• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Source in CIA leaked named?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Could someone explain something to me? I understand this whole Rove thing that he leaked the name of a CIA agent. What I don't understand is why he did it. From what I understand he did it to discredit Wilson but I just don't get how revealing that name would do that? Why would he even leak her info?

Thanks,

Maynerd
 
AssMan said:
They say Wilson lied. They say Rove lied. Let's fucking wait until the facts are out..........both parties, jesus christ.

Except that whether Wilson lied in his report or not doesn't have any direct relevance to the issue of Valerie Plame in particular and is a peripheral issue more with respects to Rove's potential motivations. In short, it's a side issue the RNC is using to divert attention, and it's been proven incorrect regardless. Whether Wilson was right or wrong only pertains to his accusations of the administration engaging in a smear campaign against him; it wouldn't be the first time we'd have seen such behavior by this administration either, and one need look no further than John Bolton for a sample of that. Regardless, the crux of the matter at hand is Rove and his conversations with reporters. Joe Wilson is a secondary character to Karl Rove, Matt Cooper, Robert Novak, and Valerie Plame.

As for 909er, I agree. There are aspects of the Republican party, the traditional Republican party in any case, that I agree with, but whatever you care to dub the party in power now, there's virtually nothing I can agree with on them about. Here's a good article from a former Republican that sums things up nicely in my opinion.
 
maynerd said:
Could someone explain something to me? I understand this whole Rove thing that he leaked the name of a CIA agent. What I don't understand is why he did it. From what I understand he did it to discredit Wilson but I just don't get how revealing that name would do that? Why would he even leak her info?

Thanks,

Maynerd

The CIA agent whose name was leaked was the wife of Wilson. She is also the agent who authorized his fact finding trip to Africa that netted the forged documents that the Bush administration used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Wilson is pissed, and calls Bush out on it, that he used fake reasoning to justify invading Iraq. Bush and camp is now pissed, and tell Cooper of TIME magazine, through Rove, that Wilson's wife was the one who authorized his trip, in an attempt to smear Wilson and as political payback for not going along with the Bush camp. Unfortunately for Rove, he didn't anticipate that there would be a backlash to his leaking of a covert operative(who, needless to say, no longer works for the CIA), an act that could carry a Treason charge, since it endangers national security and the life of Valerie Plame and her family.

He revealed the name for political payback to discredit the man. It also showed that Rove is willing to punish his family for what he has to say. It's really slimy, dirty territory that Rove has become accustomed to traversing.
 
Valerie Plame still works for the CIA.

She did not authorize Wilson's trip, she just suggested it to her superiors.

Wilson's credibility is pretty lousy, but that doesn't make outing his wife and blowing her cover OK.
 
909er said:
The CIA agent whose name was leaked was the wife of Wilson. She is also the agent who authorized his fact finding trip to Africa that netted the forged documents that the Bush administration used to justify the invasion of Iraq. Wilson is pissed, and calls Bush out on it, that he used fake reasoning to justify invading Iraq. Bush and camp is now pissed, and tell Cooper of TIME magazine, through Rove, that Wilson's wife was the one who authorized his trip, in an attempt to smear Wilson and as political payback for not going along with the Bush camp. Unfortunately for Rove, he didn't anticipate that there would be a backlash to his leaking of a covert operative(who, needless to say, no longer works for the CIA), an act that could carry a Treason charge, since it endangers national security and the life of Valerie Plame and her family.

He revealed the name for political payback to discredit the man. It also showed that Rove is willing to punish his family for what he has to say. It's really slimy, dirty territory that Rove has become accustomed to traversing.

I guess I still don't get how revealing that his wife works for the CIA would somehow discredit him. I can understand that it might punish him or his wife. But not really sure I understand how it discredits Wilson. It just doesn't make sense. Even if I don't understand the why part, Rove should burn in hell.
 
maynerd said:
I guess I still don't get how revealing that his wife works for the CIA would somehow discredit him. I can understand that it might punish him or his wife. But not really sure I understand how it discredits Wilson. It just doesn't make sense. Even if I don't understand the why part, Rove should burn in hell.


It makes it look like Wilson got the job to Africa because of his wife, not through his own merits. And you shouldn't trust someone who has to rely on his wife to get a job. Something like that...
 
jiggle said:
It makes it look like Wilson got the job to Africa because of his wife, not through his own merits. And you shouldn't trust someone who has to rely on his wife to get a job. Something like that...

That's one part of it. The other is that his wife was a covert CIA agent, and revealing her identity and role to the world means she is A) out of a job and B) in serious danger because of her past spy work. It is bald-faced personal retaliation for contradicting the Bush administrations rationale for going to war. It's low and I'd say downright cruel (I hesitate to say 'evil', but if this isn't then I don't know what is).
 
Assman said:
HAY GUYS LOOK AT ME! I'M ABOVE ALL THIS PARTISANSHIP.

I THINK THAT THESE TWO UNRELATED THINGS CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT. DON'T YOU SEE THE WISDOM OF THIS? I OWN ALL THE SYSTEMS!

Joe Wilson may have lied. It's possible that he murders hobos. For all I know, Joe Wilson fucks sheep. I wouldn't like that. I'm strongly anti-sheepfucking.

However, none of this in any way relates to the issue Karl Rove burning a CIA operative. That is stupid, unethical, and a breach of national security to boot. They're secret for a reason.

Do you understand this? Do you get why burning an operative is a Bad Thing? Is it really not obvious to you?
 
The point apparently wasn't to exact revenge, but rather to invalidate the impression that Wilson was this expert who was working on behalf of the Vice President (who therefore would have known of Wilson's assertion that there were no sales of Uranium to Iraq, and therefore the "16 words" would have been a deliberate false statement). The point was to say: "Cheney didn't send him to Niger; in fact it was Wilson's wife in the CIA who recommended him, and the information in his report never reached the VP."
 
God, you're pathetic, Mandark.



Anyway, since Wilson is a liberal, it's possible he could've botched his reports to make the Bush Admin. look stoooooooooopid.


More from the Financial Times:

CATAN: Furthermore, the report shows that even Mr Wilson’s trip did not wholly debunk intelligence that Iraq had sought uranium from [Niger], as he suggested. In fact, Mr Wilson reported that Ibrahim Mayaki, the former prime minister of Niger, had told him that he had met an Iraqi delegation in 1999 interested in “expanding commercial relations”.


SCHMIDT: The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame “offered up” Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband “has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.” The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson. the report said.
 
AssMan said:
God, you're pathetic, Mandark.

Anyway, since Wilson is a liberal, it's possible he could've botched his reports to make the Bush Admin. look stoooooooooopid.

More from the Financial Times:

How is he pathetic? What's he's stating is completely correct. Wilson could have done everything he's accused of (none of which is proven true anyway) by the RNC and it wouldn't make a bit of different, nor be relevant, to the issue of Rove's involvement in revealing a covert CIA operative.
 
teiresias said:
How is he pathetic? What's he's stating is completely correct. Wilson could have done everything he's accused of (none of which is proven true anyway) by the RNC and it wouldn't make a bit of different, nor be relevant, to the issue of Rove's involvement in revealing a covert CIA operative.

Dont worry, this is the Bush administration, level heads wont prevail...

It sucks, I know.
 
I think the people who bat this away with the Wilson thing don't understand the gravity of the situation. Sure it'd be easy to say it's just Palme, but fact is by outting her the Bush Admin outted the CIA setup business she was working for, any contacts, sources, agents she was working with, any CIA agents, contacts and sources that had any contact with the business she was at. As a former CIA agent put it on NPR last night, it's hard to think of any possible scenario where her outing didn't have significant detrimental impact on the CIA its agents and sources.
 
AssMan said:
God, you're pathetic, Mandark.



Anyway, since Wilson is a liberal, it's possible he could've botched his reports to make the Bush Admin. look stoooooooooopid.


More from the Financial Times:


Wilson? A liberal? WTF are you smoking freak? The man said he voted for Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. in 2000.

And honestly, you don't need to botch a report to make the Bush admin. and the people who voted for him to look stupid.
 
So, your the head advisor to the president. You have just been caught telling a journalist about an undercover CIA agent, putting many lives in jeopardy and endangering national secruity, because you want to get back at someone who is calling your boss bad names. What do you do?

Say the media told you first.

BRILLIANT!

inside1-guinness.jpg
 
I don't know what your comment has to do with Wilson's political standings, but whatever floats your boat.


If there were no relations with Saddam and Niger, then what the hay. I'd do what I as trained to do. Not lie to botch reports and go to war over false intel and get 1800 of our U.S. troops killed.
 
In an interview on CNN earlier Thursday before the latest revelation, Wilson kept up his criticism of the White House, saying Rove's conduct was an "outrageous abuse of power ... certainly worthy of frog-marching out of the White House."

But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said.
Chief presidential adviser Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he talked with two journalists before they divulged the identity of an undercover CIA officer but that he originally learned about the operative from the news media and not government sources, according to a person briefed on the testimony.

The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy, told The Associated Press that Rove testified last year that he remembers specifically being told by columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, the wife of a harsh Iraq war critic, worked for the CIA.

Rove testified that Novak originally called him the Tuesday before Plame's identity was revealed in July 2003 to discuss another story.

The conversation eventually turned to Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who was strongly criticizing the Bush administration's use of faulty intelligence to justify the war in Iraq, the person said.

Rove testified that Novak told him he planned to report in a weekend column that Plame had worked for the CIA, and the circumstances on how her husband traveled to Africa to check bogus claims that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear materials in Niger, according to the source.

Novak's column, citing two Bush administration officials, appeared six days later, touching off a political firestorm and leading to a federal criminal investigation into who leaked Plame's undercover identity. That probe has ensnared presidential aides and reporters in a two-year legal battle.

Rove told the grand jury that by the time Novak had called him, he believes he had similar information about Wilson's wife from another member of the news media but he could not recall which reporter had told him about it first, the person said.

When Novak inquired about Wilson's wife working for the CIA, Rove indicated he had heard something like that, according to the source's recounting of the grand jury testimony.

Rove told the grand jury that three days later, he had a phone conversation with Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and -- in an effort to discredit some of Wilson's allegations -- informally told Cooper that he believed Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, though he never used her name, the source said.

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/natio...469,print.story?coll=nyc-nationhome-headlines
 
..and in 2000, supported former Vice President Al Gore, whom he also gave $2,000

Wilson donated to the Bush/Cheney campaign in 2000 as well, not to mention he was commended for his work during the Persian Gulf War by George Herbert Walker Bush personally. I wouldn't blame the guy for being partisan now after what what the White House did to him. By compromising his wife's identity as a covert CIA agent, the administration put him and his wife, along with her entire network of contacts from years past, into a life-threatening situation. Das not cool.
 
Uh, Assman, Joe Wilson voted for Bush in 2000, you fucking idiot. Who cares if he donated to Gore? He did the same exact same thing this year, too, in regards to donations to the two parties.
 
Regardless of your politics: does anybody doubt Assman is a joke character made to bait Incognito, and that Incognito falls for it every time?

If that quote from Uter means what I think it means, Karl Rove has just been granted teflon armor for the rest of his political career.

EDIT: Maybe not. He still blew it for any of her contacts and for the cover company.
 
Ignatz Mouse said:
Regardless of your politics: does anybody doubt Assman is a joke character made to bait Incognito, and that Incognito falls for it every time?

If that quote from Uter means what I think it means, Karl Rove has just been granted teflon armor for the rest of his political career.

EDIT: Maybe not. He still blew it for any of her contacts and for the cover company.

No it doesn't. If Rove's defense is that he only confirmed her identity and nothing else, its still the same thing...hell it shows that he was involved with other news personel whom he confirmed that she worked for the CIA.

The intent was there even if the letter of the law wasn't broken.

Edit: Changed before I posted.
 
Whether he is guilty will depend on the state of mind specifically required by the statute. I haven't read the statute so I don't know what it calls for. The Model Penal Code has three categories of intent: purposely, knowingly, and recklessly, all legal terms of art with specific meanings. I haven't seen the statute but it probably calls for one of those kinds of intent.
 
Regardless of your politics: does anybody doubt Assman is a joke character made to bait Incognito, and that Incognito falls for it every time?


:lol :lol I swear that isn't my intention. I'm trying my best here. I actually started to get into politics when it was final that Kerry/Bush would be competing with each other. I'm more of a "history of foreign policy"and think I've done a decent job absobring as much history as I've could in the past year.


But anyway, if Novak told Rove, then who's Novak's source?
 
Incognito said:
Joe Wilson voted for Bush in 2000.
Do you--or anyone--have a source for that? I've been looking around. I know that he was a vocal opponent of the Administration even before the Plamegate stuff (obviously; that opposition led to the NYT Op-Ed that started this whole thing)...

[EDIT: answered my own question: in Wilson's book he says he voted for Gore; also that his social beliefs align with Democrats, while his foreign policy beliefs (before W) aligned with the Republicans]
 
Someone at CNN thinks Karl Rove's defense under oath is "bullshit".

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Lou_Dobbs_Bullshit.wmv

Lou Dobbs Tonight, (7/15/05) as Lou was introducing a piece on the Rove story.

Lou says, "...Rove testifying that he first learned about Plame from columnist Robert Novak, a CNN contributor. Danna Bash reports." Immediately after that you can clearly hear a female voice on mic whispering "that's bullshit". Then Dana Bash continues with her report.

:lol :lol :lol
 
Incognito said:
Last time I listen to Chris Matthews.

Dude, seriously, TV news is fucked. Ignore it and pick up a paper. That's not to say they're perfect, but the vetting is still kinda there, whereas the news networks just run with stories the moment they get 'em.
 
xsarien said:
Dude, seriously, TV news is fucked. Ignore it and pick up a paper. That's not to say they're perfect, but the vetting is still kinda there, whereas the news networks just run with stories the moment they get 'em.

Yeah, I know. But sometimes, you'd think that when a statement is made to defend a person, then it must be because it's grounded in fact.

I mean, he repeated it about three times to discount Joe Wilson's 'partisanship'.
 
Ignatz: No, Assman is not a joke character. At least not an intentional one.

Granted, Assman does have certain tendencies associated with the traditional joke character: A confrontational style, a tendency to disappear after being utterly exposed, and not knowing shit about shit. References here and here.

But unlike Maturin, for example, Assman really cares that he command some sort of respect, which is what pushes his character from mere sock puppetry into the tragic. He wants to show his higher intellectual standards, but is too damn stupid to pull it off. It's like Hercules being assigned the task of forever pushing a boulder up a hill, only to have his liver eaten by a vulture, which then rises from its own ashes.

Of course, I could be wrong in this particular topic. I might be altogether too harsh and dismissive, unable to see the clear logical steps in front of me. So I'm open to posts from Assman explaining:

1) How any hypothetical lies by Joe Wilson are in any way relevant to the discussion of who outed his wife, and whether they should be punished.

2) How his wife's recommendation of him for the job is in any way relevant to the discussion of who outed her, and whether they should be punished.
 
confrontational style, a tendency to disappear after being utterly exposed, and not knowing shit about shit


People keeps bringing shit up about me not responding to someone's questions. For fucks sake, it's because I post in so many damn threads, that when I sign off and come back on later that day or the next, I can't remember which threads I should be looking at replies. Hell, I got BANNED from not being online in the CIA/Kerry thread I made. What's up with that garbage.


P.S/O.T. Doesn't economic, sociopolitical, and military fall under moral decline of the Roman Empire?
 
AssMan said:
So he voted for Gore in 2000? Well, Incog..................:



"APPLESAUCE, BITCH."

You guys are all confused on this. It was George H W Bush whom Wilson voted for. Not his son, the assclown. Clinton even mentioned it in a recent interview how Wilson voted against him in 92.

Even if he did vote for the assclown, do you really expect any self-respecting person to admit it? :P
 
3rdman said:
You guys are all confused on this. It was George H W Bush whom Wilson voted for. Not his son, the assclown. Clinton even mentioned it in a recent interview how Wilson voted against him in 92.

Even if he did vote for the assclown, do you really expect any self-respecting person to admit it? :P

Yeah, the aforementioned idiot Chris Matthews regulary mentions on his show(HARDBALLLL!!!!!11111) that he voted for W "at least once". Now, when you look at his coverage of election 2000 and election 2004, then it's pretty easy to zero in on who he voted for each year.

2000 = Bush

2004 = Kerry

I can't even think of ONE prominent newsanchor who let's that sort of personal information out. FFS, he gets all riled up whenever someone quips that the media treats Bush II unfairly, and potrays him in a "stupid, negative" manner. Matthews, on cue, drops the subject at hand and begins his defense of Ill Dunce.

It's hilarious. It's why I watch.
 
Guileless said:
Whether he is guilty will depend on the state of mind specifically required by the statute. I haven't read the statute so I don't know what it calls for. The Model Penal Code has three categories of intent: purposely, knowingly, and recklessly, all legal terms of art with specific meanings. I haven't seen the statute but it probably calls for one of those kinds of intent.


you ask and you shall receive. now take off that manning avatar, he sucks.




Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421 et seq.)
(governing disclosures that could expose confidential Government agents)
----------

From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 6, 1997]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 6, 1997 and November 30, 1998]
[CITE: 50USC421]

TITLE 50--WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

CHAPTER 15--NATIONAL SECURITY

SUBCHAPTER IV--PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
Sec. 421. Protection of identities of certain United States
undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and
sources
(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to
classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any
information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
not more than $50,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert
agents as result of having access to classified information
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified
information, learns the identify of a covert agent and intentionally
discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any
individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing
that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that
the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined
not more than $25,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of
activities intended to identify and expose covert agents
Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to
identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such
activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of
the United States, discloses any information that identifies an
individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive
classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so
identifies such individual and that the United States is taking
affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified
intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more
than $15,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title VI, Sec. 601, as added June 23, 1982,
Pub. L. 97-200, Sec. 2(a), 96 Stat. 122.)


Short Title
For short title of this subchapter as the ``Intelligence Identities
Protection Act of 1982'', see section 1 of Pub. L. 97-200, set out as a
Short Title of 1982 Amendment note under section 401 of this title.
Section Referred to in Other Sections
This section is referred to in sections 422, 424 of this title;
title 5 section 8312; title 8 section 1101; title 18 section 3239; title
22 section 2778.

----------
From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 6, 1997]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 6, 1997 and November 30, 1998]
[CITE: 50USC422]

TITLE 50--WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

CHAPTER 15--NATIONAL SECURITY

SUBCHAPTER IV--PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
Sec. 422. Defenses and exceptions

(a) Disclosure by United States of identity of covert agent
It is a defense to a prosecution under section 421 of this title
that before the commission of the offense with which the defendant is
charged, the United States had publicly acknowledged or revealed the
intelligence relationship to the United States of the individual the
disclosure of whose intelligence relationship to the United States is
the basis for the prosecution.
(b) Conspiracy, misprision of felony, aiding and abetting, etc.
(1) Subject to paragraph (2), no person other than a person
committing an offense under section 421 of this title shall be subject
to prosecution under such section by virtue of section 2 or 4 of title
18 or shall be subject to prosecution for conspiracy to commit an
offense under such section.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply (A) in the case of a person who
acted in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and
expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities
would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United
States, or (B) in the case of a person who has authorized access to
classified information.
(c) Disclosure to select Congressional committees on intelligence
It shall not be an offense under section 421 of this title to
transmit information described in such section directly to the Select
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate or to the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.
(d) Disclosure by agent of own identity
It shall not be an offense under section 421 of this title for an
individual to disclose information that solely identifies himself as a
covert agent.
(July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title VI, Sec. 602, as added June 23, 1982,
Pub. L. 97-200, Sec. 2(a), 96 Stat. 122.)
----------
From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 6, 1997]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 6, 1997 and November 30, 1998]
[CITE: 50USC424]

TITLE 50--WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

CHAPTER 15--NATIONAL SECURITY

SUBCHAPTER IV--PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

Sec. 424. Extraterritorial jurisdiction
There is jurisdiction over an offense under section 421 of this
title committed outside the United States if the individual committing
the offense is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully
admitted to the United States for permanent residence (as defined in
section 1101(a)(20) of title 8).
(July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title VI, Sec. 604, as added June 23, 1982,
Pub. L. 97-200, Sec. 2(a), 96 Stat. 123.)
----------
From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 6, 1997]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 6, 1997 and May 14, 1998]
[CITE: 5USC8312]

TITLE 5--GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND EMPLOYEES

PART III--EMPLOYEES

Subpart G--Insurance and Annuities

CHAPTER 83--RETIREMENT

SUBCHAPTER II--FORFEITURE OF ANNUITIES AND RETIRED PAY

Sec. 8312. Conviction of certain offenses
(a) An individual, or his survivor or beneficiary, may not be paid
annuity or retired pay on the basis of the service of the individual
which is creditable toward the annuity or retired pay, subject to the
exceptions in section 8311(2) and (3) of this title, if the individual--
(1) was convicted, before, on, or after September 1, 1954, of an
offense named by subsection (b) of this section, to the extent
provided by that subsection; or
(2) was convicted, before, on, or after September 26, 1961, of
an offense named by subsection (c) of this section, to the extent
provided by that subsection.
The prohibition on payment of annuity or retired pay applies--
(A) with respect to the offenses named by subsection (b) of this
section, to the period after the date of the conviction or after
September 1, 1954, whichever is later; and
(B) with respect to the offenses named by subsection (c) of this
section, to the period after the date of conviction or after
September 26, 1961, whichever is later.
(b) The following are the offenses to which subsection (a) of this
section applies if the individual was convicted before, on, or after
September 1, 1954:
(1) An offense within the purview of--
(A) section 792 (harboring or concealing persons), 793
(gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information), 794
(gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign
government), or 798 (disclosure of classified information), of
chapter 37 (relating to espionage and censorship) of title 18;
(B) chapter 105 (relating to sabotage) of title 18;
(C) section 2381 (treason), 2382 (misprision of treason),
2383 (rebellion or insurrection), 2384 (seditious conspiracy),
2385 (advocating overthrow of government), 2387 (activities
affecting armed forces generally), 2388 (activities affecting
armed forces during war), 2389 (recruiting for service against
United States), or 2390 (enlistment to serve against United
States), of chapter 115 (relating to treason, sedition, and
subversive activities) of title 18;
(D) section 10(b)(2), (3), or (4) of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1946 (60 Stat. 766, 767), as in effect August 30, 1954;
(E) section 16(a) or (b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946
(60 Stat. 773), as in effect before August 30, 1954, insofar as
the offense is committed with intent to injure the United States
or with intent to secure an advantage to a foreign nation; or
(F) an earlier statute on which a statute named by
subparagraph (A), (B), or (C) of this paragraph (1) is based.
(2) An offense within the purview of--
(A) article 104 (aiding the enemy), article 106 (spies), or
article 106a (espionage) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(chapter 47 of title 10) or an earlier article on which article
104 or article 106, as the case may be, is based; or
(B) a current article of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice (or an earlier article on which the current article is
based) not named by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph (2) on
the basis of charges and specifications describing a violation
of a statute named by paragraph (1), (3), or (4) of this
subsection, if the executed sentence includes death,
dishonorable discharge, or dismissal from the service, or if the
defendant dies before execution of that sentence as finally
approved.
(3) Perjury committed under the statutes of the United States or
the District of Columbia--
(A) in falsely denying the commission of an act which
constitutes an offense within the purview of--
(i) a statute named by paragraph (1) of this subsection;
or
(ii) an article or statute named by paragraph (2) of
this subsection insofar as the offense is within the purview
of an article or statute named by paragraph (1) or (2) (A)
of this subsection;
(B) in falsely testifying before a Federal grand jury, court
of the United States, or court-martial with respect to his
service as an employee in connection with a matter involving or
relating to an interference with or endangerment of, or
involving or relating to a plan or attempt to interfere with or
endanger, the national security or defense of the United States;
or
(C) in falsely testifying before a congressional committee
in connection with a matter under inquiry before the
congressional committee involving or relating to an interference
with or endangerment of, or involving or relating to a plan or
attempt to interfere with or endanger, the national security or
defense of the United States.
(4) Subornation of perjury committed in connection with the
false denial or false testimony of another individual as specified
by paragraph (3) of this subsection.
(c) The following are the offenses to which subsection (a) of this
section applies if the individual was convicted before, on, or after
September 26, 1961:
(1) An offense within the purview of--
(A) section 2272 (violation of specific sections) or 2273
(violation of sections generally of chapter 23 of title 42) of
title 42 insofar as the offense is committed with intent to
injure the United States or with intent to secure an advantage
to a foreign nation;
(B) section 2274 (communication of restricted data), 2275
(receipt of restricted data), or 2276 (tampering with restricted
data) of title 42; or
(C) section 783 (conspiracy and communication or receipt of
classified information) of title 50 or section 601 of the
National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 421) (relating to
intelligence identities).
(2) An offense within the purview of a current article of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (chapter 47 of title 10) or an
earlier article on which the current article is based, as the case
may be, on the basis of charges and specifications describing a
violation of a statute named by paragraph (1), (3), or (4) of this
subsection, if the executed sentence includes death, dishonorable
discharge, or dismissal from the service, or if the defendant dies
before execution of that sentence as finally approved.
(3) Perjury committed under the statutes of the United States or
the District of Columbia in falsely denying the commission of an act
which constitutes an offense within the purview of a statute named
by paragraph (1) of this subsection.
(4) Subornation of perjury committed in connection with the
false denial of another individual as specified by paragraph (3) of
this subsection.
(d)(1) For purposes of subsections (b)(1) and (c)(1), an offense
within the meaning of such subsections is established if the Attorney
General of the United States certifies to the agency administering the
annuity or retired pay concerned--
(A) that an individual subject to this chapter has been
convicted by an impartial court of appropriate jurisdiction within a
foreign country in circumstances in which the conduct violates the
provisions of law enumerated in subsections (b)(1) and (c)(1), or
would violate such provisions had such conduct taken place within
the United States, and that such conviction is not being appealed or
that final action has been taken on such appeal;
(B) that such conviction was obtained in accordance with
procedures that provided the defendant due process rights comparable
to such rights provided by the United States Constitution, and such
conviction was based upon evidence which would have been admissible
in the courts of the United States; and
(C) that such conviction occurred after the date of enactment of
this subsection.
(2) Any certification made pursuant to this subsection shall be
subject to review by the United States Court of Claims based upon the
application of the individual concerned, or his or her attorney,
alleging that any of the conditions set forth in subparagraphs \1\ (A),
(B), or (C) of paragraph (1), as certified by the Attorney General, have
not been satisfied in his or her particular circumstances. Should the
court determine that any of these conditions has not been satisfied in
such case, the court shall order any annuity or retirement benefit to
which the person concerned is entitled to be restored and shall order
that any payments which may have been previously denied or withheld to
be paid by the department or agency concerned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ So in original. Probably should be ``subparagraph''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Pub. L. 89-554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 559; Pub. L. 92-128, Sec. 2(b),
Sept. 25, 1971, 85 Stat. 348; Pub. L. 99-569, title VI, Sec. 603, Oct.
27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3204; Pub. L. 103-337, div. A, title VI,
Sec. 639(a), Oct. 5, 1994, 108 Stat. 2791; Pub. L. 103-359, title VIII,
Sec. 805, Oct. 14, 1994, 108 Stat. 3441.)
Historical and Revision Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised Statutes and
Derivation U.S. Code Statutes at Large
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 U.S.C. 2282. Sept. 26, 1961, Pub.
L. 87-299, Sec. 1
``Sec. 1'', 75 Stat.
640.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable
and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
References in Text
Pars. (2), (3) and (4) of subsec. (b) of section 10 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 766, 767), as in effect before August 30,
1954, referred to in subsec. (b)(1)(D), are covered by sections 2274,
2275 and 2276, respectively, of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare.
Subsecs. (a) and (b) of section 16 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946
(60 Stat. 773), as in effect before August 30, 1954, referred to in
subsec. (b)(1)(E), are covered by sections 2272 and 2273, respectively,
of Title 42.
Articles 104, 106, and 106a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice,
referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), are sections 904, 906, and 906a,
respectively, of Title 10, Armed Forces. The Uniform Code of Military
Justice, in its entirety, is set out in section 801 et seq. of Title 10.
The date of enactment of this subsection, referred to in subsec.
(d)(1)(C), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103-359, which was
approved Oct. 14, 1994.
Amendments
1994--Subsec. (b)(2)(A). Pub. L. 103-337 substituted ``, article 106
(spies), or article 106a (espionage)'' for ``or article 106 (spies)''.
Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 103-359 added subsec. (d).
1986--Subsec. (c)(1)(C). Pub. L. 99-569 inserted provisions relating
to section 601 of the National Security Act of 1947.
1971--Subsec. (c)(1)(C). Pub. L. 92-128 struck out ``, 822
(conspiracy or evasion of apprehension during internal security
emergency), or 823 (aiding evasion or apprehension during internal
security emergency)'' after ``classified information)''.
Effective Date of 1994 Amendment
Section 639(b) of Pub. L. 103-337 provided that: ``The amendment
made by subsection (a) [amending this section] shall take effect on the
date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 5, 1994] and shall apply to
persons convicted of espionage under section 906a of title 10, United
States Code (article 106a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), on
or after the date of the enactment of this Act.''
Section Referred to in Other Sections
This section is referred to in sections 5569, 8311, 8313, 8315,
8316, 8318, 8320 of this title; title 37 section 559.
----------
From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[CITE: 8USC1101]

TITLE 8--ALIENS AND NATIONALITY

CHAPTER 12--IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY

SUBCHAPTER I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 1101. Definitions
[Excerpt]
(43) The term ``aggravated felony'' means--
[Snip]
(L) an offense described in--
(i) section 793 (relating to gathering or transmitting
national defense information), 798 (relating to disclosure of
classified information), 2153 (relating to sabotage) or 2381 or
2382 (relating to treason) of title 18;
(ii) section 421 of title 50 (relating to protecting the
identity of undercover intelligence agents); or
(iii) section 421 of title 50 (relating to protecting the
identity of undercover agents);
[End excerpt]
----------
From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 6, 1997]
[Document not affected by Public Laws enacted between
January 6, 1997 and May 14, 1998]
[CITE: 18USC3239]

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART II--CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 211--JURISDICTION AND VENUE

Sec. 3239. Optional venue for espionage and related offenses
The trial for any offense involving a violation, begun or committed
upon the high seas or elsewhere out of the jurisdiction of any
particular State or district, of--
(1) section 793, 794, 798, or section 1030(a)(1) of this title;
(2) section 601 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.
421); or
(3) section 4(b) or 4(c) of the Subversive Activities Control
Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. 783(b) or (c));
may be in the District of Columbia or in any other district authorized
by law.
(Added Pub. L. 103-322, title XXXII, Sec. 320909(a), Sept. 13, 1994, 108
Stat. 2127.)
Prior Provisions
A prior section 3239, act June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 827,
related to threatening communications, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 98-
473, title II, Sec. 1204(b), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2152.
----------
From the U.S. Code Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[Laws in effect as of January 27, 1998]
[Document affected by Public Law 105-261 Section 1511-1516]
[CITE: 22USC2778]

TITLE 22--FOREIGN RELATIONS AND INTERCOURSE

CHAPTER 39--ARMS EXPORT CONTROL

SUBCHAPTER III--MILITARY EXPORT CONTROLS

Sec. 2778. Control of arms exports and imports
[Excerpt]
(g) Identification of persons convicted or subject to indictment for
violations of certain provisions
(1) The President shall develop appropriate mechanisms to identify,
in connection with the export licensing process under this section--
(A) persons who are the subject of an indictment for, or have
been convicted of, a violation under--
(i) this section,
(ii) section 11 of the Export Administration Act of 1979 (50
U.S.C. App. 2410),
(iii) section 793, 794, or 798 of title 18 (relating to
espionage involving defense or classified information),
(iv) section 16 of the Trading with the Enemy Act (50 U.S.C.
App. 16),
(v) section 206 of the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act (relating to foreign assets controls; 50 U.S.C. App.
1705) [50 U.S.C. 1705],
(vi) section 30A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
U.S.C. 78dd-1) or section 104 of the Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act (15 U.S.C. 78dd-2),
(vii) chapter 105 of title 18 (relating to sabotage),
(viii) section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950
(relating to communication of classified information; 50 U.S.C.
783(b)),
(ix) section 57, 92, 101, 104, 222, 224, 225, or 226 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2077, 2122, 2131, 2134,
2272, 2274, 2275, and 2276),
(x) section 601 of the National Security Act of 1947
(relating to intelligence identities protection; 50 U.S.C. 421),
or
[End excerpt]





from what i gather, rove didnt neccesarily break the law but what he did is still very, very, very wrong. and he'll get a slap on the wrist at most. fucking bastard. unless someone wants to take a crack at it and decipher what this statute means?
 
and if anyone cares to read the original june 6th, 2003 article by joe wilson.


Published on Sunday, July 6, 2003 by the New York Times
What I Didn't Find in Africa
by Joseph C. Wilson 4th

Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.

It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.

In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.

The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.

(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)

Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.

Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.

I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.

Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.

Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.

I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program — all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.

But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.

Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, is an international business consultant.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
 
Looks like under subsection c the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) he intended to expose her, 2) he disclosed the info to an unauthorized person knowing it would expose her, and 3) he knew the government was taking affirmative actions to keep her identity secret. That's a lot of intent the government will have to prove. He will argue that he had no access to confidential info but only commented on something Cooper already knew without specifically identifying her with classified info he was privy to by virtue of his job.

Without reading any case law based on this statute I would assume there's enough to indict him but who knows what a jury would do. Would depend on the credibility of the witnesses based on what was specifically said and how much Cooper already knew when he talked to Rove.

Also Eli doesn't suck he's awesome.
0821-eli.jpg

A young Eli signing for the kids in the Grove. What an outstanding citizen.
 
Guileless said:
Looks like under subsection c the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that 1) he intended to expose her, 2) he disclosed the info to an unauthorized person knowing it would expose her, and 3) he knew the government was taking affirmative actions to keep her identity secret. That's a lot of intent the government will have to prove. He will argue that he had no access to confidential info but only commented on something Cooper already knew without specifically identifying her with classified info he was privy to by virtue of his job.

Without reading any case law based on this statute I would assume there's enough to indict him but who knows what a jury would do. Would depend on the credibility of the witnesses based on what was specifically said and how much Cooper already knew when he talked to Rove.

Also Eli doesn't suck he's awesome.
0821-eli.jpg

A young Eli signing for the kids in the Grove. What an outstanding citizen.


i would tend to agree with that. still, he's a scumbag.(rove, not manning) are we at an age were we cant disagree however strongly, with policy? i dont want a "father knows best" type govt were i cant question and bring my own evidence to the contrary.

p.s: but you forget to mention that after that photo was taken manning was tackled by the child for a twenty yard loss. :lol ;) i've sen teh charity work he does and it is nice.
 
(c) Disclosure to select Congr(c) Disclosure to select Congressional committees (c) Disclosure to select Congressional committees on intelligence
It shall not be an offense under section 421 of this title to
transmit information described in such section directly to the Select
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate or to the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.


Was it Harry Reid or Bill Frist that proposed a new amendment to actually not allow very sensative intel. being talked about in the senate or house openly?
 
AssMan said:
Was it Harry Reid or Bill Frist that proposed a new amendment to actually not allow very sensative intel. being talked about in the senate or house openly?

another embarrassing move by bill frist. shortly after he introduced the bill in which a number of republicans voted aye, a few clear thinking repugs had the revelation that if the bill were passed, many prominent republican senators and congressman would lose their security clearances. one being orrin hatch.

thus, the no votes came en masse. :lol
 
matt cooper on meet the press:

I told the grand jurors that I was curious about Wilson when I called Karl Rove on Friday, July 11...... But then, I recall, she said something like, "Hang on," and I was transferred to him. I recall saying something like, "I'm writing about Wilson," before he interjected. "Don't get too far out on Wilson," he told me. I started taking notes on my computer, and while an e-mail I sent moments after the call has been leaked, my notes have not been [...]

As for Wilson's wife, I told the grand jury I was certain that Rove never used her name and that, indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week, when I either saw it in Robert Novak's column or Googled her, I can't recall which. Rove did, however, clearly indicate that she worked at the "agency"--by that, I told the grand jury, I inferred that he obviously meant the CIA and not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency. Rove added that she worked on "WMD" (the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction) issues and that she was responsible for sending Wilson. This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife.

Rove never once indicated to me that she had any kind of covert status. I told the grand jury something else about my conversation with Rove. Although it's not reflected in my notes or subsequent e-mails, I have a distinct memory of Rove ending the call by saying, "I've already said too much."
This could have meant he was worried about being indiscreet, or it could have meant he was late for a meeting or something else. I don't know, but that sign-off has been in my memory for two years.

A surprising line of questioning had to do with, of all things, welfare reform. The prosecutor asked if I had ever called Mr. Rove about the topic of welfare reform. Just the day before my grand jury testimony Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, had told journalists that when I telephoned Rove that July, it was about welfare reform and that I suddenly switched topics to the Wilson matter. After my grand jury appearance, I did go back and review my e-mails from that week, and it seems as if I was, at the beginning of the week, hoping to publish an article in TIME on lessons of the 1996 welfare-reform law, but the article got put aside, as often happens when news overtakes story plans. My welfare-reform story ran as a short item two months later, and I was asked about it extensively. To me this suggested that Rove may have testified that we had talked about welfare reform, and indeed earlier in the week, I may have left a message with his office asking if I could talk to him about welfare reform. But I can't find any record of talking about it with him on July 11, and I don't recall doing so.

ooh, perjury enters the picture now...
 
cooper on meeting bush for the first time:

It was my first interview with the President, and I expected a simple "Hello" when I walked into the Oval Office last December. Instead, George W. Bush joked, "Cooper! I thought you'd be in jail by now." The leader of the free world, it seems, had been following my fight against a federal subpoena seeking my testimony in the case of the leaking of the name of a CIA officer. I thought it was funny and good-natured of the President, but the line reminded me that I was, very weirdly, in the Oval Office...
 
Russert needs to keep Ken Mehlman off his show for a few weeks. He's on there every week touting the party line, as he's supposed to, and while I have no qualms with getting that [twisted] perspective, he doesn't need to be on there every week reinforcing a bunch of talking points. That said, I do appareciate Russert trying to hammer a pledge to stay by the special prosecutor's actions after Mehlman walked into the bear trap.

Regardless, it seems that Matt Cooper himself is certainly releveling the bullseye at Rove, so with any luck, if Rove did indeed leak the info as many suspect, he gets what he's had coming to him for decades.
 
Yep, this latest revelation points the finger more at Rove rather than less. It's going to get harder and harder for Republicans to spin this the way things are going.
 
“Was It Through My Conversation With Rove That I Learned That Wilson's Wife Worked At The CIA? Yes.”

I wonder if the president will stick to his word and fire the leaker? There should be an over/under on that.

:lol
 
Incognito said:
I wonder if the president will stick to his word and fire the leaker? There should be an over/under on that.
I doubt the outcome of this investigation is going to be so clean it will necessitate such a move (if you're talking about Rove, I guess). My prediction is, it's going to be another instance of both parties claiming victory but with no real consequences for anyone. Except for Miller of course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom