Not Another Rove Thread

[Nickdfresh]

The Cleveland Plain Dealer is now a good little bitch.

Paper withholds leak-based articles
By Robert D. McFadden The New York Times

MONDAY, JULY 11, 2005
The editor of The Cleveland Plain Dealer has announced that the newspaper, acting on the advice of its lawyers, is withholding publication of two major investigative articles because they were based on illegally leaked documents and could lead to penalties against the paper and the jailing of reporters.

The editor, Doug Clifton, said that lawyers for The Plain Dealer had concluded that the newspaper, Ohio's largest daily, would probably be found culpable if the authorities were to investigate the leaks and that reporters might be forced to identify confidential sources to a grand jury or go to jail.

"Basically, we have come by material leaked to us that would be problematical for the person who leaked it," Clifton said in a telephone interview. "The material was under seal or something along those lines."

In an earlier interview with the trade journal Editor & Publisher, which published an article on its Web site Friday, Clifton said that lawyers for The Plain Dealer and its owner, Newhouse Newspapers, had strongly recommended against publication of the two articles.

"They've said, this is a super, super high-risk endeavor and you would, you know, you'd lose," Clifton told Editor & Publisher. "The reporters say, 'Well, we're willing to go to jail,' and I'm willing to go to jail if it gets laid on me, but the newspaper isn't willing to go to jail."

Clifton likened the situation to the cases of Judith Miller, an investigative reporter for The New York Times, who was sent to jail by a federal judge last week for refusing to divulge the identity of a confidential source, and of Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, who was spared jail after his source released him from a promise of confidentiality.

Miller and Cooper had been held in civil contempt last year for not cooperating with a prosecutor's inquiry into the illegal disclosure of the identity of a covert operative for the CIA. The Supreme Court refused to hear the reporters' appeals on June 27.

If anything, Clifton said, The Plain Dealer's potential legal problem with the leaked documents was "even more pointed" than the cases of Miller and Cooper. "These are documents that someone had and should not have released to anyone else," he said. If an investigation were pursued, the newspaper, its reporters and their sources could all face court penalties for unauthorized disclosures.

Clifton declined to provide any details about the two investigative articles being withheld, but he characterized them as "profoundly important," adding, "They would have been of significant interest to the public." Asked if they might be published at some later date, he said, "Not in the short term."

Clifton noted that he had first disclosed his newspaper's decision to withhold publication of the two articles in a column he wrote for The Plain Dealer on June 30 in defense of journalists like Miller and Cooper who refuse to name confidential sources.

"Take away a reporter's ability to protect a tipster's anonymity and you deny the public vital information," Clifton wrote. Miller concluded his column by telling readers that The Plain Dealer was itself obliged to withhold articles based on illegal disclosures for fear of the legal consequences.

"As I write this, two stories of profound importance languish in our hands," Clifton wrote. "The public would be well served to know them, but both are based on documents leaked to us by people who would face deep trouble for having leaked them. Publishing the stories would almost certainly lead to a leak investigation and the ultimate choice: talk or go to jail. Because talking isn't an option and jail is too high a price to pay, these two stories will go untold for now. How many more are out there?"


The editor of The Cleveland Plain Dealer has announced that the newspaper, acting on the advice of its lawyers, is withholding publication of two major investigative articles because they were based on illegally leaked documents and could lead to penalties against the paper and the jailing of reporters.

The editor, Doug Clifton, said that lawyers for The Plain Dealer had concluded that the newspaper, Ohio's largest daily, would probably be found culpable if the authorities were to investigate the leaks and that reporters might be forced to identify confidential sources to a grand jury or go to jail.

"Basically, we have come by material leaked to us that would be problematical for the person who leaked it," Clifton said in a telephone interview. "The material was under seal or something along those lines."

In an earlier interview with the trade journal Editor & Publisher, which published an article on its Web site Friday, Clifton said that lawyers for The Plain Dealer and its owner, Newhouse Newspapers, had strongly recommended against publication of the two articles.

"They've said, this is a super, super high-risk endeavor and you would, you know, you'd lose," Clifton told Editor & Publisher. "The reporters say, 'Well, we're willing to go to jail,' and I'm willing to go to jail if it gets laid on me, but the newspaper isn't willing to go to jail."

Clifton likened the situation to the cases of Judith Miller, an investigative reporter for The New York Times, who was sent to jail by a federal judge last week for refusing to divulge the identity of a confidential source, and of Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, who was spared jail after his source released him from a promise of confidentiality.

Miller and Cooper had been held in civil contempt last year for not cooperating with a prosecutor's inquiry into the illegal disclosure of the identity of a covert operative for the CIA. The Supreme Court refused to hear the reporters' appeals on June 27.

If anything, Clifton said, The Plain Dealer's potential legal problem with the leaked documents was "even more pointed" than the cases of Miller and Cooper. "These are documents that someone had and should not have released to anyone else," he said. If an investigation were pursued, the newspaper, its reporters and their sources could all face court penalties for unauthorized disclosures.

Clifton declined to provide any details about the two investigative articles being withheld, but he characterized them as "profoundly important," adding, "They would have been of significant interest to the public." Asked if they might be published at some later date, he said, "Not in the short term."

Clifton noted that he had first disclosed his newspaper's decision to withhold publication of the two articles in a column he wrote for The Plain Dealer on June 30 in defense of journalists like Miller and Cooper who refuse to name confidential sources.

"Take away a reporter's ability to protect a tipster's anonymity and you deny the public vital information," Clifton wrote. Miller concluded his column by telling readers that The Plain Dealer was itself obliged to withhold articles based on illegal disclosures for fear of the legal consequences.

"As I write this, two stories of profound importance languish in our hands," Clifton wrote. "The public would be well served to know them, but both are based on documents leaked to us by people who would face deep trouble for having leaked them. Publishing the stories would almost certainly lead to a leak investigation and the ultimate choice: talk or go to jail. Because talking isn't an option and jail is too high a price to pay, these two stories will go untold for now. How many more are out there?"


The editor of The Cleveland Plain Dealer has announced that the newspaper, acting on the advice of its lawyers, is withholding publication of two major investigative articles because they were based on illegally leaked documents and could lead to penalties against the paper and the jailing of reporters.

The editor, Doug Clifton, said that lawyers for The Plain Dealer had concluded that the newspaper, Ohio's largest daily, would probably be found culpable if the authorities were to investigate the leaks and that reporters might be forced to identify confidential sources to a grand jury or go to jail.

"Basically, we have come by material leaked to us that would be problematical for the person who leaked it," Clifton said in a telephone interview. "The material was under seal or something along those lines."

In an earlier interview with the trade journal Editor & Publisher, which published an article on its Web site Friday, Clifton said that lawyers for The Plain Dealer and its owner, Newhouse Newspapers, had strongly recommended against publication of the two articles.

"They've said, this is a super, super high-risk endeavor and you would, you know, you'd lose," Clifton told Editor & Publisher. "The reporters say, 'Well, we're willing to go to jail,' and I'm willing to go to jail if it gets laid on me, but the newspaper isn't willing to go to jail."

Clifton likened the situation to the cases of Judith Miller, an investigative reporter for The New York Times, who was sent to jail by a federal judge last week for refusing to divulge the identity of a confidential source, and of Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, who was spared jail after his source released him from a promise of confidentiality.

Miller and Cooper had been held in civil contempt last year for not cooperating with a prosecutor's inquiry into the illegal disclosure of the identity of a covert operative for the CIA. The Supreme Court refused to hear the reporters' appeals on June 27.

If anything, Clifton said, The Plain Dealer's potential legal problem with the leaked documents was "even more pointed" than the cases of Miller and Cooper. "These are documents that someone had and should not have released to anyone else," he said. If an investigation were pursued, the newspaper, its reporters and their sources could all face court penalties for unauthorized disclosures.

Clifton declined to provide any details about the two investigative articles being withheld, but he characterized them as "profoundly important," adding, "They would have been of significant interest to the public." Asked if they might be published at some later date, he said, "Not in the short term."

Clifton noted that he had first disclosed his newspaper's decision to withhold publication of the two articles in a column he wrote for The Plain Dealer on June 30 in defense of journalists like Miller and Cooper who refuse to name confidential sources.

"Take away a reporter's ability to protect a tipster's anonymity and you deny the public vital information," Clifton wrote. Miller concluded his column by telling readers that The Plain Dealer was itself obliged to withhold articles based on illegal disclosures for fear of the legal consequences.

"As I write this, two stories of profound importance languish in our hands," Clifton wrote. "The public would be well served to know them, but both are based on documents leaked to us by people who would face deep trouble for having leaked them. Publishing the stories would almost certainly lead to a leak investigation and the ultimate choice: talk or go to jail. Because talking isn't an option and jail is too high a price to pay, these two stories will go untold for now. How many more are out there?"


The editor of The Cleveland Plain Dealer has announced that the newspaper, acting on the advice of its lawyers, is withholding publication of two major investigative articles because they were based on illegally leaked documents and could lead to penalties against the paper and the jailing of reporters.

The editor, Doug Clifton, said that lawyers for The Plain Dealer had concluded that the newspaper, Ohio's largest daily, would probably be found culpable if the authorities were to investigate the leaks and that reporters might be forced to identify confidential sources to a grand jury or go to jail.

"Basically, we have come by material leaked to us that would be problematical for the person who leaked it," Clifton said in a telephone interview. "The material was under seal or something along those lines."

In an earlier interview with the trade journal Editor & Publisher, which published an article on its Web site Friday, Clifton said that lawyers for The Plain Dealer and its owner, Newhouse Newspapers, had strongly recommended against publication of the two articles.

"They've said, this is a super, super high-risk endeavor and you would, you know, you'd lose," Clifton told Editor & Publisher. "The reporters say, 'Well, we're willing to go to jail,' and I'm willing to go to jail if it gets laid on me, but the newspaper isn't willing to go to jail."

Clifton likened the situation to the cases of Judith Miller, an investigative reporter for The New York Times, who was sent to jail by a federal judge last week for refusing to divulge the ident


Miller and Cooper had been held in civil contempt last year for not cooperating with a prosecutor's inquiry into the illegal disclosure of the identity of a covert operative for the CIA. The Supreme Court refused to hear the reporters' appeals on June 27.

If anything, Clifton said, The Plain Dealer's potential legal problem with the leaked documents was "even more pointed" than the cases of Miller and Cooper. "These are documents that someone had and should not have released to anyone else," he said. If an investigation were pursued, the newspaper, its reporters and their sources could all face court penalties for unauthorized disclosures.

Clifton declined to provide any details about the two investigative articles being withheld, but he characterized them as "profoundly important," adding, "They would have been of significant interest to the public." Asked if they might be published at some later date, he said, "Not in the short term."

Clifton noted that he had first disclosed his newspaper's decision to withhold publication of the two articles in a column he wrote for The Plain Dealer on June 30 in defense of journalists like Miller and Cooper who refuse to name confidential sources.

"Take away a reporter's ability to protect a tipster's anonymity and you deny the public vital information," Clifton wrote. Miller concluded his column by telling readers that The Plain Dealer was itself obliged to withhold articles based on illegal disclosures for fear of the legal consequences.

"As I write this, two stories of profound importance languish in our hands," Clifton wrote. "The public would be well served to know them, but both are based on documents leaked to us by people who would face deep trouble for having leaked them. Publishing the stories would almost certainly lead to a leak investigation and the ultimate choice: talk or go to jail. Because talking isn't an option and jail is too high a price to pay, these two stories will go untold for now. How many more are out there?"

Link

[LoungeMachine]

Novak's diminishing rationale for secrecy

BY JONATHAN TURLEY

jturley@law.gwu.edu


Columnist Robert Novak has made a career for himself as a human flame-thrower for conservative causes. Yet, even Novak appears surprised at the mounting cost of his disclosure in 2003 of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

It was classic Novak: a hatchet job directed not at Plame, but at her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. The firestorm that erupted has consumed millions of dollars in investigation and litigation costs and has wreaked havoc with the career not just of Plame (who had to leave the CIA) but of two reporters who were hauled into court; one has been sent to jail.

Novak's original intention, it seems, was publicly to damage Wilson, who had embarrassed President Bush by showing that he relied on false information to justify the Iraq war. Although Novak admits that he was asked not to publish Plame's name by a CIA official, he insists that he did not realize that he might be putting her in danger.

Against a whistle-blower

It is a far cry from the first recorded fight over anonymous sources: In 1848, New York Herald reporter John Nugent refused to give up his source of a copy of the secret Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo that ended the Mexican-American War.

It goes without saying that Novak is no Nugent. After all, Nugent's source was a government official who disclosed the controversial elements of a secret treaty. (Many people still believe that the leaker was James Buchanan, the secretary of state and future president.) Conversely, Novak's piece was based on dirt received from anonymous government officials seeking to discredit a whistle-blower.

Novak insists that he was merely publishing a newsworthy tip from ''two senior administration officials;'' he suggests that it was important to point out that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent in order to explain why Wilson had been sent on a mission to Niger by the Bush administration. But whatever the value of this information, Novak could have ended it there. Instead, he chose to name Wilson's wife.

The disclosure of the name -- in addition to violating the law against disclosing the names of covert personnel -- served no apparent purpose beyond that of retaliation.

Facing government threats

Here's another difference between Novak and Nugent: Nugent allowed himself to be held in contempt rather than reveal his source. What Novak has done or failed to do as a journalist remains shielded in mystery because Novak refuses to talk. Traditionally, journalists publicly have explained their status and their position in such controversies -- as have various other reporters in the Plame affair. Knowing where Novak stands in this case would be important because the other journalists involved -- especially Judith Miller of The New York Times -- need to know his position so they can form a unified front against government threats.

Over the course of the investigation into the matter, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has gone after journalists such as Miller with a fury -- winning findings of contempt against them for refusing to give up their sources.

Yet, there has been a conspicuous absence of any similar effort against Novak. This has led to speculation that either Novak has been given special treatment by a Republican prosecutor, or he has revealed his sources, or his sources have revealed themselves to the prosecutors.

Last week, Novak appeared on CNN's Inside Politics to deflect growing criticism of his silence. ''If anyone thinks they're going to jail because of me, it's madness.'' This, of course, is technically true. Miller is in jail for her principled refusal to sacrifice her sources.

Attack on a civil servant

In the interview, Novak refused to answer even the most basic question, such as whether ''in general . . . you cooperated with investigators in the case.'' Novak insisted his lawyer had told him not to answer ''until this case is finished.'' His reliance on his lawyer's advice is a rather feeble and perplexing defense.

Yes, lawyers often prefer that their clients remain quiet under the theory that what you don't say can't be used against you. But Novak is not some button-man for the Gotti family. He is a self-described journalist who started a firestorm with a politically engineered attack piece on a civil servant for which another reporter has been sent to jail. Novak himself would never accept the ''my lawyer did it'' defense from a public figure.

Now incarcerated, Miller personifies the need for a federal shield law protecting journalists from such coercion -- similar to those laws passed in 49 states and the District of Columbia. As for Novak, he promises another blockbuster: Once he is no longer at risk, he will ''reveal all in a column.'' At least it should make interesting reading for Miller in her cellblock.

Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School, has represented individuals asserting their journalistic privileges.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine



. As for Novak, he promises another blockbuster: Once he is no longer at risk, he will ''reveal all in a column.'' At least it should make interesting reading for Miller in her cellblock.

Novak, you are such a piece of shit.

A Neo-Con HACK, is all you are.

GO TO HELL

[thome]

Then the book with the rest of the real story. $

[LoungeMachine]

"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." - Harry Truman





Waxman: 11 Security Breaches in Plame Case


Factsheet published today cites multiple administration leaks


By: Rep. Henry Waxman
Published: July 22, 2005 at 14:25

The disclosure of the covert identity of Valerie Plame Wilson in a July 14, 2003, column by Robert Novak has triggered a criminal investigation and led to calls for congressional investigations. The Novak column, however, appears to be only one of multiple leaks of Ms. Wilson's identity. A new fact sheet released today by Rep. Waxman documents that there appear to be at least 11 separate instances in which Administration officials disclosed information about Ms. Wilson's identity and association with the CIA.

New Fact Sheet Details Multiple Administration Security Breaches Involving Valerie Plame Wilson

On July 14, 2003, columnist Robert Novak revealed that the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, Valerie Plame Wilson, was a covert CIA agent. This disclosure of classified information has triggered a criminal investigation by a Special Counsel and led to calls for congressional investigations.

The Novak column, however, appears to be only one of multiple leaks of Ms. Wilson's identity. As this fact sheet documents, there appear to be at least 11 separate instances in which Administration officials disclosed information about Ms. Wilson's identity and association with the CIA.

Under Executive Order 12958, the White House is required to investigate any reports of security breaches and take "prompt corrective action," such as suspending the security clearances of those involved. Unlike prosecutions for criminal violations, which require "knowing" and "intentional" disclosures, the executive order covers a wider range of unauthorized breaches, including the "negligent" release of classified information. There is no evidence that the White House has complied with its obligation to investigate any of the 11 reported instances of security breaches relating to Ms. Wilson or to apply administrative sanctions to those involved.

The Disclosures of Valerie Wilson's Identity

1. The Disclosure by Karl Rove to Columnist Robert Novak
In a column dated July 14, 2003, Robert Novak first reported that Valerie Plame Wilson was "an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."1 Mr. Novak cited "two senior administration officials" as his sources.2 According to multiple news reports, one of these two sources was Karl Rove, the Deputy White House Chief of Staff and the President's top political advisor.3 During a phone call on July 8, 2003, Mr. Rove confirmed for Mr. Novak that Ms. Wilson worked at the CIA. During this conversation, Mr. Novak referred to Ms. Wilson "by her maiden name, Valerie Plame," and said he had heard she was involved in "the circumstances in which her husband … traveled to Africa."4 Mr. Rove responded, "I heard that, too."5 Mr. Novak's name also appeared "on a White House call log as having telephoned Mr. Rove in the week before the publication of the July 2003 column."6

2. The Disclosure by a "Senior Administration Official" to Columnist Robert Novak
In addition to his communications with Mr. Rove, Mr. Novak learned about Ms. Wilson's identity through communications with a second "senior administration official."7 Mr. Novak's second source has not yet been publicly identified. Mr. Novak has stated, however, that the source provided him with Ms. Wilson's identity. As he stated: "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me."8 He added: "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."9

3. The Disclosure by Karl Rove to TIME Reporter Matt Cooper
During a phone call on July 11, 2003, Mr. Rove revealed to TIME reporter Matt Cooper that Ms. Wilson worked at the CIA on weapons of mass destruction.10 Mr. Cooper reported that this "was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife."11 Mr. Rove provided this information on "deep background," said that "things would be declassified soon," and stated, "I've already said too much."12

4. The Disclosure by Scooter Libby to TIME Reporter Matt Cooper
During a phone call on July 12, 2003, TIME reporter Matt Cooper asked the Vice President's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby "if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger." 13 Mr. Libby replied, "Yeah, I've heard that too," or words to that effect.14 Mr. Libby provided this information "on background."15

5. The Disclosure by an "Administration Official" to Washington Post Reporter Walter Pincus
On July 12, 2003, an "administration official" told Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus that "Wilson's trip to Niger was set up as a boondoggle by his CIA-employed wife."16 Mr. Pincus has not publicly identified his source, but has stated that it "was not Libby."17

6. The Disclosure by a "Top White House Official" to an Unidentified Reporter
In addition making disclosures to Mr. Novak, Mr. Cooper, and Mr. Pincus, White House officials may have had conversations about Ms. Wilson with three other reporters about Ms. Wilson's identity. According to the Washington Post, a "senior administration official" confirmed that "before Novak's column ran on July 14, 2003, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife."18 According to this official, "Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge."19 Press reports suggest that one of these unidentified reporters may be NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell.20

7. The Disclosure by a "Top White House Official" to an Unidentified Reporter
In addition making disclosures to Mr. Novak, Mr. Cooper, and Mr. Pincus, White House officials may have had conversations about Ms. Wilson with three other reporters about Ms. Wilson's identity. According to the Washington Post, a "senior administration official" confirmed that "before Novak's column ran on July 14, 2003, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife."21 According to this official, "Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge."22 Press reports suggest that one of these unidentified reporters may be NBC Meet the Press host Tim Russert.23

8. The Disclosure by a "Top White House Official" to an Unidentified Reporter
In addition making disclosures to Mr. Novak, Mr. Cooper, and Mr. Pincus, White House officials may have had conversations about Ms. Wilson with three other reporters about Ms. Wilson's identity. According to the Washington Post, a "senior administration official" confirmed that "before Novak's column ran on July 14, 2003, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife."24 According to this official, "Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge."25 Press reports suggest that one of these unidentified reporters may be MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews.26

9. The Disclosure by an Unidentified Source to Wall Street Journal Reporter David Cloud
On October 17, 2003, Wall Street Journal reporter David Cloud reported that an internal State Department memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel "details a meeting in early 2002 where CIA officer Valerie Plame and other intelligence officials gathered to brainstorm about how to verify reports that Iraq had sought uranium yellowcake from Niger."27 This "classified" document had "limited circulation," according to "two people familiar with the memo."28

10. The Disclosure by an Unidentified Source to James Guckert of Talon News
On October 28, 2003, Talon News posted on its website an interview with Ambassador Joseph Wilson in which the questioner asked: "An internal government memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel details a meeting in early 2002 where your wife, a member of the agency or clandestine service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested that you could be sent to investigate the reports. Do you dispute that?"29 Talon News is tied to a group called GOP USA30 and is operated by Texas Republican Robert Eberle.31 Its only reporter, James Guckert (also known as Jeff Gannon), resigned when it was revealed that he gained access to the White House using a false name after his press credentials were rejected by House and Senate press galleries.32 In a March 2004 interview with his own news service, Mr. Guckert stated that the classified document was "easily accessible."33 In a February 11, 2005, interview with Wolf Blitzer of CNN, Mr. Guckert said the FBI interviewed him about "how I knew or received a copy of a confidential CIA memo," but he refused to answer FBI questions because of his status as a "journalist."34 A week later, Mr. Guckert changed his account, claiming he "was given no special information by the White House or by anybody else."35

11. The Disclosure by a "Senior Administration Official" to Washington Post Reporters Mike Allen and Dana Milbank
On December 26, 2003, Washington Post reporters Mike Allen and Dana Milbank reported on details about the classified State Department memo, writing that it was authored by "a State Department official who works for its Bureau of Intelligence and Research."36 The Post story was attributed to "a senior administration official who has seen" the memo.37 The Post also reported that the CIA was "angry about the circulation of a still-classified document to conservative news outlets" and that the CIA "believes that people in the administration continue to release classified information to damage the figures at the center of the controversy, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his wife, Valerie Plame."38


NOTES
1 Robert Novak, The Mission to Niger, Chicago Sun-Times (July 14, 2003).
2 Id.
3 Rove Reportedly Held Phone Talk on CIA Officer, New York Times (July 15, 2005). See also Rove Confirmed Plame Indirectly, Lawyer Says, Washington Post (July 15, 2005).
4 Id.
5 Id.
6 Rove Confirmed Plame Indirectly, Lawyer Says, Washington Post (July 15, 2005).
7 Robert Novak, The Mission to Niger, Chicago Sun-Times (July 14, 2003).
8 Columnist Blows CIA Agent's Cover, Newsday (July 22, 2003).
9 Id.
10 Matt Cooper, What I Told the Grand Jury, TIME (July 25, 2005).
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 The When and How of Leak Being Probed, Washington Post (Nov. 26, 2004).
17 Id.
18 Bush Administration Is Focus of Inquiry; CIA Agent's Identity Was Leaked to Media, Washington Post (Sept. 28, 2003).
19 Id.
20 Secrets and Leaks, Newsweek (Oct. 13, 2003) (stating that she "heard in the White House that people were touting the Novak column and that that was the real story").
21 Bush Administration Is Focus of Inquiry; CIA Agent's Identity Was Leaked to Media, Washington Post (Sept. 28, 2003).
22 Id.
23 Reporter Held in Contempt in CIA Leak Case, Washington Post (Aug. 10, 2004) (describing a July 2003 telephone conversation between Mr. Russert and Mr. Libby).
24 Bush Administration Is Focus of Inquiry; CIA Agent's Identity Was Leaked to Media, Washington Post (Sept. 28, 2003).
25 Id.
26 Secrets and Leaks, Newsweek (Oct. 13, 2003) (reportedly stating to Mr. Wilson, "I just got off the phone with Karl Rove, who said your wife was fair game").
27 Memo May Aid Leak Probe, Wall Street Journal (Oct. 17, 2003).
28 Id.
29 Leaks Probe Is Gathering Momentum, Washington Post (Dec. 26, 2003). See also Senate Intel Report Discredits Wilson's Claims About Iraq, Niger, Talon News (July 13, 2004) (confirming that Talon reported on the memo in October 2003).
30 Leaks Probe Is Gathering Momentum, Washington Post (Dec. 26, 2003).
31 Democrats Want Investigation of Reporter Using Fake Name, New York Times (Feb. 11, 2005).
32 Id.
33 Id.
34 Rumsfeld Visits Iraq, CNN (Feb. 11, 2005).
35 Anderson Cooper 360, CNN (Feb. 18, 2005). See also Web Site Owner Says He Knew of Reporter's 2 Identities, New York Times (Feb. 20, 2005) (claiming that referring to the memo as though he had it was "merely an interview technique").
36 Leaks Probe Is Gathering Momentum, Washington Post (Dec. 26, 2003).
37 Id.
38 Id.

[DrMaddVibe]

David Limbaugh
Friday, July 22, 2005

Before President Bush's Supreme Court nomination of Judge John Roberts completely overshadows the misidentified Karl Rove scandal, I think we had better take a second look at the twisted direction this sad story has taken.

As far as Karl Rove's conduct in the Plame/Wilson affair, there is no scandal. He didn't come close to committing a crime, nor even an ethical infraction.

He didn't set out to expose a CIA operative, much less an undercover one. He was the recipient of a phone call in which he cautioned Time's Matt Cooper not to be taken in by the politically driven Joe Wilson, whose operative wife, Valerie Plame, had played a great role in securing Wilson's "fact-finding" trip to Niger.

Rove, who didn't even mention Plame's name, couldn't have known she was an undercover CIA agent – because she wasn't. He manifestly wasn't motivated to expose her for the purpose of punishing Wilson – because "exposing" her non-covert status couldn't possibly have damaged her.

But Rove did have a motive to share his information with Cooper: to warn him of the nepotistic connection between Plame and Wilson and to thus take Wilson's claims with a grain of salt.

Rove did nothing wrong. Indeed, he had an obligation to alert Cooper to Wilson's chicanery because, among other reasons, questions of our national security were involved. As the president's right-hand man, shouldn't we expect Rove to do his part to correct the record about a matter so serious: whether Saddam was trying to or did acquire uranium from Niger?

The media and Democrats seem to be saying that we can't let Rove off the hook just because he might not have technically violated the law. He must be fired or at the very least lose his security clearance because of his indiscretion.

But there was no indiscretion. Plame was not undercover and hadn't been. She had no secret status to protect. Neither she nor her husband – it appears – even treated her status as clandestine. Rove isn't getting off on a technicality. He did nothing wrong.

The fact that the allegations against Rove are so serious doesn't change that – and in no way taints his credibility – because the allegations are false.

"But there was a leak," cry the Democrats and the press. "President Bush has always said he had a zero-tolerance policy for leaks out of his administration. He must fire the evil Karl Rove."

Even conservative pundits seem to be falling for this ploy. But if there was nothing secret about Plame's status, if there was nothing to protect, there could have been no leak.

Rove talked about her position for the purpose of showing the nefarious link between her and her husband – and thus the dubiousness of Wilson's supposed findings. He "leaked" nothing. Why is simple English so difficult for people? You can't leak that which is already in the public domain.

But the cockeyed slant on this non-story is masking the real story here, which is not just that Joe Wilson was caught red-handed lying about his wife recommending him and the nature of his actual findings. The real story is the treachery of Wilson in distorting his findings for political purposes to the detriment of our national security.

According to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Wilson's findings did more to bolster than discredit the Brits' allegation that Saddam was trying to buy uranium from Niger. When he misrepresented those findings – while working to elect John Kerry – he consciously damaged our national security by tainting the historical record against America and her image. And what role, if any, did the CIA play in allowing itself to be manipulated for political purposes?

The fact that Democrats and the media are so desperate to bring down Karl Rove, the perceived primary mastermind behind their glorious loss of influence and power, respectively, apparently blinds them to their effective collusion with Wilson in his reckless conduct against this nation. And their non-stop bluster is apparently keeping the rest of us from focusing on it as well.

They are so determined to prove that President Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq they're obviously willing to use discredited sources and data to make their case.

Let's not move beyond this story without noting the robust irony it contains. The same people who routinely (and baselessly) accuse President Bush of having fraudulently played the national security card in furtherance of his agenda to remove Saddam are demanding Karl Rove be fired because he can't be trusted in a sensitive national security position.

But it is these people, in their shameless elevation of Joe Wilson – among other things – who are complicit in sacrificing our national security interests for their own political agenda.






This oughta get the liberals!

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe

This oughta get the liberals!

Not in the slightest

We just consider the source, and take it for what it is.

Utter bullshit

[DrMaddVibe]

Ring the bell and the dog's respond.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Ring the bell and the dog's respond.

No need to bring your wife into this.

[DrMaddVibe]

Got nothing to do with her.

Ring ring, see them "sing"!

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by DrMaddVibe
Got nothing to do with her.

No shit, mensa

For someone with JB in your avatar, you're seriously humor deficient

[LoungeMachine]

Monday's WH Briefing: McClellan Faces the '12-Hour Gap'

By E&P Staff

Published: July 25, 2005 4:00 PM ET

NEW YORK Questions from reporters for Press Secretary Scott McClellan at today's White House press briefing ranged widely, from the Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court to continuing disputes with North Korea. Still, reporters kept returning to the Plame/CIA leak case, with several questions centering on an emerging angle now known as the "12-hour gap."

This is the length of time it took for then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales in 2003 to notify White House staffers not to "lose" any evidence relevant to the Plame probe after being notified by the Justice Department that a full investigation was about to begin. Gonzales only told one person -- Chief of Staff Andew Card -- right away. He revealed this, unexpectedly, on CBS's "Face the Nation" on Sunday.

Here is the related exchange from today's official transcript:

Q Do Karl Rove and Scooter Libby still have top secret clearance here, access to classified documents?

MR. McCLELLAN: You asked this question last week, and --

Q I did. And I'm asking again.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- the President has said what our answer is to these questions. We'll be glad to talk about all these issues once the investigation is complete.

Q Do they have a clearance?

MR. McCLELLAN: We'll be glad to talk about all the issues relating to the investigation once it's complete.

Q Why can't you talk about it now?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, that question I addressed a couple weeks ago....

Q On the leak investigation, does President Bush feel that it was appropriate for there to be an 11 or 12-hour time gap from the time that Chief of Staff Andy Card was notified that an investigation was underway to the time that staff here at the White House, including him ...

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President has said that -- and the President directed the White House at the beginning of the investigation to cooperate fully with those overseeing the investigation. And that is exactly what we have done, and that's what we did in that context, as well. If you will recall, back on October 1st of 2003, these questions came up and I addressed it at that time. So you might want to go back and look at that discussion during that briefing.

Q But in the spirit of cooperation, and you had indicted (sic) on October 1, 2003, that the reason that the Justice Department was asked, is it okay to wait until the morning and the answer was that it was okay -- but in the spirit of cooperation, why did the notification not go out until 11 or 12 hours later?

MR. McCLELLAN: I talked about that in that briefing, and addressed all those questions at that time. And the President has made it clear that we should cooperate fully with the investigation. That's what we have done, that's what we continue to do.

***

Q Yes, Scott, can you assure us that Andrew Card did not speak to -- or did not tell the President or Karl Rove or Scooter Libby or anybody else about the Justice Department investigation?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, again, those questions came up back in October of 2003 and I addressed them at the time.

Q I know that none of you are speaking about this because it's an ongoing investigation. Can you explain why Alberto Gonzales would go on TV yesterday and do that, and talk about it?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, what he said was already said from this podium back in October of 2003, and I don't think he got into commenting in any substantive way on the discussion. But the President has said that we will be glad to talk about this once the investigation has come to a conclusion, but not until then. And there have certainly been preferences expressed to the White House that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing.

Q Yes, thank you. There has been a lot of speculation concerning the meaning of the underlying statute and the grand jury investigation concerning Mr. Rove. The question is, have the legal counsel to the White House or White House staff reviewed the statute in sufficient specificity to determine whether a violation of that statute would, in effect, constitute treason?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think that in terms of decisions regarding the investigation, those are matters for those overseeing the investigation to decide.





ding, dinjg, ding, ding

[Nickdfresh]

From the mouths of babes...

"What I Told the Grand Jury"
EXCLUSIVE Matthew Cooper reveals exactly what Karl Rove told him--and what the special counsel zeroed in on
By MATTHEW COOPER

Jul. 25, 2005
It was my first interview with the President, and I expected a simple "Hello" when I walked into the Oval Office last December. Instead, George W. Bush joked, "Cooper! I thought you'd be in jail by now." The leader of the free world, it seems, had been following my fight against a federal subpoena seeking my testimony in the case of the leaking of the name of a CIA officer. I thought it was funny and good-natured of the President, but the line reminded me that I was, very weirdly, in the Oval Office, out on bond from a prison sentence, awaiting appeal--in large part, for protecting the confidence of someone in the West Wing. "What can I say, Mr. President," I replied, smiling. "The wheels of justice grind slowly."

After a fight that went all the way to the Supreme Court, the wheels of justice have stopped grinding--for me, anyway. Last week I testified before the federal grand jury investigating the leak. I did so after I received a specific last-minute waiver from one of my sources, Karl Rove, the President's top political adviser, releasing me from any claim of confidentiality he might have about our conversations in July 2003. Under federal law grand jurors and prosecutors are sworn to secrecy but those who testify, like me, are under no such obligation, which is why I'm able to tell you what happened in the grand jury room. Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel, told me that he would prefer that I not discuss the matter, and I suspect he said the same thing to White House officials who are now treating his request as a command and refusing to comment on the case. I don't know if I can illuminate this confounding investigation, but I can at least explain my small part in it. Like the blindfolded man and the elephant, all I know is what seems to be in front of me.

So here's what happened last Wednesday.

Before going into the grand jury room at 9:30 a.m., my lawyers and I met briefly with Fitzgerald, a couple of his attorneys and the lead FBI agent in the case. It was, to say the least, unsettling sitting there in the federal courthouse in Washington with the man who, for months, had tried to get me to testify or he would put me in jail. Fitzgerald counseled me that he wanted me to answer completely but didn't want to force any answers on me or have me act as if I remembered things more clearly than I did. "If I show you a picture of your kindergarten teacher and it really refreshes your memory, say so," he said. "If it doesn't, don't say yes just because I show you a photo of you and her sitting together."

Grand juries are in the business of handing out indictments, and their docility is infamous. A grand jury, the old maxim goes, will indict a ham sandwich if a prosecutor asks it of them. But I didn't get that sense from this group of grand jurors. They somewhat reflected the demographics of the District of Columbia. The majority were African American and were disproportionately women. Most sat in black vinyl chairs with little desks in rows that were slightly elevated, as if it were a shabby classroom at a rundown college. A kindly African-American forewoman swore me in, and when I had to leave the room to consult with my attorneys, I asked her permission to be excused, not the prosecutor's, as is the custom. These grand jurors did not seem the types to passively indict a ham sandwich. I would say one-third of my 2 1/2 hours of testimony was spent answering their questions, not the prosecutor's, although he posed them on their behalf. I began to take notes but then was told I had to stop, so I'm reliant on memory.

For my part, I sat at the end of an L-shaped table next to one of the prosecutor's lawyers, who handed me various documents to review while an overhead projector displayed the documents on a screen near me. Virtually all the questions centered on the week of July 6, 2003. I was new to covering the Bush White House, having been the deputy Washington bureau chief for TIME. As it happens, that week was a big one at the White House. On that Sunday, the New York Times had published former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's now infamous Op-Ed describing his mission to Niger to investigate whether Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium to make nuclear weapons. Wilson said he had found no evidence of that and was confounded as to why the President would claim otherwise in his 2003 State of the Union address. As a freshly minted White House correspondent, I told the grand jury, I was all over that story by midweek, especially because it emerged as a likely candidate for TIME's cover the following Monday.

The grand jurors wanted to know what was on my mind, and I told them. The White House had done something it hardly ever does: it admitted a mistake. Shortly after Wilson's piece appeared, the White House said that the African uranium claim, while probably still true, should not have been in the President's State of the Union address because it hadn't been proved well enough. That was big news as the media flocked to find out who had vetted the President's speech. But at the same time, I was interested in an ancillary question about why government officials, publicly and privately, seemed to be disparaging Wilson. It struck me, as I told the grand jury, as odd and unnecessary, especially after their saying the President's address should not have included the 16-word claim about Saddam and African uranium.

I told the grand jurors that I was curious about Wilson when I called Karl Rove on Friday, July 11. Rove was an obvious call for any White House correspondent, let alone someone trying to prove himself at a new beat. As I told the grand jury--which seemed very interested in my prior dealings with Rove--I don't think we had spoken more than a handful of times before that. I recalled that when I got the White House job a couple of weeks earlier, I left a message for him trying to introduce myself and announce my new posting.

As I told the grand jury--and we went over this in microscopic, excruciating detail, which may someday prove relevant--I recall calling Rove from my office at TIME magazine through the White House switchboard and being transferred to his office. I believe a woman answered the phone and said words to the effect that Rove wasn't there or was busy before going on vacation. But then, I recall, she said something like, "Hang on," and I was transferred to him. I recall saying something like, "I'm writing about Wilson," before he interjected. "Don't get too far out on Wilson," he told me. I started taking notes on my computer, and while an e-mail I sent moments after the call has been leaked, my notes have not been.

The grand jury asked about one of the more interesting lines in that e-mail, in which I refer to my conversation with Rove as being on "double super secret background," a line that's raised a few eyebrows ever since it leaked into the public domain. I told the grand jury that the phrase is not a journalistic term of art but a reference to the film Animal House, in which John Belushi's wild Delta House fraternity is placed on "double secret probation." ("Super" was my own addition.) In fact, I told the grand jury, Rove told me the conversation was on "deep background." I explained to the grand jury that I take the term to mean that I can use the material but not quote it, and that I must keep the identity of my source confidential.

Rove went on to say that Wilson had not been sent to Niger by the director of the CIA and, I believe from my subsequent e-mails--although it's not in my notes--that Rove added that Dick Cheney didn't send him either. Indeed, the next day the Vice President's chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, told me Cheney had not been responsible for Wilson's mission.

Much of my grand jury session revolved around my notes and my e-mails. (Those e-mails and notes were given to the special counsel when Time Inc., over my objections, complied with a court order.) Owing to my typing, some words were a jumble. For instance, I wrote "don't get too war out on Wilson," when I clearly meant "far out." There were some words in my notes that I could not account for--at one point they read, "...notable..." I didn't know if that was Rove's word or mine, and one grand juror asked if it might mean "not able," as in "Wilson was not an able person." I said that was possible, but I just didn't recall that. The notes, and my subsequent e-mails, go on to indicate that Rove told me material was going to be declassified in the coming days that would cast doubt on Wilson's mission and his findings.

As for Wilson's wife, I told the grand jury I was certain that Rove never used her name and that, indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week, when I either saw it in Robert Novak's column or Googled her, I can't recall which. Rove did, however, clearly indicate that she worked at the "agency"--by that, I told the grand jury, I inferred that he obviously meant the CIA and not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency. Rove added that she worked on "WMD" (the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction) issues and that she was responsible for sending Wilson. This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife.

Rove never once indicated to me that she had any kind of covert status. I told the grand jury something else about my conversation with Rove. Although it's not reflected in my notes or subsequent e-mails, I have a distinct memory of Rove ending the call by saying, "I've already said too much." This could have meant he was worried about being indiscreet, or it could have meant he was late for a meeting or something else. I don't know, but that sign-off has been in my memory for two years.

This was actually my second testimony for the special prosecutor. In August 2004, I gave limited testimony about my conversations with Scooter Libby. Libby had also given me a specific waiver, and I gave a deposition in the office of my attorney. I have never discussed that conversation until now. In that testimony, I recounted an on-the-record conversation with Libby that moved to background. On the record, he denied that Cheney knew about or played any role in the Wilson trip to Niger. On background, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, "Yeah, I've heard that too," or words to that effect. Like Rove, Libby never used Valerie Plame's name or indicated that her status was covert, and he never told me that he had heard about Plame from other reporters, as some press accounts have indicated.

Did Fitzgerald's questions give me a sense of where the investigation is heading? Perhaps. He asked me several different ways if Rove indicated how he had heard that Plame worked at the CIA. (He did not, I told the grand jury.) Maybe Fitzgerald is interested in whether Rove knew her CIA ties through a person or through a document.

A surprising line of questioning had to do with, of all things, welfare reform. The prosecutor asked if I had ever called Mr. Rove about the topic of welfare reform. Just the day before my grand jury testimony Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, had told journalists that when I telephoned Rove that July, it was about welfare reform and that I suddenly switched topics to the Wilson matter. After my grand jury appearance, I did go back and review my e-mails from that week, and it seems as if I was, at the beginning of the week, hoping to publish an article in TIME on lessons of the 1996 welfare-reform law, but the article got put aside, as often happens when news overtakes story plans. My welfare-reform story ran as a short item two months later, and I was asked about it extensively. To me this suggested that Rove may have testified that we had talked about welfare reform, and indeed earlier in the week, I may have left a message with his office asking if I could talk to him about welfare reform. But I can't find any record of talking about it with him on July 11, and I don't recall doing so.

So did Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the "agency" on "WMD"? Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know. Is any of this a crime? Beats me. At this point, I'm as curious as anyone else to see what Patrick Fitzgerald has.

Subscription Link

[LoungeMachine]

Re: From the mouths of babes...

Originally posted by Nickdfresh




George W. Bush joked, I thought you'd be in jail by now."

What a coincidence.....

That's exactly what I would say to The Chimp

[Warham]

Rove didn't leak her name. End of story.