Just a question..... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

pan6467 · 10-20-2005, 05:18 AM

as the news and rumors fly, I have a question.

Now granted it's all rumors and we know the White House would not burn anyone to save someone else.

However, IF the rumors of Cheney resigning have some merit to them (maybe a little spark), could it be that W chose Rove over him?

See, it seems to me, Rove is trying to fry and send Libby up the river to save his own ass. And if that is the case could that mean Cheney blew a gasket knowing Rove is selling his (Cheney's) closest advisor out?

It seems to me, maybe old W is totally out of it and has no idea what Rove is doing and trusts him far too much.

Personally, I see Rove and Libby selling each other out and both going down and Cheney resigning.

Highlights added by me.

Quote:

Rove, Libby Discussed CIA Operative By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer
Thu Oct 20, 3:31 AM ET

Prosecutors have gathered evidence that top White House aides Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby exchanged information about their contacts with reporters regarding Valerie Plame in the days just before the CIA officer's cover was blown.

Rove told grand jurors it was even possible he first learned inside the White House from Libby that Bush administration critic Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, according to people directly familiar with the testimony of President Bush's closest political adviser.

The disclosure is the first known intersection between two central figures in the criminal investigation into the leak of Plame's identity.

Rove testified that his discussions with Libby before Plame's identity was made public were limited to information reporters had passed them, the people said. Some evidence prosecutors have gathered conflicts with Libby's account of dealings with reporters.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald must determine whether the contacts were part of a concerted effort to illegally divulge Plame's CIA identity and undercut her husband's public criticism of the Iraq war or simply the trading of news and rumors that typically occurs inside the White House.

The prosecutor also is examining whether any witnesses gave false testimony or withheld information from the investigation. His spokesman, Randall Samborn, declined comment Wednesday.

The Rove-Libby contacts were confirmed to The Associated Press by people directly familiar with testimony the two witnesses gave or were shown before the grand jury. All spoke solely on condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of the proceedings.

Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, did not return repeated phone calls this week seeking comment.

Rove and Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, have emerged as central figures in Fitzgerald's investigation because both had contacts with reporters who ultimately disclosed Plame's work for the CIA.

Federal law prohibits government officials from knowingly disclosing the identity of intelligence operatives.

Those familiar with the testimony and evidence said that during one of his grand jury appearances, Rove was shown testimony from Libby suggesting the two had discussed with each other information they had gotten about Wilson's wife from reporters in early July 2003.

Rove responded that Libby's testimony was consistent with his general recollection that he first had learned that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA from reporters or government officials who had talked with reporters.

Rove testified that he never intended any of his comments to reporters about Wilson's wife to serve as confirmation of Plame's identity.

On July 9, 2003, columnist Robert Novak told Rove he was writing a column that would report that Plame worked for the CIA, and Rove told the columnist he had heard similar information, according to his testimony.

Novak published a column the next week that said Plame worked for the CIA and had suggested that her agency send Wilson, a former ambassador, on a mission that raised questions about prewar intelligence the Bush administration used to justify invading Iraq.

Rove testified he told Libby about his contact with Novak about two days after it occurred.

In testimony shown to Rove, Libby stated Rove had told him about his contact with Novak and said he had told Rove about information he had gotten about Wilson's wife from NBC newsman Tim Russert, according to a person directly familiar with the information shown to Rove.

Prosecutors, however, have a different account from Russert. The network has said Russert told authorities he did not know about Wilson's wife's identity until it was published and therefore could not have told Libby about it.

Prosecutors also have evidence that Libby initiated the call with Russert and had initiated similar contact with another reporter, Judith Miller of The New York Times, several weeks earlier.

Rove was pressed by prosecutors on several matters, including why he failed to mention during the first of his four grand jury appearances that he also has discussed the Plame matter with a second reporter, Matt Cooper of Time magazine.

Rove testified during the first appearance about his contacts with Novak in the days before the columnist wrote about Plame. When asked generally if he had conversations with other reporters in that session, he answered no.

Rove and his lawyer subsequently discovered an e-mail Rove had sent top national security aide Stephen Hadley referencing a brief phone interview he had with Cooper.

The e-mail jogged Rove's memory and during a subsequent grand jury appearance, he volunteered his recollections about his conversation with Cooper, and his lawyer provided the e-mail to prosecutors. Cooper also wrote a story about Plame.

LINK: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051020/..._investigation

Quote:

White House Watch: Cheney resignation rumors fly

Charlie Archambault for USN&WR

Posted 10/18/05
By Paul Bedard

Sparked by today's Washington Post story that suggests Vice President Cheney's office is involved in the Plame-CIA spy link investigation, government officials and advisers passed around rumors that the vice president might step aside and that President Bush would elevate Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

"It's certainly an interesting but I still think highly doubtful scenario," said a Bush insider. "And if that should happen," added the official, "there will undoubtedly be those who believe the whole thing was orchestrated – another brilliant Machiavellian move by the VP."

Said another Bush associate of the rumor, "Yes. This is not good." The rumor spread so fast that some Republicans by late morning were already drawing up reasons why Rice couldn't get the job or run for president in 2008.

"Isn't she pro-choice?" asked a key Senate Republican aide. Many White House insiders, however, said the Post story and reports that the investigation was coming to a close had officials instead more focused on who would be dragged into the affair and if top aides would be indicted and forced to resign.

"Folks on the inside and near inside are holding their breath and wondering what's next," said a Bush adviser. But, he added, they aren't focused on the future of the vice president. "Not that, at least not seriously," he said.

LINK: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/ar.../18whwatch.htm

I don't think this is in any way Cheney's work and certainly not a "another brilliant Machiavellian move by the VP".

From what I have seen Cheney, resignation for him would not be his style, and he has nothing to gain.

So who would?

Rice? Yes, to some degree moving up to VP but in the long run (2008) she'd be looked upon as Ford was in '76 and I seriously doubt would even win the nomination.

Bush? No, he's losing everyone, and his poll numbers keep falling ANY scandal right now is more damaging no matter how well orchestrated.

j8ear · 10-20-2005, 09:26 AM

It's really tough to commit or even subscribe to any of the rumor possibilties, mostly because outting Plame isn't even definately a crime. I think any indictments will be of the consiracy or obstruction variety. IMHO, bogus, bullshit, reaching, and rediculous laws to begin with. Eitherway, they ~do~ still exist.

We'll see.

An idictment doesn't mean a crime was committed, it means a prosecutor was able to convince a grand jury that probable cause existed to conduct a trial.

Never forget that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich is it was so desired. I have no doubt that months of grand jurying ~will~ result in some kind of indictment. What is anyone's guess. So far a lot of plausible rumors have surfaced, but as usual, only time will actually tell.

Regardless, Bush has claimed that indictment will require a resignation...or did he? I think his most recent modifier is that if a crime was committed, that person would no longer work in his adminstration.

What was your question again

?

-bear

Rekna · 10-20-2005, 09:34 AM

under what grounds is outing an undercover CIA agent not a crime?

j8ear · 10-20-2005, 09:42 AM

UNDERCOVER being the operative word. I believe that KNOWINGLY, is also stipulated in the law, as is a certain time frame in which the 'undercover' status was exercised.

-b-

Lebell · 10-20-2005, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

under what grounds is outing an undercover CIA agent not a crime?

I ran into this today on Fark.

It was written by the two individuals who actually drafted the legistlation that made outting CIA agents a crime.

According to them, they don't think this qualifies.

http://209.35.180.29/misc/plame.html

Quote:

washingtonpost.com
The Plame Game: Was This a Crime?
By Victoria Toensing and Bruce W. Sanford

Wednesday, January 12, 2005; Page A21

Why have so many people rushed to assume that a crime was committed when someone "in the administration" gave columnist Robert D. Novak the name of CIA "operative" Valerie Plame? Novak published her name while suggesting that nepotism might have lurked behind the CIA assignment of her husband, Joseph Wilson, to a job for which he was credentially challenged: The agency sent him to Niger to determine whether Iraq was interested in acquiring uranium from that country, although he was an expert neither on nuclear weapons nor on Niger.

Journalists are being threatened with jail for not testifying who gave them information about Plame -- even journalists who did not write about Plame but only talked with sources about her. Ironically, the special prosecutor has pursued this case with characteristic zeal after major publications editorialized that a full investigation and prosecution of the government source was necessary. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution even claimed that the allegations came "perilously close to treason."

It's time for a timeout on a misguided and mechanical investigation in which there is serious doubt that a crime was even committed. Federal courts have stated that a reporter should not be subpoenaed when the testimony sought is remote from criminal conduct or when there is no compelling "government interest," i.e., no crime. As two people who drafted and negotiated the scope of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, we can tell you: The Novak column and the surrounding facts do not support evidence of criminal conduct.

When the act was passed, Congress had no intention of prosecuting a reporter who wanted to expose wrongdoing and, in the process, once or twice published the name of a covert agent. Novak is safe from indictment. But Congress also did not intend for government employees to be vulnerable to prosecution for an unintentional or careless spilling of the beans about an undercover identity. A dauntingly high standard was therefore required for the prosecutor to charge the leaker.

At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as "covert."

The law also requires that the disclosure be made intentionally, with the knowledge that the government is taking "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the United States. Merely knowing that Plame works for the CIA does not provide the knowledge that the government is keeping her relationship secret. In fact, just the opposite is the case. If it were known on the Washington cocktail circuit, as has been alleged, that Wilson's wife is with the agency, a possessor of that gossip would have no reason to believe that information is classified -- or that "affirmative measures" were being taken to protect her cover.

There are ways of perceiving whether the government was actually taking the required necessary affirmative measures to conceal its relationship with Plame. We can look, for example, at how the CIA reacted when Novak informed the press office that he was going to publish her name. Did the general counsel call to threaten prosecution, as we know has been done to other reporters under similar circumstances? No. Did then-Director George Tenet or his deputy pick up the phone to tell Novak that the publication of her name would threaten national security and her safety, as we know is done when the CIA is serious about prohibiting publication? No. Did some high-ranking government official ask to visit Novak or the president of his newspaper syndicate to talk him out of publishing -- another common strategy to prevent a story? No.

Novak has written that the CIA person designated to talk with him replied that although Plame was probably not getting another foreign assignment, exposure "might cause difficulties if she were to travel abroad." He certainly never told Novak that Plame would be endangered. Such a meager response falls far legally shy of "affirmative measures."

There is even more telling CIA conduct about Plame's status. According to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq," when the agency asked Plame's husband to take on the Niger assignment, he did not have to sign a confidentiality agreement, a requirement for just about anybody else doing work for an intelligence agency. This omission opened the door for Wilson to write an op-ed piece for the New York Times describing his Niger trip. Did it not occur to our super sleuths of spycraft that a nationally distributed piece about the incendiary topic of weapons of mass destruction -- which happens to be Wilson's wife's expertise -- could result in her involvement being raised?

The special prosecutor and reporters should ask Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan, who is overseeing the grand jury, to conduct a hearing to require the CIA to identify all affirmative measures it was taking to shield Plame's identity. Before we even think about sending reporters to prison for doing their jobs, the court should determine that all the elements of a crime are present.

Victoria Toensing was chief counsel to the Senate intelligence committee from 1981 to 1984 and served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration. Bruce Sanford is a Washington lawyer specializing in First Amendment issues. The authors will take questions today at 2 p.m. on www.washingtonpost.com.

10-20-2005, 09:26 AM	#2 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	It's really tough to commit or even subscribe to any of the rumor possibilties, mostly because outting Plame isn't even definately a crime. I think any indictments will be of the consiracy or obstruction variety. IMHO, bogus, bullshit, reaching, and rediculous laws to begin with. Eitherway, they ~do~ still exist. We'll see. An idictment doesn't mean a crime was committed, it means a prosecutor was able to convince a grand jury that probable cause existed to conduct a trial. Never forget that a prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich is it was so desired. I have no doubt that months of grand jurying ~will~ result in some kind of indictment. What is anyone's guess. So far a lot of plausible rumors have surfaced, but as usual, only time will actually tell. Regardless, Bush has claimed that indictment will require a resignation...or did he? I think his most recent modifier is that if a crime was committed, that person would no longer work in his adminstration. What was your question again ? -bear __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

10-20-2005, 09:42 AM	#4 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	UNDERCOVER being the operative word. I believe that KNOWINGLY, is also stipulated in the law, as is a certain time frame in which the 'undercover' status was exercised. -b- __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

10-20-2005, 09:34 AM	#3 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	under what grounds is outing an undercover CIA agent not a crime?