REAL Karl Rove thread

[First Crusader]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/14/sanford/

Interesting CNN interview that concerning the charges against Rove. (bolding mine)

SANFORD: I think a covert agent under the act has to be someone who has deep cover, who is working abroad. Not just traveling abroad, but is stationed and working abroad sometime within the last five years.

And USA Today reported that Joe Wilson's book has even made -- if you do the timeline, the Wilsons were married in 1998. There's some question whether she was even abroad during the last five years.

She really had a desk job at [CIA headquarters in] Langley [Virginia] and was driving in and out of the CIA every day. That's not exactly deep cover.

SANFORD: Well, ... it is worth remembering that when Robert Novak, the columnist, disclosed her identity in his column, he had called the CIA to tell them he was going to do that, and they didn't stop him.

They did not do what the CIA normally does in that situation if they want to protect or continue to protect somebody's identity. ...

Sanford has me convinced.

related link

link


EDIT
Apparently, her "secret identity" wasn't so secret that her boyfriends couldn't know about it.

http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/01/va...erie_plame.php

[Francisco Montana]

I think all the neighbors knew as well. That's probablly why the grandjury interviewed some of them. Yes, very deep undercover....not.

[Templedog]

I think all the neighbors knew as well. That's probablly why the grandjury interviewed some of them. Yes, very deep undercover....not.

lmao, WRONG.... they interviewed some of them and came to the conculsion that Libby will be charged with 5 counts:

2 Perjury
2 Making false statements
1 Obstruction of Justice

so, the neighbors were looked at and they found nothing, and Libby gets charged......because he was the only one found guilty.

lol


get your facts straight noobs http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/27.html#a5587 larry Johnson

[First Crusader]

The chick told her boyfriend on the "third or fourth date" about her "secret identity". :laughing:

http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/01/va...erie_plame.php

[Punkus]

It's entirely possible Rove did not technically commit a crime. In fact, it's entirely possible, according to the law discussed in that article, that no one committed a crime.

Which to me is disturbing given:

The following day on CNN, Novak announced that Plame's nominal employer was Brewster Jennings & Associates.[14] "There is no such firm, I'm convinced," Novak said, noting that "Ms. Valerie E. Wilson" had donated $1,000 to the Gore campaign in 1999 and had listed Brewster Jennings & Associates as her employer.[15] "CIA people are not supposed to list themselves with fictitious firms if they're under a deep cover -- they're supposed to be real firms, or so I'm told. Sort of adds to the little mystery."[16] In fact, Brewster Jennings & Associates did exist, and proved to be an elaborately crafted CIA enterprise likely to have provided cover not only to Plame/Wilson but to other covert CIA operatives and contacts working abroad: subsequent articles in many publications [17][18][19][20] suggest that BJA, nominally an oil exploration firm, was in fact a CIA front company (now defunct) spying on Saudi and other interests across the Middle East.

-Wikipedia

Leaking Plame's identity did far more damage to the operatives who may have been undercover with this firm than it did to Plame herself.

While I personally disagree with a great many things the CIA has both officially and unofficially done in the past, I in no way condone any kind of misconduct that results in possibly jeopardizing the very life of any government official or employee - especially those who routinely do the dirtiest kinds of work.

However, apparently the CIA didn't care, which is odd:

SANFORD: Well, ... it is worth remembering that when Robert Novak, the columnist, disclosed her identity in his column, he had called the CIA to tell them he was going to do that, and they didn't stop him.

They did not do what the CIA normally does in that situation if they want to protect or continue to protect somebody's identity. ...

They didn't call his syndicate. They didn't scream at him, say you're going to endanger her life or [en]danger her career, that sort of thing. They just sort of shrugged and said, "Well, I guess she won't be getting any more overseas assignments."

So, why did the CIA, according to Sanford, decide not to even bat an eye? Doesn't that sound a little strange given the fact that they would have known giving away Plame's identity would inevitably lead to the uncovering of that rather elaborate CIA cover corporation? I'm sorry, that just doesn't make sense to me. An intelligence agency like the CIA may make immoral decisions every day, but that does not mean it is run by fools. (unless they are so immoral that they comprimise their own people, of course)

Even if that corporation were slated for termination, I don't understand why the CIA would allow its cover to be blown. I'm no expert on government intel operations, but I can't believe this is common practice.

It's possible it didn't bring much danger to whatever operatives were under cover of this firm, but that is highly unlikely. Even if this were true, I do very much hope it's not routine CIA procedure to blow operatives' cover once their missions are over.

I have no wish to see Rove, or anyone, convicted of a crime he didn't commit. But Rove is just another participant in the same blatant disregard for honor, reason, and even at times human life that is prevalent throughout the rest of this administration. With so many memos, directives, technicalities, what have you, it's quite obvious to me how easy it is to blur the lines of morality and right.

And if one is inclined to think it's just luck that Rove just managed to skirt the law, I would suggest thinking again.

[First Crusader]

Silly. Plame was just an analyst who drove in and out of CIA headquarters every work day for the last 5 years.

Any enemy agents trying to infiltrate the CIA would have already known about her, if she was of any importance.

[Punkus]

The chick told her boyfriend on the "third or fourth date" about her "secret identity".

It's possible the boyfriend could have been a link for giving her identity, but this is spoken as though it were truth, and it is not. This requires the assumption that the boyfriend - whom Plame later married - at some point divulged the fact that she was an operative. (and this bit of information from the article cited sounds to me like it came after the leak, not before)

Silly. Plame was just an analyst who drove in and out of CIA headquarters every work day for the last 5 years.

Any enemy agents trying to infiltrate the CIA would have already known about her, if she was of any importance.

I have no idea what all the specifics of this case are; that's for the team investigating this incident to figure out. I certainly agree it's odd that she would have been going to Langley, but how do I know that this specific fact automatically negates any cover she might have had? It seems though that some people have already acquitted Rove, and are basing it on this opinion of one person.

It's no surprise that it's easy for some to call all this "silly" and comfortably turn their heads, but it is still dusturbing. I'm not eager to see anyone wrongfully convicted of anything, as I said, but is it really no problem for people in this country to see their leaders throwing common sense and responsibility to the wind? And not even for a good reason?? Not only was this particular leak an unprecedented event(as far as I know, correct me if I am wrong), but I see no possible gain from it other than to injure Wilson in some way. Even if it was not technically illegal, it was wholly irresponsible.

What I simply don't understand is the zeal on both sides. Is it so hard to wait for the final verdict before we acquit - or convict - based on inconclusive conjectures?

[First Crusader]

Here are the facts:

-Plame was NOT undercover.
-She has been out in the open for more than 5 years
-Her position as a CIA was NOT a secret
-The regulations that Rove supposedly broke do NOT apply to agents who are no longer undercover

(See my CNN link for the details)

You make a big deal out of "the investigation". So what exactly is there to investigate?

[First Crusader]

wow, a Rush limbough fan

No, I'm not!

she prob told him on the 4th date, because he inserted his penis into her on the 3rd date......wise up man

Speaking of wising up, she should do just that. Giving your "secret identity" to every person you have sex with isn't very smart! Of course, she didn't HAVE a secret identity, so there was nothing for her to worry about!

[JP226]

hold your horses tex, an indictment does not mean guilty. Secondly the crime is based off of lying about a crime that never happened.

p.s. I love the site, very unbiased. Keep up the good work.

[Templedog]

hold your horses tex, an indictment does not mean guilty. Secondly the crime is based off of lying about a crime that never happened.

p.s. I love the site, very unbiased. Keep up the good work.

oh its based off of lying......lol.....thanks for the inside info...you must work in the white house.....or else you heard it from a talking head......good researcher you are.

Here are the facts:

-Plame was NOT undercover.
-She has been out in the open for more than 5 years
-Her position as a CIA was NOT a secret
-The regulations that Rove supposedly broke do NOT apply to agents who are no longer undercover

(See my CNN link for the details)

You make a big deal out of "the investigation". So what exactly is there to investigate?

wow, a Rush limbough fan

The chick told her boyfriend on the "third or fourth date" about her "secret identity".

http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/01/v...rie_ plame.php

she prob told him on the 4th date, because he inserted his penis into her on the 3rd date......wise up man

[Templedog]

First Crusader, she married this man, it's not like she is or was telling everyone she had sex with, as far as we know, she has only had sex with him.....( you make it sound like she is a slut)


about leaving the CIA office everyday...did you even watch this? http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/27.html#a5587 Larry Johnson

it is a common thing, everyone leaving and coming arn't CIA agents....you could sit out front of the office building and see 300 people coming and going, not knowing any are undercover or not.... Are we suppose to think undercover agents don't go in and out of buildings??

[First Crusader]

First Crusader, she married this man, it's not like she is or was telling everyone she had sex with, as far as we know, she has only had sex with him.....( you make it sound like she is a slut)

When you are dating someone, you don't know you are going to marry him/her.

about leaving the CIA office everyday...did you even watch this? http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/27.html#a5587 Larry Johnson

I didn't bother. Not a good idea to rely on a website titled "Crooks and Liars". I glanced at it, but it was just another one of your far leftwing gibberish machines.

it is a common thing, everyone leaving and coming arn't CIA agents....you could sit out front of the office building and see 300 people coming and going, not knowing any are undercover or not.... Are we suppose to think undercover agents don't go in and out of buildings??

You're right. But she wasn't "an agent". She was just an analyst.

Oh and by the way, she wasn't undercover. :laughing:

[Templedog]

didn't you see that movie? Mr. and Mrs. Smith? that was a hot movie...that video is straight from CNN, a former CIA agent that knows her...

btw, didn't a grand jury indict libby? lol, can't argue that....

Rightwingers put thier party b4 the county and b4 the law...sad....

[First Crusader]

didn't you see that movie? Mr. and Mrs. Smith? that was a hot movie...that video is straight from CNN, a former CIA agent that knows her...

So? That isn't related to the interview of the lawyer.

btw, didn't a grand jury indict libby? lol, can't argue that....

It's called "Inocent until proven guilty". He hasn't beem convicted.

Rightwingers put thier party b4 the county and b4 the law...sad....

Refrain from making stupid, baseless, prejudiced accusations please.

[Custor]

The whole Republican outing a CIA operative is a figment of my imagination.

[First Crusader]

The whole Republican outing a CIA operative is a figment of my imagination.

Why do liberals keep referring to that lady as "a covert CIA operative"? She wasn't covert, she was not undercover, she was not operating in foreign soil, and she wasn't "an operative". She was just an analyst out in the open.

[Punkus]

Why do liberals keep referring to that lady as "a covert CIA operative"? She wasn't covert, she was not undercover, she was not operating in foreign soil, and she wasn't "an operative". She was just an analyst out in the open.

Here is something to think about:

In fact, multiple press accounts have confirmed that Plame's status as a CIA officer was classified when her identity was revealed in a July 14, 2003, column by syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507070001

Valerie Plame was indeed known to be some sort of analyst, but what that means and whether or not that fully describes her capacity at the CIA, who can say? It appears that the leak either uncovered whatever status she had outside of that role as an analyst, or involved the release of other classified information. Regardless, with so limited availability of information, I can't see such a comment as "Her position as a CIA was NOT a secret" taking into account all of the facts.

Here:

Plame currently is an analyst at the CIA. But, intelligence officials said, she previously served overseas in a clandestine capacity, which means her name is kept classified to protect her previous contacts and operations, and her ability to work again undercover overseas.

(Same link as previous)

Again, it has been stated that her "status as a CIA officer" was classified. I don't know what this means with regards to being undercover, but I do know "classified" means "not for the general public", and divulging classified information without the proper authority is a felony. Admittedly it is difficult for me to understand why information would be classified if it were already public knowledge. That is why I am led to the conclusion that there are far more details to this than we in this thread have access to.

I am not really disagreeing that the 1982 law may not apply to Rove, or anyone in this investigation. In fact, Rove not being indicted by Fitzgerald today pretty much settles that issue. More I am stating that I see much more reason to continue asking questions about what happened rather than celebrating Rove's dodging one bullet and implying he is completely vindicated. Also, I think a lot of conclusions about Plame have been made that seem spurious, and my purpose has been to try to rebut and "fill in the gaps" so to speak.

[Custor]

Good quotes marks. You do know what quotations marks mean don't you? Probably not as you both quote me then don't quote me. Try '...' if YOU want to suggest something. Maybe I should word search covert on my posts. I may of typed it and it disappeared?

Nope, that's not it. Try reading.


Then dont quote me - refer to some imaginary third part, then answer my post. Grammer may help.

[First Crusader]

Good quotes marks. You do know what quotations marks mean don't you? Probably not as you both quote me then don't quote me. Try '...' if YOU want to suggest something. Maybe I should word search covert on my posts. I may of typed it and it disappeared?

Nope, that's not it. Try reading.

I wasn't quoting you, genius.