Of Leaks--And Spies--Of Kingmakers And Why?s

'It seems a shame,' the Walrus said,'To play them such a trick...'

from JoeUser Forums

consider this part 3 of an ongoing lewis carroll-inspired peek at events and policies through the looking glass (parts 1 Link  and 2 Link.)

if karl rove did nothing illegal or innapropriate as regards novak's announcement that valerie plame worked for the cia and was married to ambassador joe wilson, wouldn't it have been easier on everyone if he'd stepped up to a microphone 2 years ago and let us know that was the case? 

as one of gwbush's closest associates (if not THE closest), couldn't he have simply told the president that he'd done nothing wrong?

as the chief of staff for policy, rove certainly should be well aware of the country's precarious financial situation.  why is it costing us a million and change to find out he did nothing wrong?

why is judy miller still in jail? 

   'I weep for you,'the Walrus said:
  'I deeply sympathize.'
With sobs and tears he denied
  Alleging wives were spies,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
  Before his streaming eyes.

politics
10,553 views 28 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
why is judy miller still in jail?


Maybe because Rove isn't the "leak". I know that's hard to comprehend with all the biased media coverage, but just think about it.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I know that's hard to comprehend with all the biased media coverage, but just think about it.


i've considered the possibility.

let's say it's fact. what are the chances rove doesn't know the identity of the leak? my guess is slim or none.

in which case, doesn't ethics or good citizenship require him to reveal whatever information he may have to the independent prosecutor. i cant see how not doing so works to his benefit.
Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm beginning to wonder, too. In the end, Novak and the Time guy werew the ones who put it in the public view. For all the 'leak', the real damage occured when her name was in print. If members of the press knowingly outed a CIA agent, they would be at least as culpable, woudn't they? I don't think freedom of the press would be protection for such a thing.

I could easily brush it off as a Rove lynch mob, but somehow it just feels like there is something else...
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
the real damage occured when her name was in print. If members of the press knowingly outed a CIA agent, they would be at least as culpable, woudn't they? I don't think freedom of the press would be protection for such a thing


at least, if not more so in terms of effect.
somehow it just feels like there is something else...


it's seemed that way even before cooper revealed the 'double secret probation' component (either cooper or rove musta watched 'animal house' one too many times). this isn't the kinda trouble someone like rove would wanna buy for himself again.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
I know that's hard to comprehend with all the biased media coverage, but just think about it.


i've considered the possibility.

let's say it's fact. what are the chances rove doesn't know the identity of the leak? my guess is slim or none.

in which case, doesn't ethics or good citizenship require him to reveal whatever information he may have to the independent prosecutor. i cant see how not doing so works to his benefit.

wouldn't it have been easier on everyone if he'd stepped up to a microphone 2 years ago and let us know that was the case?


I guess you don't read the papers much. He did and he has.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't know anything about this, but IM me, dude. (This message will self-destruct after you've received it, hehe)
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

as one of gwbush's closest associates (if not THE closest), couldn't he have simply told the president that he'd done nothing wrong?

He probably did.  But the press is not buying it.  I dont see Bush calling him on the carpet, but the press doing another hatchet job.  Truth is, neither you nor I know what Rove has told the President.  And for Rove to announce to the press "I did not do it" will not make this go away.  So he just does the standard "ongoing investigation" routine cause nothing he says will mollify the left leadership or the press.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually, now it is being said that when Novak called Rove, NOVAK was the one to ask ROVE about Wilson's wife, meaning he already knew.

That could very well be why the one reporter is still in hot water. They may not have found the original leak yet. The rest of these are just a little gossip circle, maybe. There'd be no reason to continue this if it were Rove, you'd have your leak and you'd have your reporters. You could startin handing out punishment.

I'm thinking Wilson himself mentioned it to reporters when he was doing his "anonymous" muckraking that started the whole endeavor.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Let's remember nobody cares who really "leaked" this persons name. This all about trying to blame Bush and get back at Rove.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
An interesting perspective in the National Review.

According to that the reason Plame had been working "as a covert agent" at a desk job for years is that her cover had ALREADY been blown long before, and they had concluded that her effectivness as a covert agent was nil.

P.S. I'd really like to poke some of you in the eye for continueing to bump the Col's insipid crap for him over and over and over. For heaven's sake, give up. I felt idiotic for arguing as much as I did. By now you guys should see that he is ignoring you and relishing in the fact that you are keeping his blog at the top of the heap...
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
According to that the reason Plame had been working "as a covert agent" at a desk job for years is that her cover had ALREADY been blown long before, and they had concluded that her effectivness as a covert agent was nil.


has mccarthy had all his shots? he was foaming at the mouth so profusely i'm a lil concerned bout whether some of it mighta splashed on me.

what does the cia accidentally (unintentionally or negligently) compromising agent identities have to do with publicly acknowledging or revealing their names? it's my understanding there are memorial stars on the wall at langley commemorating the service of cia operatives who died in the line of duty...and that some bear no name even tho the fact of the death is no longer secret. presuming the cubans or russians did know who plame was, why would the cia have done anything but offer a no comment?

in any event, mccarthy faulted an otherwise excellent demonstration of rantorical gymnastics before it began by noting: "A highly capable special prosecutor is probing the underlying facts, and it is appropriate to withhold legal judgments until he completes the investigation over which speculation runs so rampant."

if there was really nothing there, the prosecutor couldn't be nearly as capable as everyone seems to agree he is.

I'm thinking Wilson himself mentioned it to reporters when he was doing his "anonymous" muckraking that started the whole endeavor


once again, if that were the case, why would a special prosecutor have spent so much time investigating the matter?
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Let's remember nobody cares who really "leaked" this persons name. This all about trying to blame Bush and get back at Rove.


if an administration feels it needs to punish an individual for public criticism, sees to me that is--or should be--of a great deal of interest to everyone.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
for Rove to announce to the press "I did not do it" will not make this go away.


what i meant was why didn't rove reveal his discussion with cooper 2 years ago. obviously it's too late for that now, but think of all the energy and money that coulda been better used elsewhere if only rove had been a bit more candid then.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
has mccarthy had all his shots? he was foaming at the mouth so profusely i'm a lil concerned bout whether some of it mighta splashed on me.

what does the cia accidentally (unintentionally or negligently) compromising agent identities have to do with publicly acknowledging or revealing their names? it's my understanding there are memorial stars on the wall at langley commemorating the service of cia operatives who died in the line of duty...and that some bear no name even tho the fact of the death is no longer secret. presuming the cubans or russians did know who plame was, why would the cia have done anything but offer a no comment?


Because once their cover is blown by "anyone" they can no longer be a covert agent.

for Rove to announce to the press "I did not do it" will not make this go away.


what i meant was why didn't rove reveal his discussion with cooper 2 years ago. obviously it's too late for that now, but think of all the energy and money that coulda been better used elsewhere if only rove had been a bit more candid then.


How do we know he didn't?

in any event, mccarthy faulted an otherwise excellent demonstration of rantorical gymnastics before it began by noting: "A highly capable special prosecutor is probing the underlying facts, and it is appropriate to withhold legal judgments until he completes the investigation over which speculation runs so rampant."

if there was really nothing there, the prosecutor couldn't be nearly as capable as everyone seems to agree he is


And btw....read the papers a little more. The Prosecutor has already said that Rove was NOT the target of the investigation and that it was "highly" doubtful that "any" charges would be filed against him.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
if an administration feels it needs to punish an individual for public criticism, sees to me that is--or should be--of a great deal of interest to everyone.


But that's not the cause. Rove was warning a reporter not to trust Wilson, for good reason but Wilson has been proved to be a liar, and a democratic operative.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Rove was warning a reporter not to trust Wilson,


this reminds me of a guy i know who was fired from a job atta shipyard when it became necessary for someone to be sacrificed because of some damage done to a navy ship when a faulty drydock went berserk. he told me his boss had him sign 2 blank pink slips to 'help him out'. amazingly, only the pink slip that said this guy admitted sleeping on the job that ever turned up.

without having a actual transcript or having been present to hear what rove said, there are several possible interpretations of what little rove admits to saying. one which wouldnt be outta character for rove--who has quite a history of going overboard on political enemies--would be to punish wilson.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
i've seen several references to statements by judges indicating there is critical information in documents yet to be made public.

in particular judge tatel (who wrote "reason and experience support recognition of a privilege for reporters’ confidential sources” and was clearly loathe to order cooper and miller jailed) reluctantly concluded he “might have” been open to letting them go “were the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security.”

another judge opined: “Special Counsel’s showing decides the case.”

there's clearly a yet-to-be-revealed something of some magnitude in the mix here.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
once again, if that were the case, why would a special prosecutor have spent so much time investigating the matter?


That's the million dollar question, isn't it? The only thing we know at this time is that a reporter called Miller is sitting in Jail for not revealing her source of who gave her Plume's name for an article that she never wrote. Why is that?:notsure:

You can not put a journalist in jail for a source on a story she never wrote, but she can be placed in jail for not revealing the name of the person who leaked a CIA agents name in the first place (i.e. hindering a criminal investigation). So that means that until the original leak is found the prosecutor will continue his job.

But why only Miller and not Novak or Cooper? Because all the other reporters have stated that they had heard rumors/stories about Plume was Wilson's wife and was working for the CIA around the news room even before talking to Rove. This leads one to believe that Miller was where that information came from first. Novak talked to Rove about Wilson, Rove said Wilson's wife helped him get sent to Niger. Novak returned by saying Plume’s name, because he already heard that she worked for the CIA.

Miller's contact can't be Rove, because he already released all the reporters that he talked to from their silence obligation. Yet the Times continue to fight tooth and nail to prevent her leaks name from being released. Why would Time a huge critic of the Bush administration, not release the info? They had already gone behind Cooper's back to release his personnel notes quoting Rove, without his authorization. Why did Time not release Miller's notes?

My personnel opinion is that the original leaker is Wilson himself. He has used his position as a former Ambassador to open contacts in the past, why would he not simply say that with his knowledge of the CIA learned his wife helped him build his credibility on covert details. Miller simply was not going to use the Plume=CIA info in her story, but mess up by sharing the info with others in the news room.

So in the end IMO the investigation is still open because the first leak has not been found. But we really do not know because this grand jury is hold his cards very close and having the media wiggling on the vein.

But that's only my two cents.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Miller's contact can't be Rove, because he already released all the reporters that he talked to from their silence obligation. Yet the Times continue to fight tooth and nail to prevent her leaks name from being released. Why would Time a huge critic of the Bush administration, not release the info? They had already gone behind Cooper's back to release his personnel notes quoting Rove, without his authorization. Why did Time not release Miller's notes?

My personnel opinion is that the original leaker is Wilson himself. He has used his position as a former Ambassador to open contacts in the past, why would he not simply say that with his knowledge of the CIA learned his wife helped him build his credibility on covert details. Miller simply was not going to use the Plume=CIA info in her story, but mess up by sharing the info with others in the news room.


Very intersting thought.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Why did Time not release Miller's notes?


miller doesnt work for time?

Miller's contact can't be Rove, because he already released all the reporters that he talked to from their silence obligation.


miller's position is, as i understand it, as follows: she does not consider those whitehouse employees who signed a form releasing reporters from any confidentiality agreement to which they were party to have freely given that release. in other words, they had no choice but sign or resign.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
the original leaker is Wilson himself


does it seem likely to you that a man with 22 years of government service would call for an investigation that would ultimately lead to his own conviction?

i'm not saying it's impossible...only that you're reaching pretty far.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
does it seem likely to you that a man with 22 years of government service would call for an investigation that would ultimately lead to his own conviction?

i'm not saying it's impossible...only that you're reaching pretty far.


True it could be far reaching, but Rove with all his years in government service never thought at the time or at the early statements that he by just saying "Wilson's Wife, who works at the CIA got him the job", would make him a leaker.

The Rove used his statement as leverage for another story. It could be possible that Wilson (or his wife) could have used the same type of info for leverage not expecting or still not knowing that the info would get past the reporter who may have agreed never to print it.

From what I here half of DC knew where she worked at, after Plame started dating Wilson. You know, look who is dating who type of thing.

It is just my theory. I could be wrong, but the New York Times editorial staff knows who the leak is. Why are they not releasing that info? They are always out to publish anything negative about the Bush administration. What is stopping them now? That is why I think at the very least the leak is from the left side of the political spectrum and would be hazardous to there political views. This whole thing about journalistic rights is BS, when the New York Times themselves repeatedly print how dangerous to national security the leaking of this information is.

miller's position is, as i understand it, as follows: she does not consider those whitehouse employees who signed a form releasing reporters from any confidentiality agreement to which they were party to have freely given that release. in other words, they had no choice but sign or resign.


Then that even proves that Rove is not Miller’s leak even more. Because Rove has went the extra mile to send his reporters (Cooper and Novak) specific letters of authorizations. Cooper tried to tell his bosses at Time the same thing to stop them from releasing his notes. I guess Rove's lawyer walked the letter over to Time himself. Cooper's lawyer was on FOX news about a week and a half ago talking about this.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
miller's position is, as i understand it, as follows: she does not consider those whitehouse employees who signed a form releasing reporters from any confidentiality agreement to which they were party to have freely given that release. in other words, they had no choice but sign or resign.


And "this" makes a difference why? All that Miller needed was a release. She got it. What's the problem? Her "position" sucks!
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree with kingbee that there's probably more to this than meets the eye.

Wilson himself may or may not be the original "leaker," intentional or otherwise, but the willingness of Time to throw Cooper under the bus while going "shields up" on Miller makes you wonder. Not necessarily about whether Wilson is the source, but about whether the source is someone in the Democratic Party or a liberal critic of the administration. If it's someone else in the Bush camp, I can't imagine Time wouldn't go balls to the wall to nail him. It defies credulity to believe that Time suddenly arrived at the conclusion that journalistic privilege was no longer "above the law" because they had some sort of an epiphany. The potential opportunity to harm Rove trumped their most cherished ideal - the protection at all costs of anonymous sources, and by inference journalistic integrity itself.

I don't believe Rove is the source of the "initial" leak, or of "any" leak in the legal sense (an intentional disclosure of classified information). You can't deny, however, that there have been a bunch of intentional disclosures of classified information since Rove surfaced as a possible source - the State Department memo, portions of what Rove supposedly testified to the GJ, for starters - yet somehow those "leaks" are just accepted by the press as "in due course" and blythely disclosed as if they were weather reports. The irony of using leaked classified information to buttress a case against someone for allegedly leaking classified information appears lost on them completely. It is all quite odd (well, not really).

I've also been amused and infuriated at the way much of the press is slanting their coverage of this. Here's a snippet of the current Newsweek Periscope article about the investigation, talking about Rove:

"...says the White House aide - who passed info about Wilson's wife to Time's Matt Cooper - only knew about her CIA job..." (emphasis added)

While this language probably passes the technical test of truth in the broadest sense, it is far from an accurate description of what really went down, even according to Cooper, and leaves an impression of intent on Rove's part which is unsupported by the known facts and of substantive content which was nonexistent.

That's just one example, but both the previous Newsweek cover story on Rove and the current Periscope piece are full of such slants & innuendos. Same with our local paper, which has a decidely liberal bent. And we can't take seriously anything that Time itself publishes about this story - they ARE the story, after all.

Cheers,
Daiwa
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
the willingness of Time to throw Cooper under the bus while going "shields up" on Miller makes you wonder.


once again, miller doesnt work for time. she's a ny times reporter.

interestingly enuff, miller was not at all shy in expressing support for bush and the invasion of iraq. it's generally believed the whitehouse rewarded miller by providing her with more access and exclusive information which enabled her to keep a leg up on her competitors.

for that reason, it seems more likely than not she is shielding someone in the whitehouse.