Karl Rove and Lewis "Scooter" Libby may both face perjury charges

[Mordoch]

Regardless of what else happens with this case, it looks like both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby could very well end up on perjury charges.

July 22 (Bloomberg) -- Two top White House aides have given accounts to a special prosecutor about how reporters first told them the identity of a CIA agent that are at odds with what the reporters have said, according to people familiar with the case.

Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first learned from NBC News reporter Tim Russert of the identity of Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Plame, the wife of former ambassador and Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, one person said. Russert has testified before a federal grand jury that he didn't tell Libby of Plame's identity, the person said.

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove told Fitzgerald that he first learned the identity of the CIA agent from syndicated columnist Robert Novak, according a person familiar with the matter. Novak, who was first to report Plame's name and connection to Wilson, has given a somewhat different version to the special prosecutor, the person said.

These discrepancies may be important because Fitzgerald is investigating whether Libby, Rove or other administration officials made false statements during the course of the investigation. The Plame case has its genesis in whether any administration officials violated a 1982 law making it illegal to knowingly reveal the name of a covert intelligence agent.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=an7SakVWGrTQ&refer=us

If the Bloomberg article is accurate, we have clear significant discrepancies in the testimonies given under oath to a grand jury. This means someone DEFINATELY commited perjury. As far as prosecuting someone for perjury goes, the question is whether Fitzgerald can find enough colaberating evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that one individual's testimony is accurate and the other individual lied before a grand jury. I also believe that obstruction justice charge could be thrown in by Fitzgerald if Libby or Rove's testimonies are the ones proven to be false. After all, by lying to investigators, they would be impairing the investigation into the Plame leak. I think its safe to say this case is going to remain a headache for the Bush adminstration for quite some time to come.

[Pekka]

one thing I don't understand is the hunt of the front man, when I think most of us feel that someone else should be standing in front of judges about this whole thing. Why is this even accepted? Americans have become political sheeps and pussies? Say it ain't so..

Most of you will say that you can't blame president for the work of his employees. So what you mean is leader don't have any responsibilites over the staff and team uh? I'm not saying he should be tried or something, I'm saying if leader screws up or his staff screws up, the leader answers. General principle. It's as if a big company has to lay off people, then it most likely means someone screwed up in the upper managment making bad decisions, or not making enough decisions. Blame it on market, they still didn't react to it accordingly or we could just replace them with robots. So people get fired, but they also get to answer for it, and are responsible to some extent. When this applies to every segment of human societies, why does it not extend to the leader of a nation?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Pekka
Americans have become political sheeps and pussies?

Sad, but true. Of course, we've always had a strong sheeping tendency, but we started to stand up for ourselves in the 60s and 70s. We have Black people to thank for that. But as all the movements were crushed, we went back to herding and bahhhing.

[Pekka]

I should be more clear with what I meant. I meant there's no critique too loud about this whole thing. I feel strongly that this is beyond scandal. I have no problem with dubya though.. but if my opinion is asked and I give my honest most pragmatic one, he should answer for this. I'm not talking about resigning, I'm talking about taking responsibility. That's what leaders do, good ones anyway. It doesn't matter that it was out of their hands. If it was out of their hands, it means they are not leading strong enough, since they can't control their people, and therefor responsible. That's the difference between resigning and taking the crap, if directly involved, resign and to be tomatoed in the market square at 12AM. If done by staff, not involved, still responsible and answering for it. That's the least leader would do IMO.

But he doesn't have to answer, because this is to be expected. Screw ups to be expected by the administration, why is this? I'm not talking about senseless rage chase, I'm talking about forcing the leader to answer, satisfyingly, not some half assed chewbacca defense either. Leader has nothing to hide, and should not even be asked or forced to take the responsibility.

This is my opinion, and I hope you guys get the act together instead of 'knowing' or 'feeling' there's nothing he has to say about it, because it means there's no one to keep the top guys in check. Basically that means, if bad luck and some evilish leader gets the seat later on, he/she can do all they want and people just trusting them. Trust has nothing to do with it. Trust shouldn't come from 'well he said so'.

I don't feel what hippies feel, I don't agree with them in most things, but at least they are active. The most vital thing IMO is that own crowd is active and listening and thinking, if our guy is doing something stupid, we must put him back to order before anyone else gets the opportunity to do that. Not put front men and try to go behind and under. It's about standards. Everyone should be proud to say we keep our standards ourselves, and everyone makes mistakes and so do we, but we answer and react fast and accordingly. THAT'S the thing that people should be able to trust, the short reaction time. Not what they say.

[Ninot]

yeah but this is the same George W. Bush who when asked if he'd made any mistakes during his first term, said he couldn't think of any. This was when Iraq was emerging as a new Vietnam and all sorts of generals were begining to admit that they didnt have sufficient plans for the post-war. This was when it was starting to become clear that the intelligence that they went to war with was faulty.

This is an administration that just can't admitt fault. Bush wont admitt fault over something like this.

[chequita guevara]

Bush wouldn't admit fault if he said 2+2=5.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

And I think he's said exactly that before...

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Bush wouldn't admit fault if he said 2+2=5.

[DanS]

Most of you will say that you can't blame president for the work of his employees. So what you mean is leader don't have any responsibilites over the staff and team uh? I'm not saying he should be tried or something, I'm saying if leader screws up or his staff screws up, the leader answers. General principle.

Not saying you're wrong, but the presidency has never worked this way. All presidents use their staffs as whipping boys. If the policy doesn't work out, then fire the cabinet member or other staffmember "responsible." The thing that has been remarkable about Bush is that so far he has not fired anybody for bad decisions on policy. I daresay most democrats would have wished to see more dirty laundry and housecleaning by Bush, but so far the team has been very cohesive.

[Boris Godunov]

Rove may be in a lot more trouble than that:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050715.html

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).

I am referring to the prosecution and conviction of Jonathan Randel. Randel was a Drug Enforcement Agency analyst, a PhD 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, Court 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.

The Randel Precedent -- If Followed -- Bodes Ill For Rove

Karl 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). [And we now have a good idea that the information came from a memo being circulated around the admin that was clearly marked "topsecret"--BG]

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

[Zkribbler]

On one hand, I'm delighted to see Karl Rove twisting slowly in the wind.

On the other hand, I can't forget that he was "outed" because the government tampled over a report's right to keep confidential sources private. Whoops, there is no such right.

Reporters need confidentiality to get stories. Did you see the recent interview with Woodward and Bernstein? They said that, if they hadn't been able to promise their sources confidentiality, the Watergate story would have never come out.

I'd give Rove a Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free card in exchange for recognition of a reporter's right of privacy for confidential sources.

[Guynemer]

Isn't anyone else bothered by the fact that a close advisor and personal friend of the President of the United States goes by the name "Scooter"?

[Wezil]

I'm still bothered by this...

Novak, who was first to report Plame's name and connection to Wilson...

Still waiting for the charge.

[Guynemer]

Don't hold your breath.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Guynemer
Don't hold your breath.

So I gather but I've yet to hear a reason why he hasn't been charged.

Seems to me it is rather irrelevant what folks like Rove do or say about confidential information if stooges like Novak don't report it. Novak was how the information became public and he KNEW Plame was an agent.

We're dancing around trying to pin this (or something else) on admin officials when it appears the evidence against Novak is glaring.