The WSJ thinks Rove is going to easily survive and explains why.
Here's a bit:
In short, Joe Wilson hadn't told the truth about what he'd discovered in Africa, how he'd discovered it, what he'd told the CIA about it, or even why he was sent on the mission. The media and the Kerry campaign promptly abandoned him, though the former never did give as much prominence to his debunking as they did to his original accusations. But if anyone can remember another public figure so entirely and thoroughly discredited, let us know.
If there's any scandal at all here, it is that this entire episode has been allowed to waste so much government time and media attention, not to mention inspire a "special counsel" probe. The Bush Administration is also guilty on this count, since it went along with the appointment of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in an election year in order to punt the issue down the road. But now Mr. Fitzgerald has become an unguided missile, holding reporters in contempt for not disclosing their sources even as it becomes clearer all the time that no underlying crime was at issue.
As for the press corps, rather than calling for Mr. Rove to be fired, they ought to be grateful to him for telling the truth.
14 comments:
And now we come to the full realization of the "faith-based" community. Don't like reality? Construct a new one!
As Salon puts it:
"Along the way to the beatification, the Journal skips through an inconvenient fact or two and makes up at least one of its own. The Journal says "36 major newspaper organizations that filed a legal brief in March aimed at keeping Mr. Cooper and the New York Times's Judith Miller out of jail" agree that there's no evidence that a crime has been committed in the Plame case. But of course, a legal brief filed "in March" is necessarily one that was written before it was revealed that Karl Rove told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
"And the Journal says that Rove can't be convicted under the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act unless he "deliberately and maliciously exposed" Plame as an undercover operative. But that's not what the law says, and it's not what the law requires. While the legal standard for a conviction under the 1982 act is high, the prosecution needs to show that the leak was made "intentionally," not "maliciously."
"But who needs facts when there's a hero to worship? "If there's any scandal at all here, it is that this entire episode has been allowed to waste so much government time and media attention, not to mention inspire a 'special counsel' probe," the Journal says. "As for the press corps, rather than calling for Mr. Rove to be fired, they ought to be grateful to him for telling the truth.""
CRIMESTOP!
Are you just sure Mr. Rove isn't just the target of your great desire for payback?
Keith,
Um, what?
Here's the learner's version:
There are two types of CIA agents (not referring to analysts or admin personnel here). The first is your everyday agent, including case officers, whose cover involves ostensibly working for other branches of the U.S. government. These people have diplomatic (the so-called "black") passports, granting them diplomatic immunity. These people are safe from prosecution or persecution because of them. This is why it is called "official cover."
The second kind of agent lacks the "black" passport. Their cover is not diplomatic/governmental in nature. They work for front companies. This is known as "Non-Official Cover" or, as Hollywood has mythologized it, the "NOC" (pronounced "knock"). NOCs, if caught conducting intelligence or espionage in a foreign country, do not have any kind of diplomatic or official recourse. They may be tried, convicted, executed, etc.
These latter agents, since they lack such protection, are whom the statute is designed to protect.
Plame was, from 1985 until her "outing," a NOC working out of a CIA front company. Her job was to run an informant ring on WMD proliferation. While largely managerial by 2003, her job was still "unofficial."
As a NOC, her identity is ostensibly protected by the statute, whether she is in the field or not. Ergo, it is a CRIME to reveal her true employer.
Class dismissed.
James, give us a footnote for her NOC status. That will be important to the point you are making.
The news organizations who filed briefs argued that neither Miller nor Cooper had committed a crime. They did not argue that there was no crime committed by Rove, nor that there was no crime committed.
Rove betrayed America. To claim, as his lawyer did, that he didn't realize what he was doing, adds insult to injury.
He should resign out of honor. If he doesn't resign, Bush should fire him.
yawn... you guys still haven't proven anything...
You are trying and convicting the guy without evidence.
36 major news organizations think there is enough on record that a crime wasn't committed...
Hmm, some of the same ones trying to make hay out of the strawman they created. How interesting. I'm sure they'll make some excuse, and wish they had never filed that brief.
http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s10News/FileUpload44/10159/Amici%20Brief%20032305%20(Final).PDF
"In this case, there exists ample evidence in the public record to cast serious doubt as to whether a crime has even been committed under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (the "Act") in the investigation underlying the attempts to secure testimony from Miller and Cooper. If in fact no crime under the Act has been committed, then any need to compel Miller and Cooper to reveal their confidential sources should evaporate."
"Plame was not given 'deep cover' required of a covert agent...She worked at a desk job at CIA headquarters, where she could be seen traveling to and from, and active at, Langley. She had been residing in Washington -- not stationed abroad-- for a number of years. As discussed below, the CIA failed to take even its usual steps to prevent publication of her name."
"an article in the Washington Times indicated that Plame's identity was compromised twice prior to Novak's publication. If this information is accurate --another fact a court should explore-- there is an absolute defense to prosecution."
Is everyone out getting their marching orders from the DailyKos or what???
Actually, Tlaloc seems to be getting his from Josh Marshall. And he's got the cojones to accuse other people of using biased unreliable sources? Having a position is one thing, but Mr. Talking Points Memo has got a track record of going out on a limb and having it sawn off behind him that stretches back years.
Oh, and Tlaloc, baby -- if you're going to provide a link in attempt to back up your argument, could you give one that actually works?
Like this one?
Then we could assess for ourselves if we think a semi-anonymous guy (Larry Johnson? Why didn't he just use John Smith, for crying out loud?) who claims he used to work at the CIA, but apparently does no longer, is a credible source on Ms. Plame's status.
The news organizations who filed briefs argued that neither Miller nor Cooper had committed a crime. They did not argue that there was no crime committed by Rove, nor that there was no crime committed.
Well, yes they did argue there had been no crime committed. And a good thing, too, for otherwise it would have meant they were represented by Lionel Hutz. No other lawyer would try to argue you're not obligated to obey a subpoena just because you're not the one who committed the crime.
But of course, a legal brief filed "in March" is necessarily one that was written before it was revealed that Karl Rove told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
So Salon's claiming that it was a crime if Rove leaked, but not a crime if someone else did it? Because in March we certainly knew that Ms. Plame's identity had been revealed to Bob Novak and he had published it.
see your post above where you completely mangle what the magazines said- hint ed darrell is right, you are wrong
Keith, Indy already provided a usable link, which I now make clickable:
Amicus Brief
(Yes I'm being really snotty about it since I got it wrong once and worked it out.)
I refer you, and Ed, to page 28 of the PDF file, which is Section B. of the amicus curiae brief. It is entitled There is Ample Evidence in the Public Record to Cast Considerable Doubt That a Crime Has Been Committed. It goes on to list, in detail, the relevant parts of the statute which are necessary to trigger criminality, and which appear not to have been met in this case, and further argues that in addition the CIA apparently failed to actively protect Plame's identity.
Why do you and James think you can get away with your wild assertions when the primary record is available for anyone to examine?
I also find it extremely curious that Victoria Toensing is being savaged over at TPM and Kos for being a partisan hack, when in fact her role in this is lead counsel for the news organizations, the ones that are supposedly the white hats to the lefties.
Some more public record to refute y'all:
1. Rove's own lawyer acknowledges that not using Plame's name is no defense:
"More to the point, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, concedes that Rove informed Cooper that Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. And Luskin has apparently abandoned the distinction-without-a-difference argument that Rove is somehow off the hook because he referred to Wilson's wife as Wilson's wife and not by her name, Valerie Plame. When the National Review's Byron York asked Tuesday if that defense weren't a little legalistic -- another interviewer might have called it "Clintonian" -- Luskin said, "I agree with you. I think it's a detail.""
2. A CIA official says that the CIA would never have referred the case to the Department of Justice if an undercover agent had not been revealed and a crime committed.
Some dark liberal crusade, no. Government agency looking to bust a criminal, yes.
Also, here's a question: If no real crime was committed, then why is Miller sitting in jail? Why was it necessary for George W. Bush to appoint a special prosecutor and a judge to hold Miller and Cooper in contempt if this was all just a bunch of partisan nonsense? Riddle me that.
And if Plame was just some sort of glorified busybody within the Agency, then how did she have the power to hire her husband and send him to Niger if this whole thing is indeed about nepotism. She wasn't, didn't, and couldn't. No nepotism, no Rove as whistle-blowing hero. Play again next time.
I don't know, Keith. I think it's an interesting idea, and one that merits further investigation. People following your line of thought seem to feel that it leads to someone who could be impeached.
It does seem that the MSM has chosen this matter - and Miller - as some sort of strange, absolutist principle on which to make their stand. Now, I'm all for freedom of the press and the use of anonymous, whistleblowing sources. But really, the problem with taking a stand on this issue is that there's too many problems with it.
1) Miller never wrote a freaking story on the subject.
2) Since the prosecutor is saying that the very act of leaking the information was the crime, at what point does a reporter stop being a cover for her source and start being an enabler of a crime?
3) When your source has used you not to reveal perfidy but to engage in an active smear campaign, violating your trust as a reporter, are you still bound to that person?
4) By remaining silent, doesn't Miller risk telling future whistleblowers and naysayers of the Administration that the MSM will not only be complicit in any active smear campaigns against them, but will actively shield those in the administration who sling the mud?
Bummer. Ok, how to do this...
More info here.
Most of the basic, basic stuff, like bold, italics, and links, will work in here.
Oh, and Kathy, here's who Larry Johnson is:
Far from being some made up person, Larry Johnson was a CIA agent, graduate of "The Farm" in 1985 (same class as Plame). He later became an analyst there and is of late a counterterrorism official in the State Department. He is also a registered Republican.
Post a Comment