Karl Rove: Source of Plame Leak

[Kuciwalker]

I doubt they'll ever be able to show intent even if he did reveal it...

[Timexwatch]

Originally posted by DanS


Have you ever watched the McLaughlin Group? There is a section called "predictions" where this stuff goes. Basically, it is gossip. May be true. Might not be true. You have to admit that O'Donnell is making a no-cost ploy to look like an "in guy." If his speculation is correct, he looks connected. If his speculation is incorrect, then there's no harm, considering that everbody else speculated that Rove was the leaker a year ago.

Looking at what Newsweek is going to print, this looks more and more true. He hasn't said anything slanderous or untrue, but he also hasn't said anything that is a substantial revelation. It looks more like he wants to position himself to be the first person to start the "Rove-gate" chant.

Also, Josh Marshall had some interesting observations on July 2nd here.

[asleepathewheel]

Intent is generally very easy to prove in most cases, and this doesn't seem to be an exception to me...IMHO, IAAL, if the prosecutor would fail to prosecute on grounds of lack of intent (note: not for other reasons like, say, he wasn't the one ) then it is a whitewashing.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

If true, Rove had better get some serious jail time -- but in Bush's America, he probably won't. Christ, the GOP called for Hilary's head over a suspicious business deal, and tried to impeach a president for lying about a blow job; let's see if any of them have the balls to call for Rove's after what is, in the end, a breach of national security.

Meanwhile, now the CIA rank-and-file have a huge motivation to f*ck the Bushies. I'm sure we'll all sleep better knowing that.

[Admiral]

The key factor here, however, isn't really the verdict. The key factor here is the trial. A high profile member of the administration being prosecuted will call attention to the darker side of the administration, and the public could start to see wrong-doing elsewhere. Maybe even the WMD circus.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
DanS, read my post. This isn't speculation. Newsweek is going to be running the story next week.

And did you see the show? How do you know it was in the "predictions" section?

I saw the show. It was not in the predictions part. It was in the regular discussion part of the show. The show will repeat Sunday if your part of the world carries it.

[Timexwatch]

Before I head to bed, here's a little more grist for the mill:

The author of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act says that there is probably no crime here. For Rove to have committed a crime:

At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as "covert."

The law also requires that the disclosure be made intentionally, with the knowledge that the government is taking "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the United States. Merely knowing that Plame works for the CIA does not provide the knowledge that the government is keeping her relationship secret. In fact, just the opposite is the case. If it were known on the Washington cocktail circuit, as has been alleged, that Wilson's wife is with the agency, a possessor of that gossip would have no reason to believe that information is classified -- or that "affirmative measures" were being taken to protect her cover.

It's starting to look like the prosecutor is looking to nail someone for a cover-up and not necessarily any crime involving the disclosure of Palme's identity.

The quote from above can be found in the Washington Post here.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Agathon
If it was Rove, then it appears unlikely that Shrub didn't know. I'd love to see this become another Watergate. It's treason.

I'd fondly hoped to see another Watergate. Here's hoping the press do their job and bring this sack of crap down.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The author of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act says that there is probably no crime here.

There is at least one. Rove said he didn't reveal the name to a grand jury. Therefore, Rove is guilty of perjury if it was him. You know the crime that the Republicans got all pissy on Clinton about?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The author of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act says that there is probably no crime here.

There is at least one. Rove said he didn't reveal the name to a grand jury. Therefore, Rove is guilty of perjury if it was him. You know the crime that the Republicans got all pissy on Clinton about?

Gentlemen, these are chickens. You may want to get used to them; they've come home to roost...

[Mr. Harley]

Imran - quick question. If Rove did lie, in this case, would it be non-felony or felony perjury? I know Clinton weaseled out of the felony part (his relationship with Monica did not materially affect the case, i.e. sexual harrassment - which we know it most definitively was not with Monica) so what would the case be here?

[Timexwatch]

Originally posted by Timexwatch

It's starting to look like the prosecutor is looking to nail someone for a cover-up and not necessarily any crime involving the disclosure of Palme's identity.

That's what I said, Imran, albeit in a disjointed way. Rove may not be guilty of "High Treason" like many of the liberal bloggers are screaming about. Coverup? Maybe. There's still not enough info to tell.

[Admiral]

The problem for Republicans with Clinton was that while they were impeaching him for perjury, everyone thought it was about what he did with Monica. Given that a lot of people could see themselves in Clinton's position, public support stayed relatively healthy for Clinton. In this case, the initial crime seems more serious, and if it does get to be as big a thing as during Clinton, I imagine Bush would have much less support.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Agathon
If it was Rove, then it appears unlikely that Shrub didn't know. I'd love to see this become another Watergate. It's treason.

I'd fondly hoped to see another Watergate. Here's hoping the press do their job and bring this sack of crap down.

However given the current admin and the backbone of the media I'd be surprised if anything at all happens other than a slap on the wrist.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Rove said he didn't reveal the name to a grand jury.

Do you mean: "Rove said to a grand jury he didn't reveal the name"?

Originally posted by shawnmmcc

If Rove did lie, in this case, would it be non-felony or felony perjury? I know Clinton weaseled out of the felony part (his relationship with Monica did not materially affect the case, i.e. sexual harrassment - which we know it most definitively was not with Monica) so what would the case be here?

Perjury is the intentional misrepresentation while under oath of a material fact. As I understand it, Clinton was given a civil monetary sanction because he gave an "evasive" response in discovery; that is, his statement was true but misleading. It wasn't "non-felony perjury."

Here, any intentional misstatements to the Grand Jury by Rove about revealing the name of a CIA operative, when that is the subject matter of the probe, would be perjury -- which is a felony.