Democrats Begin Rove Assault

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 11:22am

First, Henry Waxman calls for a congressional hearing.

---

July 11, 2005

The Honorable Tom Davis
Chairman
Committee on Government Reform
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am writing regarding recent reports that provide new details about the involvement of Karl Rove, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff, in the disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity as an agent of the Central Intelligence Agency.

An article in the Washington Post this morning and recent disclosures in Newsweek and other reports are extraordinary. If true, they indicate that the President's top political advisor played a central role in the outing of a covert CIA agent. According to the Washington Post account, Mr. Rove's attorney insists that Mr. Rove did not identify Ms. Plame "by name." But Mr. Rove did identify her as the spouse of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, which would seem to be a distinction without a difference.

The new disclosures also raise issues about whether Mr. Rove acted alone or whether there was a conspiracy with other White House staff to use classified information for the political purpose of discrediting Ambassador Wilson.

I first wrote to you to request a hearing about this matter on September 29, 2003, and I renewed my request in a second letter on December 11, 2003. During this period, we met with Ambassador Wilson, but you turned down my request for a hearing because you wanted to see what the investigation of Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald would uncover.

The recent disclosures about Mr. Rove's actions have such serious implications that we can no longer responsibly ignore them. The intentional disclosure of a covert CIA agent's identity would be an act of treason. If there were evidence of such a serious breach during the Clinton Administration, there is no doubt that our Committee would have immediately demanded that the Deputy Chief of Staff testify at a hearing. This would have been the right course of action then, and it is the right course now. For this reason, I am renewing my request that the Committee schedule an immediate hearing at which Mr. Rove is called to testify.

A congressional hearing at which Mr. Rove testifies under oath remains the simplest and most effective means for Congress and the public to learn the truth about this disgraceful incident.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Minority Member

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 11:23am

Maybe for once ethics will trump smugness?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 11:24am

Next, the DNC issues this statement to reporters:

===

WHAT DID ROVE KNOW AND WHEN DID HE KNOW IT?

At the White House briefing today, Scott McClellan repeatedly stonewalled legitimate questions from reporters about his earlier assertions - now proven false - that Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove was not involved in the illegal disclosure of a CIA operative's identity. According to reports this morning, Karl Rove had detailed conversations about Valerie Plame’s classified, national security responsibilities with at least one political reporter.

“Karl Rove and his high priced lawyers might disagree, but the truth is Rove betrayed the identity of an undercover officer fighting on the front lines in the war on terror. These actions are particularly egregious in a time of war,” said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. “President Bush should demonstrate his commitment to the war on terror by holding his own people accountable. It is disturbing that this high ranking Bush Advisor is not only still working in the White House, but now has a significant role in setting our National Security policy.”

See below for a new document from DNC research:

Until recently, Karl Rove had denied even knowing Valerie Plame's name. Then, after the release of emails from Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper revealing the name of the White House source, Rove's lawyer confirmed that Rove did speak with reporters about the case. Now, previously secret Time emails reveal that Rove did indeed leak to Cooper information about "Wilson's wife"-Plame. Rove had a short conversation with Time reporter Matthew Cooper on July 11, 2003, three days before Robert D. Novak publicly exposed Plame in a column about her husband, Joseph Wilson. This new evidence raises a host of new unanswered questions.

"If left unpunished, this cowardly act will not only hinder our efforts to recruit qualified individuals into the clandestine service, but it will have a far-reaching, deleterious effect on our ability to recruit foreign intelligence assets overseas."

-Larry Johnson, former CIA Analyst [Senate Democratic Policy Committee Hearing, 10/24/03]

ROVE REVEALED "WILSON'S WIFE" TO COOPER

Rove Told Cooper That It Was "Wilson's Wife" Who Worked on WMDs for the CIA. Rove had a conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper on July 11, 2003. Cooper wrote an email about the conversation to his Time bureau chief. In the email, Cooper described how Rove gave him a "big warning" that Wilson's assertions might not be entirely accurate and that it was not the director of the CIA or the vice president who sent Wilson on his trip. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Valerie Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. [Washington Post, 7/11/05; Newsweek, 7/18/05]

THE NEXT LOGICAL QUESTION:

1. Now that we know that Rove told Cooper about "Wilson's wife," who told Rove? Rove had to find out about Plame and her job from someone. Where did this information come from?

WHO ELSE LEAKED BESIDES KARL ROVE?

Rove Gave Cooper Permission to Testify-Allowing Cooper to Avoid Jail Time-But Miller Chose to Go to Jail. Rove's Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove was the secret source who, at the request of both Cooper's lawyer and the prosecutor, gave Cooper permission to testify. Cooper avoided jail time last week by agreeing to testify before the grand jury about conversations with his sources, while New York Times reporter Judith Miller was jailed for refusing to discuss her confidential sources. [Washington Post, 7/11/05; Newsweek, 7/18/05]

THE NEXT LOGICAL QUESTION:

1. Who in the Bush Administration told Judith Miller about Plame? The information cannot have come from Rove, since Rove has "released" Cooper from confidentiality. If Rove were Miller's source, wouldn't he do the same for her? So who was Miller-a reporter working on WMDs-talking to?

ROVE had PREVIOUSLY DENIED his INVOLVEMENT - WHY?

Rove Had Previously Denied Any Involvement: In August 2004, Rove Claimed He Did Not Know Who Plame Was. In August of 2004, facing questions of his role in the Plame leak scandal, Rove denied his involvement, saying that he did not even know who Plame was at the time of the leak. "Well, I'll repeat what I said to ABC News when this whole thing broke some number of months ago. I didn't know her name and didn't leak her name." [CNN, 7/4/05]

Yet, Cooper's Email Shows Rove Speaking to Reporters 3 Days Before Plame's Name Became Public. To be considered a violation of the law, a disclosure by a government official must have been deliberate, the discloser must have known that the CIA officer was a covert agent, and he or she must have known that the government was actively concealing the covert agent's identity. According to Newsweek, although Cooper's email does not prove that Rove knew Plame was a covert operative, "...it is significant that Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak's column appeared; in other words, [three days] before Plame's identity had been published." [WP, 7/11/05; Newsweek, 7/18/05]

In Rove's Defense, His Lawyer Claims that Rove Did Not Identify Plame by Name-But Who Else Could "Wilson's Wife" Be? According to the Washington Post, "Rove's lawyer said yesterday that his client did not identify her by name." Yet, the substance of the email from Cooper to Time editors states that it was "Wilson's wife." Since Wilson obviously had only one wife and everyone knew who it was, Rove unquestionably did identify Plame. [Washington Post, 7/11/05]

THE NEXT LOGICAL QUESTION:

1. If Rove is innocent, then why would he claim that he didn't know who Plame was? What did he have to hide? Why was he so careful, saying that "I didn't know her name and didn't leak her name" instead of just admitting that he revealed "Wilson's wife" to Cooper? Even though Cooper's email does not indicate that Rove knew what Plame's job was, couldn't this fact simply mean that Rove did not reveal any more than needed to Cooper?

ROVE AND THE GRAND JURY

McClellan Said Rove Never Told Reporters that Plame Worked for CIA. In October of 2003 White House Press Secretary, Scott McCllelan was asked during a White House Briefing, "Scott, earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?" McClellan responded by denying that Rove or the others had assured him that they had not leaked any classified information. "Those individuals - I talked - I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands." [WH Briefing, 10/10/03]

THE NEXT LOGICAL QUESTION:

Did Rove commit perjury in front of the grand jury? We know his initial public statements and his statements to Scott McClellan were false. And we know that after testifying once, they called him back. Did Rove change his answers to the grand jury the same way he changed his answers to the press?

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 12:15pm

And Fox News finally chimes in, with a softened version of the AP article.
Rove Spoke of CIA Officer

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 12:22pm

It's like a Greek Myth; The evil genius who masterminded his boss's rise to power eventually sucumbs to hubris and brings the entire regime to it's knees.

If Karl Rove, the man who put Bush in the White House, ends up being Bush's undoing? Well, as Bart Simpson would say "The ironing is delicious!"

[yodamarie78]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 12:25pm

I still can't get over the fact that Rove was that stupid. He is a very smart man and while there was no doubt in my mind that he was somehow behind leaking Plame's name, I never thought we'd find out that he did it himself It's like Christmas! Can I have an impeachment for my birthday?

[WindyCityActor]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 1:52pm

From the WH Press Conference today with McClellan:

Q: Some Democrats are calling for the revocation of Karl Rove's security clearance.

A: I don't think it's helpful for me to get into discussing what is an ongoing investigation. I don't think we should be prejudging the outcome.

Q: Does the president see any need to revoke Karl Rove's security clearance in the interim?

A: Let me back up, a number of you have asked if the president has continuing confidence in Karl Rove. Any individual who works here at the White House has the confidence of the president. They wouldn't be working here at the White House if they didn't have the president's confidence. In terms of security clearance... I'm confident those individuals have the appropriate security clearances.

Q: The president has spoken about this when asked. He's spoken about these questions. Does he retain confidence in Karl Rove specifically.

A: Yes.

Q: But you said to the public affirmatively that Karl Rove is not involved. Yet now we have evidence to the contrary. How do you reconcile the two things.

A: I'm not going to prejudge the outcome.... I'm not going to respond to every individual news story.

Q: We know what the facts are. We know he spoke about Wilson's wife. You've heard Democrats say today that alone is inappropriate conduct. What was Karl Rove trying to accomplish, and does the president think it was fair game for him to do that?

A: Ongoing investigation, if I were to start commenting on news reports, I'd be prejudging the investigation.

(John's note: Rove's own attorney admitted it, what news story?)

Q: There's a difference between what's legal and what's right, is what Karl Rove did right?

A: The best way to help the investigation is for me not to get into discussing it from this podium.

Q: You say you won't discuss it, but the Republican National Committee put out talking points, and other Republican surrogates are putting out talking points and talking. So someone is providing this information, are you behind the scenes directing a response to this story?

A: You can talk to the RNC.

Q: Republican surrogates are getting their information from here, from Karl Rove.

Q: At the very least, can you say whether you stand by your statement that it is simply not true that Karl Rove disclosed the identity of a CIA agent?

A: It's not the appropriate time.

Q: Yes or no. Scott, this is a statement you made on the record, you very confidently asserted to us and the American people. Can you stand by that statement now?

A: I answered that question yesterday.

Q: Does Karl Rove become a liability to the president, pushing his agenda?

A: You're asking all these questions in context to news reports... (John says: again, no, it's in response to Rove's own attorney)

Q: Did he apologize to you for telling you he was not involved? I mean, he put your credibility on the line (this is Helen Thomas).

A: Two years ago I did draw a line, we're just not going to get into commenting on an investigation that continues. I do want to talk about this, and we will once the investigation is complete.

Q: Do you regret putting yourself so far out on a limb? Do you think you went too far?

Now Scottie is picking on an Indian or Pakistani journalist to change the topic (where is Jeffy when you need him?)

Q: Does the White House have a credibility problem?

A: It's clear this is in the context of news reports...

Q: News reports that have been confirmed by Karl Rove's attorney...

A: I'm going to keep going to other people in the room, this isn't the way to have a constructive dialogue...

Q: Why can't you answer the qeuestion about whether the administration has a credibility problem?

A: I think all of you in this room know me very well, you know the type of person that I am. The president is a very straight forward and plain spoken person. And I believe in being straight forward with you all.

Q: How long has the president known that Karl Rove spoke to at least one reporter...

Q: Did it surprise him this week when the story broke?

Q: Scott, would you be willing to allow your attorney to speak to reporters?

A. Next question

Q: You've totally changed some of your statements, what has the president said to karl Rove in relation to the situation?

A: I appreciate you asking, but it's in the context of the investigation.

Q: You were continuously saying it's an ongoing investigation, but also an ongoing news story. Do you not sense that perhaps you, the president or Karl need to say something more to close the credibility gap?

A: I might harm the investigation by talking. I'm not going to comment on news reports. We want to know what the facts are, the way to do that is let the investigators do their work (John says: No, the way to do that is to talk to Karl yourselves - why do we have to have an investigator?)

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 2:40pm

Lions and tiger and bears, OH MY!

Kids--pay attention! This is history-in-the-making!

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 2:43pm

I for one, am THRILLED that they are actually going after him

I was losing faith in the Democrats....

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 2:49pm

I love how he keeps saying it's in the context of ongoing news reports...which are reports of FACTUAL evidence, i.e. e-mail documents showing Rove disclosing information that compromised a CIA agent's safety and mission in a foreign country.

[brdlwyr]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 2:54pm

Scott had a major credibility problem!

[Auggie27]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 2:57pm

I must say, these real time news conference transcripts are one riveting read. The press, long cowed and complacent -- and criticized for being so -- have found their voices. Again, what makes this so powerful is the subtext of solidarity here. A woman -- not even a popular one, and one used as a mouthpiece by this administration in the run up to the war -- sits in jail. There isn't a journalist covering DC who doesn't on some level identify with the core issues here. To sit through stonewalling news conferences, as McClelland hides behind the due process of the "investigation" has brought out heretofore unseen fire. Would love to be a fly on the wall.

[OnTheAisle]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 3:00pm

I'm sure you all have seen this, because your as politically savvy as they come, but in the event that there's another neophyte out there, Mr. Kerry would like us to sign the Fire Karl petition:

http://www.johnkerry.com/petition/rove.php

Keep up the excellent work PJ et. al.!

[OnTheAisle]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 4:21pm

BUMP

[DottieD'Luscia]

Posted: 7/12/05 at 5:04pm

I realize he's just doing his job, but, Scott McClellan is such a loser.