July 3, 2005


and by the way, about this "Rove is a genius!!!" meme -- if Sandra O'Connor (who's apparently greater than Lincoln and Jefferson combined, if you look at the liberal media coverage of her sorry career) had actually voted for State's Rights in Bush vs Gore, now Rove would be the unemployed dummy who lost the popular vote AND the electoral one to the barely-alive Al Gore.
he'd be a pariah. he'd just be the guy who spread the rumor that a true war hero like McCain was nuts and had fathered a bastard Negro kid, working for the miscenegenation of the races.
he'd be a zero.
now, please someone tell me how can Rove possibly take credit for O'Connor's vote. O'Connor, to her eternal legal and political shame, put that very weak candidate in the White House, not Rove. genius my ass. he's good, just that. and he got lucky because there 5 Republican judges.
posted by matteo at 5:49 AM on July 3, 2005


This is a form of intelligence called traffic analysis, and has been practiced since the days of radio during WWI.

actually, it's called "connect the dots" and it's been practiced since the first caveman first lied to his mate.
posted by quonsar at 7:17 AM on July 3, 2005



posted by warbaby at 8:46 AM on July 3, 2005


> What we need to do is start demanding of our representatives, senators, and
> candidates, "Key members of our current administration and congress have been involved
> in a number of ethical scandals, what do you intend to do about it?"

...crickets...
posted by jfuller at 8:59 AM on July 3, 2005


When to Give Up a Source
"In surrendering a reporter's notes, TIME Inc.'s top editor says the rule of law trumps the promise of confidentiality. Where does journalism go from here?"
posted by ericb at 9:13 AM on July 3, 2005


> and by the way, about this "Rove is a genius!!!" meme

What really would be funny, matteo, is if the Repubs' so-greatly-feared Machiavellian evil genius does go spend a couple of years in the tank and the Dems find they still can't win. That possibility all by itself is enough to make me hope Rove goes down. What will the rebranding, reframing boys say when they've been out-thought by W unaided?
posted by jfuller at 9:48 AM on July 3, 2005


out-thought by W. wow. just wow.

Rove's great at what he does, though.

I'm glad we can all pretend that the good of the nation isn't even a valid pretense any more. Us vs. Them. That's it.
posted by Busithoth at 10:29 AM on July 3, 2005


Schumer demands Rove speak up about leak "
"Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, called Sunday for Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove to personally deny leaking the name of a CIA official.

Saturday, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin told The Washington Post Rove had not disclosed the name of Valerie Plame to Newsweek in a 2003 interview.

Sunday, Schumer, who led the push for a Congressional inquiry into the leak, issued a challenge for Rove to speak for himself.

'We've heard it from his lawyer, but it would be nice to hear it directly from Mr. Rove that he didn't leak the identity of Valerie Plame, and that he didn't direct anyone else to do such a dastardly thing,' Schumer said in a statement. 'I have said from the first day ... whoever leaked the classified information should be punished to the full extent of the law.'

The panel is investigating the leak of Plame's name to various news outlets in 2003. It is a federal crime for a government employee to reveal the name of an undercover operative after the employee learns it from classified material."
posted by ericb at 2:22 PM on July 3, 2005


Democrat Calls on Rove to Make Statement on Probe
The story has legs. Rove will soon have frog legs.
Is it almost time to gloat?
posted by Outlawyr at 6:54 PM on July 3, 2005


I could have sworn I've heard the "This story has legs. ... Is it almost time to gloat?" phrases used on MeFi before, about some other scandalous thing the Administration got away with.

Anyway, that's why I'm not counting chickens.

The Administration has got away with this sort of shit before. Let's face it: some of it was more scandalous and downright treasonous than this. They have never been harmed by it before.

I hope, but I don't expect.

Much to my surprise, googling "will soon have frog legs" says that particular phrase has ever before been uttered.

This surprises me, because as I say above, I could have sworn...

posted by five fresh fish at 7:24 PM on July 3, 2005


Bush is going to give him more than a pardon--he'll find some bullshit "medal of freedom" to pin to his lapel.
posted by sacrilicious at 7:38 PM on July 3, 2005


Nixon gave us Watergate.
Reagan/Bush gave us Iran/Contra.
Bush2 gives us lies, deaths, war profiteering, and this.

And they tried to hang Clinton over sex.

Every Republican administration after Eisenhower has been a criminal disaster, and they keep getting worse.

And they say the danger is the "homosexual agenda".
posted by Goofyy at 10:36 PM on July 3, 2005


Is it time to tell liberals to get over their fear of vigilante justice and owning weapons enough to have a fucking violent riot?
It is the Fourth after all...
posted by klangklangston at 10:04 PM on July 4, 2005


I have a couple you all can borrow...
I'll need 'em back before the civil war, tho...
posted by Balisong at 8:59 PM on July 5, 2005


« Older Canada ambassador to the U.S. mobilizes ex-patriot...  |  Shasta Groene... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments