The White House's Crime

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/15/05 at 11:02am

This Washington Post article from 2003 shows (a) that Valerie Plame was indeed undercover and working abroad and (b) that Rove, et al. indeed compromised national security by revealing her.

So ignore all that administration and RNC blather that she wasn't undercover and that there was no crime.

===

Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm

By Walter Pincus and Mike Allen, Washington Post Staff Writers; Saturday, October 4, 2003; Page A03

The leak of a CIA operative's name has also exposed the identity of a CIA front company, potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure, Bush administration officials said yesterday.

...

After the name of the company was broadcast yesterday, administration officials confirmed that it was a CIA front. They said the obscure and possibly defunct firm was listed as Plame's employer on her W-2 tax forms in 1999 when she was working undercover for the CIA. Plame's name was first published July 14 in a newspaper column by Robert D. Novak that quoted two senior administration officials. They were critical of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, for his handling of a CIA mission that undercut President Bush's claim that Iraq had sought uranium from the African nation of Niger for possible use in developing nuclear weapons.

...

A former diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said yesterday that every foreign intelligence service would run Plame's name through its databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited their country and to reconstruct her activities.

"That's why the agency is so sensitive about just publishing her name," the former diplomat said.

FEC rules require donors to list their employment. Plame used her married name, Valerie E. Wilson, and listed her employment as an "analyst" with Brewster-Jennings & Associates. The document establishes that Plame has worked undercover within the past five years. The time frame is one of the standards used in making determinations about whether a disclosure is a criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/16/05 at 4:18pm

This is going to be long, so bare with me.

1) In Oct. 2003, Rove told the FBI he never circulated information about Plame until AFTER Novak's article came out on July 14, 2003. (Cooper's email proves he lied to the FBI, and that is a federal crime, ask Martha Stewart)

Now, the "story" is that per Rove's grand jury testimony, he spoke to Novak on July 8, 2003, at which time, he claims Novak said to him, "Did you hear that Plame, who works for the CIA, was the one who sent Wilson to go to Niger?" Rove said, "I heard that too"--which is pathetic because how could Novak have been the one to tell him, if he had already heard that?

It has been confirmed by the CIA that Plame was in deep cover, so if what Rove claims is true, then he "confirmed" to Novak the identity. That simple act of confirmaion is a federal crime.

2) Now, Cooper's email: In it it states, that on July 11, 2003, Rove told Cooper it was "Wilson's wife, who works at the agency, who sent Wilson to Niger."

So three days after Novak told him Plame was undercover at the CIA, Rove then told Cooper. He outed Plame, to Cooper.

Rove confirmed Plame's CIA status with Novak, and outed her to Cooper, both are federal crimes. Also, he lied to the FBI, which is obstruction of justice after the fact.

And yet another serious issue for Rove is that when he became Chief of Staff, he signed a nondisclosure agreement signed by White House officials which states: "I will never divulge classified information to anyone” who is not authorized to receive it."

Rove, through his attorney, has raised the implication that there is a distinction between releasing classified information to someone not authorized to receive it and CONFIRMING classified information from someone not authorized to have it. In fact, there is no such distinction under the nondisclosure agreement Rove signed.

And, anyone who knew Plame was undercover had special security clearance to know that. So when Rove "confirmed" her status to Novak, he confirmed classified information to someone not authorized to have it.

And when he called Cooper 3 days later and told her she worked for the CIA, he released classified information to someone not authorized to receive it.

Rove is the one who released this current story because he thinks it will absolve him of any criminality. He's wrong. He's trying to win the PR war going on now. It's worked in the past, but what he cannot manipulate, is the prosecutor who his gunning for his ass. It is he, who will have the last word on this matter, not Karl Rove.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/16/05 at 4:23pm

Who better to opine on White House crimes than a former White House criminal? For those of you too young to remember, John Dean was counsel to President Richard Nixon and served four months in prison for his role in the Watergate scandal. His latest book is "Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush."

===

It doesn't look good for Karl Rove

By John Dean
Special to CNN.com
Friday, July 15, 2005; Posted: 2:42 p.m. EDT (18:42 GMT)

(FindLaw) -- As the scandal over the leak of CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity has continued to unfold, there is a renewed focus on Karl Rove -- the White House deputy chief of staff whom President Bush calls his political "architect."

Newsweek has reported that Matt Cooper, in an e-mail to his bureau chief at Time magazine, wrote that he had spoken "to Rove on double super-secret background for about two min[ute]s before he went on vacation ..." In that conversation, Rove gave Cooper "big warning" that Time should not "get too far out on Wilson."

Rove was referring, of course, to former Ambassador Joe Wilson's acknowledgment of his trip to Africa, where he discovered that Niger had not, in fact, provided uranium to Iraq that might be part of a weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program.

Cooper's email indicates that Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by CIA Director George Tenet or Vice President Dick Cheney; rather, Rove claimed, "it was ... [W]ilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on [WMD] issues who authorized the trip." (Rove was wrong about the authorization.)

Only the special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, and his staff have all the facts on their investigation at this point, but there is increasing evidence that Rove (and others) may have violated one or more federal laws. At this time, it would be speculation to predict whether indictments will be forthcoming.

Identities Protection Act

As I pointed out when the Valerie Plame Wilson leak first surfaced, the Intelligence Identities And Protection Act is a complex law. For the law to apply to Rove, a number of requirements must be met.

Rove must have had "authorized access to classified information" under the statute. Plame was an NCO (non-covered officer). White House aides, and even the president, are seldom, if ever, given this information. So it is not likely Rove had "authorized access" to it.

In addition, Rove must have "intentionally" -- not "knowingly" as has been mentioned in the news coverage -- disclosed "any information identifying such a covert agent." Whether or not Rove actually referred to Mrs. Wilson as "Valerie Plame," then, the key would be whether he gave Matt Cooper (or others) information that Joe Wilson's wife was a covert agent.

Also, the statute requires that Rove had to know, as a fact, that the United States was taking, or had taken, "affirmative measures to conceal" Valerie Plame's covert status. Rove's lawyer says he had no such knowledge.

In fact, there is no public evidence that Valerie Wilson had the covert status required by the statute. A covert agent, as defined under this law, is "a present or retired officer or employee" of the CIA, whose identity as such "is classified information," and this person must be serving outside of the United States, or have done so in the last five years.

There is no solid information that Rove, or anyone else, violated this law designed to protect covert CIA agents. There is, however, evidence suggesting that other laws were violated. In particular, I have in mind the laws invoked by the Bush Justice Department in the relatively minor leak case that it vigorously prosecuted, though it involved information that was not nearly as sensitive as that which Rove provided Matt Cooper (and possibly others).

Leak prosecution precedent

I am referring to the prosecution and conviction of Jonathan Randel. Randel was a Drug Enforcement Agency analyst, a Ph.D. in history, working in the Atlanta office of the DEA.

Randel was convinced that British Lord Michael Ashcroft (a major contributor to Britain's Conservative Party, as well as American conservative causes) was being ignored by DEA and its investigation of money laundering. (Lord Ashcroft is based in South Florida and the off-shore tax haven of Belize.)

Randel leaked the fact that Lord Ashcroft's name was in the DEA files, and this fact soon surfaced in the London news media. Ashcroft sued, and learned the source of the information was Randel. Using his clout, soon Ashcroft had the U.S. attorney in pursuit of Randel for his leak.

By late February 2002, the Department of Justice indicted Randel for his leaking of Lord Ashcroft's name. It was an eighteen count "kitchen sink" indictment; they threw everything they could think of at Randel. Most relevant for Karl Rove's situation, count one of Randel's indictment alleged a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641. This is a law that prohibits theft (or conversion for one's own use) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes. But its broad language covers leaks, and it has now been used to cover just such actions.

Randel, faced with a life sentence (actually 500 years) if convicted on all counts, on the advice of his attorney, pleaded guilty to violating Section 641. On January 9, 2003, Randel was sentenced to a year in a federal prison, followed by three years probation. This sentence prompted the U.S. attorney to boast that the conviction of Randel made a good example of how the Bush administration would handle leakers.

Precedent bodes ill for Rove

Rove may be able to claim that he did not know he was leaking "classified information" about a "covert agent," but there can be no question he understood that what he was leaking was "sensitive information." The very fact that Matt Cooper called it "double super-secret background" information suggests Rove knew of its sensitivity, if he did not know it was classified information (which by definition is sensitive).

United States District Court Judge Richard Story's statement to Jonathan Randel, at the time of sentencing, might have an unpleasant ring for Rove.

Judge Story told Randel that he surely must have appreciated the risks in leaking DEA information. "Anything that would affect the security of officers and of the operations of the agency would be of tremendous concern, I think, to any law-abiding citizen in this country," the judge observed. Judge Story concluded this leak of sensitive information was "a very serious crime."

"In my view," he explained, "it is a very serious offense because of the risk that comes with it, and part of that risk is because of the position" that Randel held in DEA. But the risk posed by the information Rove leaked is multiplied many times over; it occurred at a time when the nation was considering going to war over weapons of mass destruction. And Rove was risking the identity of, in attempting to discredit, a WMD proliferation expert, Valerie Plame Wilson.

Judge Story acknowledged that Randel's leak did not appear to put lives at risk, nor to jeopardize any DEA investigations. But he also pointed out that Randel "could not have completely and fully known that in the position that [he] held."

Is not the same true of Rove? Rove had no idea what the specific consequences of giving a reporter the name of a CIA agent (about whom he says he knew nothing) would be--he only knew that he wanted to discredit her (incorrectly) for dispatching her husband to determine if the rumors about Niger uranium were true or false.

Given the nature of Valerie Plame Wilson's work, it is unlikely the public will ever know if Rove's leak caused damage, or even loss of life of one of her contracts abroad, because of Rove's actions. Dose anyone know the dangers and risks that she and her family may face because of this leak?

It was just such a risk that convinced Judge Story that "for any person with the agency to take it upon himself to leak information poses a tremendous risk; and that's what, to me, makes this a particularly serious offense." Cannot the same be said about Rove's leak? It dealt with matters related to national security; if the risk Randel was taking was a "tremendous" risk, surely Rove's leak was monumental.

While there are other potential violations of the law that may be involved with the Valerie Plame Wilson case, it would be speculation to consider them. But Karl Rove's leak to Matt Cooper is now an established fact.

First, there is Matt Cooper's e-mail record. And Cooper has now confirmed that he has told the grand jury he spoke with Rove. If Rove's leak fails to fall under the statute that was used to prosecute Randel, I do not understand why.

There are stories circulating that Rove may have been told of Valerie Plame's CIA activity by a journalist, such as Judith Miller, as recently suggested in Editor & Publisher. If so, that doesn't exonerate Rove. Rather, it could make for some interesting pairing under the federal conspiracy statute (which was the statute most commonly employed during Watergate)

It doesn't look good for Karl Rove

Updated On: 7/16/05 at 04:23 PM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 7/16/05 at 5:13pm

As this wears on, as old time Democrats wearily report on CNN(including Carville), it sadly feels more inside-the-beltway every day. Revelations could still be pronounced, but I fear the public sentiment is with the smug John Tierney column in the Times today, which suggests there is no there there.

"Where's the Newt? The Washington Scandal That Wasn't. For now, it looks as if this scandal is about a spy who was not endangered, a whistle-blower who did not blow the whistle and was not smeared, and a White House official who has not been fired for a felony that he did not commit. And so far the only victim is a report who did not write a story about it..."

Ugh. I am appalled by all of that--but would polls suggest otherwise in our culture? PJ, can you find any polls on public opinion in this case? I was heartend by the AOL polls early in the scandal, which normally skew conservative. Yet things have been diluted. Unless legal action occurs, I fear it's ultimately too gnarly to interest an indifferent electorate. When the Downey Street memos failed to produce much traction, I despaired.

And last night while at the gym, I saw a fire-breathing John Gibson appear at the top of the O'Reilly hour and trash the Krugman column with glee and venom. (You'd think HE was an elected official. Can you imagine any other network anchor type personally attacking the press, because of a mention in a column?) The loathing of Wilson at Fox (and among Republicans) is palpable, and as Krugman pointed out, they think he was such a jerk, Rove was justified.

Hope springs eternal: This letter moved me, from Houston: "...I am horrified how the Bush Administration has made a victim of truth in our political discourse. What we have witnessed is our government is not just deception, but a calculated, take-no-prisoners psychological marketing campaign that protects the economic interests, ambitions, and mistakes of the party in power. Truth, honor, freedom, and the foundational democratic values that we promote to the rest of th eworld are the targeted victims in our own country."

Amen.

Updated On: 7/16/05 at 05:13 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/16/05 at 5:19pm

Don't give up before the miracle.

Let the investigation happen, and ...

STOP WATCHING FOX!

[Auggie27]

Posted: 7/16/05 at 5:24pm

I try to avoid it. Yet, it's startling how Fox is ubiquitous. At Penn Station and Grand Central, it's on all the TV monitors in the newstands. And though it's only one of the 6 floor TV monitors in my gym (and is knocked off in the day), in the evening, some members seem to want it on. Sometime I silently move through the cardio floor, checking out who's got the audio on "8," the Fox channel. Almost no one. Maybe they're paying comcast! Nothing surprises me. After all, this is Pravda we're talking.