White House Leak To Destroy Joseph C. Wilson

[Guest Ivan Eland]

The truth is Rove is not the leak. He may have talked with one of those

reporters, but he gave up no names of any CIA agents.

 

At a minimum, even talking to reporters about Wilson’s wife in more general terms indicates that Rove and Libby lied to White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who passed on to the press their categorical denial of being involved in any part of the affair.

 

By their identical and clever defenses, both of these high level officials are attempting to skirt the relatively short reach of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. They slyly told reporters that Wilson’s wife worked for the agency and allowed the journalists to sniff out the rest.

 

Read More Here

http://independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1581

[Guest BLing Bling]

Whether Rove had “any knowledge” of the leak or whether he leaked the name of the CIA agent, Rove answered “no.” That same day, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, after having “spoken to Karl,” asserted that “it is a ridiculous suggestion” to say Rove was involved in the leak. In August 2004, Rove maintained, “I didn’t know her name and didn’t leak her name.”

 

This morning, ABC News producer Andrea Owen happened to find herself near Karl Rove (who was walking to his car), and an ABC camera.

 

Owen: "Did you have any knowledge or did you leak the name of the CIA agent to the press?"

 

Rove: "No."

 

At which point, Mr. Rove shut his car door as Ms. Owen asked, "What is your response to the fact that Justice is looking into the matter?"

 

At the White House gaggle, Scott McClellan said that disclosure "particularly of this nature is a serious matter," and it should be pursued to fullest extent possible. The Justice Department, he said, is the appropriate agency to do that. No information has been brought to the attention of the White House beyond press accounts.

 

"Should the leaker be fired?," he was asked. On third inquiry Scot said "If a source leaked information of this nature, yes."

 

As of this morning, the White House hadn't heard from Justice.

[Guest Unatural Blonde]

Presidential adviser Karl Rove will testify again without immunity before a federal grand jury investigating whether Bush administration officials disclosed the identity of an undercover CIA operative to reporters, a person familiar with the case said.

 

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has not made any decision yet on whether to file criminal charges against the longtime confidant of President Bush or anyone else.

 

You can't take your lawyer into the room with you. It's especially risky if you've already testified once -- or, in the case of Rove, three times -- before: The odds of introducing inconsistencies into your testimony increase each time you give it.

[Luke_Wilbur]

The White House had long insisted that Rove and Libby had nothing to do with the leakage but reporters have since named them as sources.

 

According to the Associated Press, Rove's attorney, said he had been assured no decisions on charges had been made. Rove would first have to receive what is known as a target letter if he is about to be indicted:

 

"I can say categorically that Karl has not received a target letter from the special counsel. The special counsel has confirmed that he has not made any charging decisions in respect to Karl," Luskin said.

 

Rove "continues to be cooperative voluntarily" with the special counsel investigation and "beyond that, any communication I have or may have in the future are going to be treated as completely confidential

 

Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald may have given up the leak case in favor of a perjury case.

 

The grand jury expires on October 28. Then we will all find out the truth.

[Guest David Conard]

This is what the Bush administration means by "You’re either with us or against us." I think they should say instead, "Either you’re on the side of any insane, unsubstantiated idiocy we come up with, or you’re our enemy, who we will destroy by any means available."

[Guest True Brit]

My problem is that Libby had given Miller's lawyer a waiver to testify more than a year earlier. Why did she not speak out?

[Guest Cervantes]

I am just curious as to whether you have read the criminal statute? There is not a prosecutor in the world who would be able to prove a criminal case against Rove. I wonder when the Liberals are actually going to see this. Knowing their hate for Rove it will probably be awhile. Until then I will just enjoy watching them make fools of themselves.

[Luke_Wilbur]

I am just curious as to whether you have read the criminal statute?

Just to let everyone know that Espionage Act of 1917 and the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act of 1982 are posted on the first page of this topic.

 

Perjury is lying or making verifiably false statements under oath in a court of law. Perjury is a crime because the witness has sworn to tell the truth, and for the credibility of the court, witness testimony must be relied on as being truthful. It is seen as a very serious crime as it seeks to usurp the authority of the courts, because it can lead to miscarriages of justice.

 

A miscarriage of justice is primarily the conviction and punishment of a person for a crime that they did not commit.

 

Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives on grounds of perjury and obstruction of justice on December 19, 1998. Karl Rove and Scooter Libby may face the same charges.

[Guest Dave's Not Here]

The D.C. Rumor mill is thrumming with whispers that 22 indictments are about to be handed down on the outed-CIA agent Valerie Plame case. The last time the wires buzzed this loud — that Tom DeLay would be indicted and would step down from his leadership post in the House — the scuttlebutters got it right.

[Guest Gina]

Well finally the news is out for you Rove loyalist. Your backing a traitor!!!!

 

A discrepancy between the grand jury testimony of Karl Rove and Time Magazine reporter Matthew Cooper is the reason Rove will testify again.

 

Newsweek reports investigators have found an e-mail confirming a meeting between Cooper and Rove, President Bush's top political adviser.

 

Rove failed to disclose the meeting both during a 2003 FBI interview and during his first appearance before a federal grand jury investigating the leak to the press of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

 

Rove will testify before the grand jury for a fourth time this week.

 

Cooper told the grand jury Rove disclosed the name of Plame and that she was the wife of former ambassador Joe Wilson -- who had recently written an op-ed in the New York Times challenging the White House claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger to make nuclear weapons.

 

The National Journal reported Friday Rove assured President Bush two years ago he did not leak the Plame's name

[Guest Think First]

Karl Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said Monday his client "did not circulate" the name of an undercover CIA operative

 

"Karl has truthfully told everyone who's asked him that he did not circulate Valerie Plame's name to punish her husband, Joe Wilson," Luskin said. Asked if that included President Bush, Luskin said, "Everyone is everyone."

 

I can't wait for the day when all the liberals on this board find out that Karl Rove is innocent.

[Guest True Brit]

Here is excerpt from today's Washington Post

 

The grand jury investigating the CIA leak case pressed White House senior adviser Karl Rove yesterday to more fully explain his conversations with reporters about CIA operative Valerie Plame, including discrepancies between his testimony and the account provided by a key witness in the investigation, according to a source familiar with Rove's account.

 

Making his fourth appearance before the grand jury, Rove answered a broad range of questions for 41/2 hours, including why he did not initially tell federal agents about a July 2003 conversation about Plame with the witness, Time magazine's Matthew Cooper, the source said.

[Guest LAW]

On June 23, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, discussed Mr. Wilson's activities and placed blame for intelligence failures on the C.I.A.  - JUDITH MILLER,  October 16, 2005 New York Times

 

Miller's account of the June 23, 2003 discussion with Libby indicates that the White House was already looking to discredit Wilson's account prior to Wilson going public with his story--and that this was part of a White House effort to protect itself from intelligence leaks suggesting that the Bush administration had played up the prewar intelligence on WMDs in Iraq.

 

My notes indicate that well before Mr. Wilson published his critique, Mr. Libby told me that Mr. Wilson's wife may have worked on unconventional weapons at the C.I.A.  - JUDITH MILLER,  October 16, 2005 New York Times

 

Miller does not explain the disappearance and discovery of a notebook that contained notes of a June 23, 2003 conversation she had with Libby or why she at first did not recall the first meeting with Libby. The truth is once Miller's Grand Jury testimony was over, Fitzgerald called her lawyer and said, "Why didn't your client mention the June conversations when she was asked about them?" It was that phone call that triggered Miller's sudden discovery of the June notes.

 

 

July 6, 2003, Joesph Wilson published his essay attacking the administration on the Op-Ed Page of The Times.

 

On July 8, 2003, Libby and Miller again discussed Wilson's involvement.

 

On July 8 and July 12, Mr. Libby, who is Mr. Cheney's top aide, played down the importance of Mr. Wilson's mission and questioned his performance. - JUDITH MILLER,  October 16, 2005 New York Times

 

Once again, Libby was telling Miller that the White House had based its claim that Iraq had been seeking uranium in Niger on solid intelligence. Miller writes that Libby cited the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq produced in October 2002 and said it had firmly concluded Iraq had been pursuing uranium. (It seems that Libby did not tell Miller that this NIE contained a dissent from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), which said, "the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.") At this meeting, Libby again referred to Wilson's wife, apparently telling Miller, according to her notes, that she "works at Winpac," the CIA office on Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control.

 

On one page of my interview notes, for example, I wrote the name "Valerie Flame." Yet, as I told Mr. Fitzgerald, I simply could not recall where that came from, when I wrote it or why the name was misspelled. I testified that I did not believe the name came from Mr. Libby, in part because the notation does not appear in the same part of my notebook as the interview notes from him. - JUDITH MILLER,  October 16, 2005 New York Times

 

The fact that she does not remember from the notes the most important detail of an important story implies that either she is unbelievably incompetent as a reporter who does not record and recall an important detail or she is lying to protect someone.

 

When the subject turned to Mr. Wilson, Mr. Libby requested that he be identified only as a "former Hill staffer." I agreed to the new ground rules because I knew that Mr. Libby had once worked on Capitol Hill. - JUDITH MILLER,  October 16, 2005 New York Times

 

At that breakfast meeting, our conversation also turned to Mr. Wilson's wife. My notes contain a phrase inside parentheses: "Wife works at Winpac." Mr. Fitzgerald asked what that meant. Winpac stood for Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation, and Arms Control, the name of a unit within the C.I.A. that, among other things, analyzes the spread of unconventional weapons.

 

I said I couldn't be certain whether I had known Ms. Plame's identity before this meeting, and I had no clear memory of the context of our conversation that resulted in this notation. But I told the grand jury that I believed that this was the first time I had heard that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for Winpac. In fact, I told the grand jury that when Mr. Libby indicated that Ms. Plame worked for Winpac, I assumed that she worked as an analyst, not as an undercover operative.

 

How did Libby know this? Why did Libby know this? Miller may not possess the answers to these critical questions. But Valerie Wilson's employment status at the CIA was classified information. Wittingly or not, Libby was passing classified information to a reporter whom he obviously hoped would be sympathetic to the White House's cause. - JUDITH MILLER,  October 16, 2005 New York Times

 

Miller says she told Fitzgerald's grand jury that she believes this is the first time she had heard that Wilson's wife worked at Winpac. But she cannot recall--she says--why Libby was discussing Wilson's wife. That seems strange. It's not odd that someone would not recall the details of a conversation that happened two years ago.

[Guest American Chick]

My question is why Judith Miller was granted a DoD security clearance. Doesn't that compromise her journalistic oath. She would not be able to write about any classified information she received. She is no hero, she is a total loser. She is a disgrace to all professional women.

 

I think the New York Times is pathetic loser as well. Oh I noticed how they are paying for advertising Judith Miller all over the Internet. It is all about the money now days.

 

One more thing...

 

George Bush should not be blamed for this mess. I find it greatly insulting to our Country. I think the President will fire Libby or Rove if they are involved. I think the media is like a pack of hungry wolves trying their best to kill our leaders.

[Luke_Wilbur]

Take it one step further AC,

Judith Miller says that she made a strong recommendation that a story be pursued on Joe Wilson, but that her editor told her no.

 

Judith Miller refused to identify the editor. Jill Abramson, who was the Washington bureau chief at the Times, said it was not the editor Miller was talking about. Why is Miller refusing to supply the name?

 

Why is Abramson stating she regrets "the entire thing?" Those two women know something that should be both their civic and journalistic duty to review.

[Guest janavivica]

The NYT did not come clean as they promised to. It’s clear that there is an ongoing conspiracy to shield and limit damage to the persons and entities involved in the propaganda misinformation campaign to scare Americans into going to war. By its own actions and words, it’s now clear that the NYT is part of this conspiracy.

 

Let us hope that the special prosecutor will go after all who knew about the source and concealed it. This includes Keller and Sulzberger who have no special rights or privileges.

 

I would suggest forgoing the purchase of a New York Times paper or suspending your subscription for the next month. That will get their attention. If you must read the paper, then share a single refolded copy amongst several friends and leave it where others can read it without having to purchase it. Tell/email your friends.

[Guest Gina]

Here is excerprt from the moderate voice:

Two reporters inside the newsroom say they have heard Miller will resign from the paper.

 

Miller was not cooperative with the Times internal probe, reporters told RAW STORY Thursday. This was confirmed in the New York Times' internal probe.

 

"In two interviews, Ms. Miller generally would not discuss her interactions with editors, elaborate on the written account of her grand jury testimony or allow reporters to review her notes," the Times reporters wrote.

 

The paper's executive editor, Bill Keller, says Miller provided a "detailed report."

 

"The package we are giving readers includes Judy Miller's account of what she told the Special Counsel," Keller said in a statement. "No other reporter drawn into this investigation has provided such a detailed report. We're relieved that we can finally put this story in the hands of our readers, who will draw their own conclusions."

 

http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1129413110.shtml

[Guest At the Very Least]

The NYTimes must apologize for employing a woman who helped lead us into war whose job, as a journalist, is to make note of her verified sources. Otherwise she's a gossip columnist. The Times must fire her for either failing as a journalist (cannot source her stories) or willingly using her position in the "paper of record" to push partisan policies. She has blood on her hands. Any money this woman makes should be distributed to the families who have suffered losses in Iraq.

[Guest Alan]

Both Rove and Libby signed a SF-312 which means they both had security clearance. They broke the SF-312 agreement and should be charged for that. At the very least they will lose their security clearance.

[Guest American Guy]

One more thing...

 

George Bush should not be blamed for this mess. I find it greatly insulting to our Country. I think the President will fire Libby or Rove if they are involved. I think the media is like a pack of hungry wolves trying their best to kill our leaders.

American Chick you are without a doubt right!!!!

 

Murray Waas, Washington-based journalist, for National Journal wrote an article on October 7 about this point. Here are a few lines:

 

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove personally assured President Bush in the early fall of 2003 that he had not disclosed to anyone in the press that Valerie Plame, the wife of an administration critic, was a CIA employee, according to legal sources with firsthand knowledge of the accounts that both Rove and Bush independently provided to federal prosecutors.

 

More can be read here

 

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/...005/1007nj3.htm

[Guest Geoff]

Citing legal and administration sources, Time reports in this week's edition that President Bush's deputy chief of staff would resign or take unpaid leave if indicted by a federal grand jury.

 

Robert Luskin made one more attempt to figure out just where his client stood. He approached special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald outside the hearing room and asked if Rove's fortunes had changed in the two-year-old inquiry of who leaked the name of CIA agent Valerie Plame. But Fitzgerald, ever tight-lipped, wasn't giving anything up. He curtly told the lawyer that "no decisions" had been made, Luskin says.

[Guest Go White Sox]

Rove canceled plans to attend two Republican fund-raisers, the national party confirmed Tuesday. And he did not give his scheduled speech to the conservative Hudson Institute think tank on Oct. 11.

 

Republican National Committee spokesman Brian Jones said that Karl Rove currently has no plans to appear at upcoming RNC events.

 

"Once considered an 'A-list' guest for any Republican, special-interest fund-raiser, it seems that Karl Rove has now become a liability for the Republican Party," said DNC spokesman Josh Earnest.

 

It looks like Mr. Rove is having some ethics problems or want to focus on the upcoming world series. I bet he his an Astros fan.

[Guest LAW]

Here is an excerpt from a Bloomberg wire story that Richard Keil filed yesterday.

 

One lawyer intimately involved in the case, who like the others demanded anonymity, said one reason Fitzgerald was willing to send [Judith] Miller to jail to compel testimony was because he was pursuing evidence the vice president may have been aware of the specifics of the anti-Wilson strategy.

 

The special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, has questioned current and former officials of President George W. Bush's administration about whether Cheney was involved in an effort to discredit the agent's husband, Iraq war critic and former U.S. diplomat Joseph Wilson, according to the people.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100...o&refer=dcpages

 

Here is a quote from Larry C. Johnson

 

Had lunch today with a person who has a direct tie to one of the folks facing indictment in the Plame affair. There are 22 files that Fitzgerald is looking at. These include Stephen Hadley, Karl Rove, Lewis Libby, Dick Cheney, and Mary Matalin (there are others of course). Hadley has told friends he expects to be indicted. No wonder folks are nervous at the White House.

 

http://www.noquarter.typepad.com/

[Luke_Wilbur]

The New York Daily News reports Bush rebuked Rove -- who has made a number of grand jury appearances in the case and could face charges stemming from the revelation of Plame's name in the press.

 

Citing sources, the newspaper said Bush was furious with Rove in 2003 when his deputy chief of staff conceded he had talked with reporters about the Plame leak.

 

"He made his displeasure known to Karl," a presidential counselor told The News. "He made his life miserable about this."

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/357...7p-304312c.html

[Guest blling bling]

Good point Law,

No top office within the administration was better positioned than Cheney's to gather the information that was used to attack Wilson and his wife and to peddle that information to the press.