
Journal pudge's Journal: Rove Is A Bad Bad Man 17
Many people are ready to string up Karl Rove and send him to prison. For what, exactly?
Let's take a quick look at the facts as we know them:
It is a crime to knowingly reveal the identity of a covert agent.
Karl Rove essentially identified Valerie Plame to Matt Cooper, according to email dated July 11. He did not identify her as covert, and we do not know he knew she was covert, if indeed she was covert (we will assume for the sake of argument that she was).
Matt Cooper wrote his story on July 13. Bob Novak published his infamous story on July 14.
Rove said in public he did not say identify Plame until after Novak published his story.
I am not omitting or misrepresenting any salient fact to the question of criminal wrongdoing, that I am aware of.
Neither of the two parts of the crime are satisfied thus far. We don't know he knew she was covert. But more importantly at this stage, we don't know if he even revealed her identity. Yes, Novak published three days later, but maybe Novak contacted the WH for confirmation, and got to Rove, and at that point Rove reasonably considered her to be already revealed. You can't reveal what is already revealed.
And quite possible, the only reason Rove even knew about Plame *at all* is because Novak told him. You can't convict someone for releasing information he got from a reporter, that he has no reason to suspect is secret.
The important facts here would be to find out when Novak knew, and whether he contacted the White House for confirmation, and who caught wind of it there, and when.
[Update: Apparently Cooper wrote his story the day before Novak's was published, but Cooper's story mentions Novak's story specifically. Did Cooper know Novak knew before Novak's story was published, or was that added to the story later? If he did know, how did he know?]
That Rove said he didn't say her name until after Novak's publication is mostly irrelevant, even if he was lying and not merely mistaken: he wasn't under oath, and the legal distinction between before and after is slight, if it exists at all, as long as Novak already had, and disclosed to the White House, the information.
That said, if events did play out like this, Rove will likely have to resign anyway, despite not violating any laws, even if he had no idea she was covert, because it just looks bad to people who either just hate Rove and assume (or pretend to assume) the worst, or who don't understand the important nuances of the actual facts.
It could very well be that Rove was entirely in the wrong here and did violate the law. I suspect we will find out soon enough. I'm just saying there are several plausible explanations, some that completely exonerate him and some that completely condemn him, and I have little respect for those opinions offered from the Island of Conclusions.
well OK (Score:2)
Two things (Score:2)
1. It is my understanding that the e-mail on the 11th DID NOT NAME Ms. Plaime. It is my understanding that it essentially said "No, Cheney didn't sent Wilson to Africa, that was OK'ed by 'someone else.'" Hopefully, once it is introduced into evidence, it will get published in the media, so we can know once and for all what was said.
2. It is my understanding Plaime was not "covert" in any meaningful sense. She was an analyst - a
Re:Two things (Score:2)
Rove did not name her, but he did say it was Wilson's wife, according to Cooper's notes. That is enough to establish he identified Plame, because it is no state secret who Wilson is married to, and is easily determinable.
2. It is my understanding Plaime was not "covert" in any meaningful sense.
I am wi
Re:Two things (Score:2)
2. No, it does NOT change the legal issue. I said not "covert" in any meaningful sense (and went on to describe what I meant by same). Whether she was covert in a meaningful sense as used by the man on the street has NOTHING to do with whether she was "covert" (notice the quotes used throughout) in a LEGAL sense.
Re:Two things (Score:2)
We've seen quotes from the e-mail, though the entire email is not public. We do know what it said, unless someone is lying about it. However, it could also be the case that Cooper is misrepresenting what Rove said in his email, but then, how did Cooper know it was the wife, if Rove didn't tell him, and why would Cooper say in his email that Rove did say it?
So to sum up: we have direct
Re:Two things (Score:2)
Or mistaken. Or confused. Again, I'll wait for the actual e-mail Rove sent (as well as the full text of one you reference above - which I haven't heard mentioned before - Like I said, I quit actively paying attention months ago). Other than that, it's just speculation. Did he write "Rove" when he was actually thinking "source who is close to Rove"?
I find it far more unlikely that (Darth :->) Rove would be stupid enough to out a CIA employee
Re:Two things (Score:2)
Naw, it's pretty clear. [msn.com]
"Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation
Re:Two things (Score:2)
Except that Cooper was cleared "unambiguously" by his source (Rove) to reveal the name to the Grand Jury. As bad (or not) as this is, the White House (or just Rove) didn't want to be seen as forcing a man to
Re:Two things (Score:2)
So... the quote isn't a lie; whether it portends bigger messier things has yet to be seen.
Just because Rove cleared Cooper to talk doesn't mean he said exactly what Cooper says he
Re:Two things (Score:2)
Re:Two things (Score:1)
Oh and you're right about the legal issues involved.
Sounds about right. (Score:2)
Personally, if I were GWB, I'd be tempted to let Rove go, purely on grounds that Rove likes to play a little too close to the edge. If it turns out that Plame wasn't nearly as covert as anti-Bushites make her out to be (as evidence may now suggest), I would naturally be much less tempted - but in either case, my reasons for my actions would need to be made clear, and complete.
One question I can't find the answer to: when, and how, and by whom, was it made publ
Square 1. (Score:2)
But what was the article really about? Maybe just a link to the article in question would help me understand. or post it!
How come (Score:1)
We know the Torch got people killed.
Re:How come (Score:2)
That said, I don't think "they did it too" is a good argument in favor of Rove. It might work for some things, like filibusters or adultery, but it is not such a good argument for national security, unless, of course, someone is saying those guys *didn't* leak, when they did something just as bad, and are at the same time attacking Rove; then you can at least attack their hypocrisy. But I am not interested in hypocrisy, I am interested in fi
There's always a way out. (Score:2)
Clinton knowingly lied under oath and was impeached, but kept his job. Shouldn't we merely treat Rove the same way?
-Adam
Re:There's always a way out. (Score:1)
It's called perspective.