White House Denies Leaking CIA Identity

[FauxNewsBlues]

WASHINGTON - The White House on Monday emphatically denied that President Bush's chief political strategist was involved in revealing the identity of a CIA operative, in possible violation of the law. A Democratic senator has asked Justice Department to appoint a special counsel to probe the matter.


The naming of the intelligence officer's identity by syndicated columnist Robert Novak came shortly after her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, had undermined Bush's claim that Iraq

Wilson has publicly blamed Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser, for the leak, although Wilson did say Monday he did not know whether Rove personally was the source of Novak's information.


"He wasn't involved," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said of Rove. "The president knows he wasn't involved. ... It's simply not true."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030929/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/iraq_uranium_15

[grytpype]

1. Let me be the first to ask...

What did the President know and when did he know it?

[MrBenchley]

3. Let me clarify

What was the pResident told and when did someone explain it to him?

[Drifter]

24. Yeah ...

good one

Who drew the pictures for the pResident, and how long did it take him to "get it"

Cheers
Drifter

[skip fox]

46. or Who wrote the script for the puppet theater for the President

and how many times didhe have to watch, before . . .? Etc.

[Wickerman]

50. or does he understand even yet?

[Cappurr]

31. Novak won't got to jail

But here is an email I sent him and posted on another thread.


Cappurr (1000+ posts) Mon Sep-29-03 11:03 AM
Response to Original message

8. I sent the following email to Novak


You didn't help much you know.....when you revealed Admiral Wilsons' wife as a CIA operative. Apparently, she has had important contacts in WMD for years. And they are all blown. And you did that just to help the White House get revenge on Wilson for telling the truth about the Niger yellow cake.

I have rarely agreed with your politics, but I have respected you for your years of work. But now, you are just a white house whore and I have no respect for you at all. You put a womans life in danger, not to mention her contacts. And I (as well as a lot of my friends) intend to contact CNN and the Sun Times and ask that you be removed. You have obviously been working too long...with age your judgment has failed




Now friends.....start emailing CNN and the Chicago Sun Times asking for his head.


DO IT. Start emailing like crazy. Let CNN know what you think of a journalist who would put an agent's life in danger just to help the white house get revenge.

[zbdent]

42. Uh, he can. Remember how many times a reporter has gone

in for "contempt of court"? How long were some of the Clinton aquaintences in jail? I remember that there was one who could no longer be held because the max time had run out for holding her.

Novak could be called in to testify on who it was. This is a federal matter. Imagine him going into jail (federal charges) for contempt? Imagine him being sent to a Federal prison for not talking?

Bet he'd be chirping like the proverbial stool pigeon if he got a good look at Bubba the sex maniac axe murderer.

[Cappurr]

47. No....the first amendment protects him

He doesn't have to reveal his sources. Susan McDougal wasn't a journalist. Now I have heard of journalists going to jail for contempt until they would reveal whatever it was they were supposed to reveal. But it is rare and I don't remember any of the details.

[Ganja Ninja]

58. I doubt Novak can claim 1st amendment on this.

There are some limits to free speech. Yelling “FIRE” in a crowed theater comes to mind. The law specifically prohibits people from naming the names of CIA operatives. Unless that law is unconstitutional Novak is aiding and abetting in the felony since he published the leaked information. He is as guilty as those who leaked the information and he belongs in a jail cell right along with the leaker’s. Nothing would be more pleasing to me than watching this media whore dead ender go to the slammer. Unless of course he goes to the slammer shackled to Rove and Cheney.

[zbdent]

59. Gee, you're right - PRE PATRIOT ACT!!!

This guy is now considered with the terrorists! Bush's parameters!!!!

Used to be that the Secret Service was not allowed to testify about the goings-on of the daily life of a sitting President. That was fixed in 1997/1998. Re-instituted (probably) 1/21/2001.

Oh, and Dick Cheney has been sitting on "national security issues" by not revealing his meeting-mates in Feb/March 2001. Bet if anybody revealed any of those, they'd be in hot water, eh? Seems that National Security was a hot issue then, to Repukes, right?

And national security was bandied about to explain the blacked out pages of a certain report involving Saudi involvement in the 9/11 papers, right?

Screw Novak, he knew what he was doing, and that it was probably illegal. If they cannot adhere to their own standards of conduct, then they should be flayed.

[zbdent]

60. Gee, you're right - PRE PATRIOT ACT!!!

This guy is now considered with the terrorists! Bush's parameters!!!!

Used to be that the Secret Service was not allowed to testify about the goings-on of the daily life of a sitting President. That was fixed in 1997/1998. Re-instituted (probably) 1/21/2001.

Oh, and Dick Cheney has been sitting on "national security issues" by not revealing his meeting-mates in Feb/March 2001. Bet if anybody revealed any of those, they'd be in hot water, eh? Seems that National Security was a hot issue then, to Repukes, right?

And national security was bandied about to explain the blacked out pages of a certain report involving Saudi involvement in the 9/11 papers, right?

Screw Novak, he knew what he was doing, and that it was probably illegal. If they cannot adhere to their own standards of conduct, then they should be flayed.

[papau]

68. Great Questions for Media to ask - if there is a US Media not run by GOP

From the ABCnote:

"Has President Bush made clear to the White House staff that only total cooperation with the investigation will be tolerated? If not, why not?

Has he insisted that every senior staff member sign a statement with legal authority that they are not the leaker and that they will identify to the White House legal counsel who is?

Has Bush required that all sign a letter relinquishing journalists from protecting those two sources? Has Bush said that those involved in this crime will be immediately fired? If not, why not?

Has Albert Gonzalez distributed a letter to White House employees telling them to preserve documents, logs, records? If not, why not?

Has Andy Card named someone on his staff to organize compliance? If not, why not?

White House officials who might have legal or political exposure on this are going to have to decide whether to hire lawyers or not, and the White House counsel's office is going to have to decide what legal help they can and should provide to officials if and when the DOJ wants to talk to them.

That means that the '90s practice of every Washington bureau of calling members of the bar to see who has hired whom is about to heat back up. The first one to report someone hiring a criminal lawyer wins a prize, as does the first person who develops that lawyer as a source on all this.

A reminder that students of recusal politics will have to consider the Rove-Ashcroft history"

[trotsky]

2. BIG problem

SOMEONE leaked it to Novak, and the more the White House stalls and denies, the worse it will be when it finally does come out. However, they're boxed in. If they set up some low-level staffer to take the blame, then they've got to say why such a low-level person had access to highly classified CIA info.

If we had an independent media, this would destroy Karl Rove.

[Gman]

12. Novak doesn't have to say who the source was

but he CAN say who it was NOT.

[Q]

35. Novak can't protect sources that break the law...

...especially if he particpates.

[grumpdawg485]

56. Novak can protect his sources.

The problem with trying to pin Novak down with this is that, from all of the facts available now, it appears that he has done nothing wrong. The provision of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act that applies to journalists reads as follows: "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 . . . ." 50 U.S.C. § 410(c).

IMHO, the key to trigerring this provision is "a pattern of activites." It appears that Novak has only published one article on the subject.

[MGKrebs]

57. I'm not a lawyer, but I read that to mean

that an inadvertent release of something would not necessarily trigger criminal action.

The "pattern" of activity in this case might be described as; taking the notes, writing the story, editing the story, and publishing the story. This is a pattern that shows the intention of breaking this law.

[grumpdawg485]

72. I believe you are correct.

To wit (quoted from Lawrence P. Gottesman, THE INTELLIGENCE PROTECTION ACT OF 1982: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SECTION 601(C), 49 Brook. L. Rev. 479, 485 n.21 (1983)):

According to § 606(10), "the term 'pattern of activities' requires a series of acts with a common purpose or objective." Id. § 426(10). "Pattern of activities" is not synonymous with "pattern of disclosures," H. Conf. Rep. No. 580, supra note 7, at 173, and a single publication may suffice, if it is preceeded by the required pattern of activities, id. A pattern of activities
must involve much more than merely restating that which is in the public domain. The process of uncovering names could include, for example, techniques such as: (1) seeking unauthorized access to classified information, (2) a comprehensive counter-intelligence effort of engaging in physical surveillance, electronic surveillance abroad, and (3) systematically collecting, collating and analyzing information from documentary sources for the purposes of identifying the names of agents.
Id. at 173 (emphasis added). Although the Report asserts that a "reporter . . . would rarely have engaged in a pattern of activities with the requisite intent 'to identify and expose covert agents,"' id., the activities of an investigative reporter could easily fall under the third example listed above.
An earlier version of § 601(c), § 501(c) of H.R. 5615, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., required that the disclosure occur "in the course of an effort to identify and expose covert agents," and that this effort be made with the intent to impede or impair. The legislative history concerning the "course of an effort" requirement is contradictory. According to H.R. Rep. No. 1219, pt. 1, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. (1980), requiring that the disclosure simply be made "with the intent to impair or impede" was too broad, id. at 12. The additional requirement that the disclosure be made "in the course of an effort to identify and expose covert agents with the intent to impair and impede" was seen as making clear that the provision was aimed at those engaged in "naming names." Id. at 12-13. H.R. Rep. No. 1219, pt. 2, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. (1980), however, asserted that "this language -- 'in the course of an effort' -- was intended to be substantially similar to the meaning of the pattern of activity language in the Senate Bill, S. 2216 <96th Cong., 2d Sess.>." H.R. Rep. No. 1219, pt. 2, supra, at 3. Since § 501(c) of S. 2216, however, was identical to the present § 601(c), see S. Rep. No. 896, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1980), what this assertion means is unclear. The most coherent explanation, leaving aside the differing mens rea requirements, is that "patterns of activities" and "course of an effort" were intended to describe essentially the same kind of activity. But see Intelligence Identities Protection Act: Hearings on H.R. 4 Before the Subcomm. on Legislation of the House Permanent Select Comm. on Intelligence, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 103-04 (testimony of Floyd Abrams) ("course of an effort" offers more protection to press) . Consequently, it is the additional "intent to impair and impede" language that was seen as limiting the reach of § 501(c), rather than the "course of an effort" language. This interpretation is reinforced by § 601(10) of S. 2216, which defined pattern of activities as "a series of acts with a common purpose or objective." H.R. Rep. No. 1219, pt. 2, supra, at 3. Notwithstanding Congress' intent, "course of an effort" more clearly suggests a specific plan and lessens the possibility that a series of otherwise innocent acts might establish this element of the offense.

[goforit]

80. Thanks Grumpdawg and welcome!!......Heavy duty law to break,eh?

Hope the whole WH get what they deserve!

[grumpdawg485]

93. Thanks

It is a doozy of a law - no real helpful reported cases - I'm assuming that most prosecutions involving this Act have occurred outside of public view. Plus not many law review articles out there on the subject.

I've been around for a while here, lurking as you can tell. Thanks for the welcome.

I do hope that this issue gets some traction, and it is a good sign that Justice has launched a full criminal investigation, although I fear that any investigation by Justice will be a bit of a whitewash. I hope enough pressure is mounted to engender the appointment of a truly independent investigator.

[SayitAintSo]

4. Drip... Drip ... Drip .....

Pretty bold .... I feel certain that the CIA will protect it's own and WILL get to the bottom of this. Rove is a marked man ...

[coralrf]

11. The CIA will do just that.

Bush and Rove made them eat crow over the Niger crap. What goes around comes around they say. I think Tenet well motivated for the kill. Lets see.

[GinaMaria]

28. How much pull

do you think poppy still has? Do you think the WH is protected by senior's CIA connections?

[bobthedrummer]

36. What goes around comes around

now and then. Rove=war criminal, traitor to US Constitutional standards. He is now toast.

[goforit]

81. Yep ........and he earned this honorable mark of distinction!!

Go CIA!!!!

[joshdawg]

5. Of course this White House would deny it.

This White House denies ANY wrongdoing, no matter facts to the contrary.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

33. Every White House denies wrong-doing...

...it just so happens that most of the really serious crap happens when the GOP is in the White House. Hmmmm. Think there's a connection?

Gary Powers & U-2 shootdown - Eisenhower

Vietnam escalation - LBJ (should have been a Repub)

Continuation of Vietnam, Watergate - Nixon

Iran-Contra - Bush I

2000 election, 911, tax cuts for the rich, Afghanistan, Iraq, and now "outing" of CIA agents - Bush II

[TahitiNut]

48. My perspective differs.

You make the (throw-away) claim that LBJ "should have been a Repub" - and I disagree. Let's first remember that LBJ parlayed his "southern Democrat" credentials to promulgate some of the most significant advances in human rights and civil liberties of the last century. It was this, probably more than anything else, that motivated the "southern strategy" of Nixon's campaign -- seeing an 'opportunity' to overcome the century-long aversion to the Republican Party (the party of Lincoln) in the south. Was the aggregate trade-off worth it? Many millions of citizens of this nation would probably say so. That every action is matched by an equal and opposite reaction is a theorem in Newtonian physics -- and possibly no less in Newtonian politics.

There are at play here, as I see it, two kinds of 'partisanship': the partisanship of elevated "loyalty" to political party and the partisanship of elevated "loyalty" to a branch of the federal government, or to the federal government itself. The Executive Branch is inherently (Constitutional "checks and balances") in a power struggle with both the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch. The "loyalty" to political party, when elevated above "loyalty" to both the nation and "loyalty" to branch of government, is the whip whereby Constituional checks and balances are gamed. When LBJ was in the Senate, he demonstrated an interparty branch loyalty somewhat above interbranch party loyalty, fairly diligently protecting and asserting the Legislative Branch's perquisites and powers. Not surprisingly, he demonstrated the same branch loyalty when part of the Executive Branch, both as Vice President and as President.

I bring this up because, as I see it, we're watching a Legislative Branch overpopulated with Senators and (more diversely) Representatives who seemingly place party loyalty above the presumed branch loyalty upon which Constituional checks and balances rest. When Congress effectively abdicates its Constitutionally exclusive powers to declare war, our nation is cast into the nightmare of foreign relations that the Framers, with abundant knowledge of the historical abuses of such Executive power, sought to preclude.

But moreover, there seems to be arising another kind of "loyalty" that we've seen become predominating only a few times in our nation's history: "class" (or wealth) loyalty. This 'loyalty' appears to muddle the ideological distinctions between parties and, almost as significantly, distinctions between branches of government.

Just my $0.03 (adjusted for inflation). :silly:

[DoYouEverWonder]

6. Okay W, if Rove didn't do it

Who did?

Obviously, you seem to know the answer. You wouldn't want to cover up any criminal wrong doing by a member of your staff, now would you?

[underpants]

17. Look there is NOTHING in this WH Rove doesn't touch

All message goes through him. I can't believe they could possibly find anything official or even unofficial (their leaks are well controlled and organized) that Rove doesn't either now about or coordinate himself.

[DoYouEverWonder]

30. I agree

And I am willing to bet that Amb. Wilson is correct. But now that W is denying that it is Rove, then that would imply that he knows who it is.

Okay Mr. pResident, what did you know and when did you know it?

No more covering up.

[colorado_ufo]

40. If I am reading correctly, TWO top White House officials

were supposed to have leaked the info to half a dozen journalists. That would preclude pinning this on some low level staffer. It also gives us the task of finding TWO names of those responsible.

[Bandit]

45. My guess is Rove and Poindexter

Both are slime of the worst sort.

[Cappurr]

7. All the special prosecutor has to do is

subpoena all phone repords for the relevant time period from Novak and the 6 WP reporters (cell phones too) and the phone records from the White house. It would help of course, if every senior official and their staff, Bush and Chency included would sign a release permitting any reporter to reveal their names if they were the caller. (I'm not sure how legal that is under the first amendment, but if there is no duress I don't see why not. I'd sure as hell try it. It would be interesting to see who refused).

[diplomats]

15. That's exactly what Josh Marshall says

check the phone logs!

[underpants]

19. The dreaded paper trail

Everything has a paper trail. Even if the call was made from a pay phone the call coming back into Novak could be traced to it and then the hunt begins.

[spinbaby]

38. What phone logs?

Oh, you mean the phone logs that were "accidentally" destroyed during the blackout/computer outage/virus attack/paint-bomb incident.

[kayell]

67. Rosemary Woods has been seen recently at the WH

Inside sources says that she is simply providing WH staffers with classes in stretching exercises.

[Jose Diablo]

85. The phone logs can not be flushed

I doubt the WH has the ability to flush the phone logs. I think the legislative branch (GAO) possesses the logs. I am somewhat sure the logs are classified.

The Federal governmant has its own private telephone network. The computers within the the fed tele net are on UPS, no doubt.

Not sure if a normal supena could pry the logs into a special investigators hands though.

A lot of information can been gleened by just knowing what phone called what phone and when and how long.

For example, an Israelli company processes all the telephone companies billing information to generate customer bills. This gives this company a lot of 'intellegence' about what is going on in America. Does Mossad also have access to the same information. I would not be suprised if Mossad did not have contacts within the Israelli company just for this purpose.
:tinfoilhat:

[Snellius]

76. Dupe

.

[janx]

8. Why not ask Novak?

Novak should be at the center of this--he published the information, after all.

[short bus president]

9. because journalists,

even slimy ones like Novak, should not reveal their sources. This is longstanding journalistic tradition for a reason. Break the confidence, lose the informers, wave bye-bye to investigative journalism.

Why don't we lock up and torture Woodward and Bernstein 'til they tell us who "Deep Throat" was?

[underpants]

13. Yes I want to see Novak hide behind the 1st amendment

Of course he has a right to I think. Someone posted a great article about this two weeks or so ago and there are some stipulations in the law and one of the MIGHT be(from memory) that some of the 1st amendment rights go out the window in such a case due to the immediate national security issues.

I do remember the article said that if the Sate dept. finds these accusations credible there is nothing Dept. of Justice can do to prevent investigation. Ashcroft's hands would be tied. Something like that.

[Wickerman]

51. Agreed, but lets never misunderestimate Asscrack

He'll change some laws or cite the patriot act. I imagine we will be on heavy alert by weeks end if the feeding frenzy truly erupts

[FuseONE]

14. .

I think you're dreaming on that one....Novak's not going to reveal his source.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

27. When Novak gets charged, he'll sing like a bird...

...in exchange for immunity. That's a trade I'd be willing to make.

[TahitiNut]

54. He needs no additional immunity. (See my post #52 below.)

IMHO, of course. YMMV :silly:

[GinaMaria]

32. There are limits to the first amendment

I would think that revealing a CIA operative's name in print might be one of those limits. I don't think he should have to reveal his source(s). I think he should be held accountable for revealing the name of an operative. As a journalist he has an ethical responsibility. What was the purpose of revealing the operative's name? What did the public need to know? How much risk did he put the country?

[underpants]

41. You mean the securitysecuritysecurity thing could come back to bite them?

National Security
National Security
National Security
National Security
National Security
National Security

[Cappurr]

49. Good points...

And questions I have been asking. I don't know the law in the area so I don't know if a journalist can be held accountable for printing what was told to him. But Novak has been around a long time. I'll bet he knows the law quite well. It was still a shitty thing to do and thats why I sent him that email, reproduced above.

[TahitiNut]

52. Novak is protected from prosecution under 50USC421 by 50USC422.

As someone with neither a security clearance nor a demonstrable pattern of seeking to identify such agents for the purpose of harming the United States (i.e. a "spy"), he cannot be legitimately prosecuted, under 50USC421, for disclosing Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA agent in his column. (These exceptions and defenses are defined in 50USC422.)

That, however, is but one of the legal issues at play in this story. The other, should Novak be subjected to interrogation within some due process, is whether he identifies his 'source' if so asked, and whether he'd be subject to prosecution for 'Obstruction of Justice' if he refuses. (Under 50USC422, he'd be protected from conviction for violations of 50USC421, even as an accessory.)

The legal principle (AFAIK - IANAL) involved in protecting journalists who refuse to divulge their sources is that divulging the identity of such sources would run contrary to the "public's right to know" (the yin of free speech's yang) what their government is doing. This is synergistic with whistleblower protections but, since those 'protections' are abysmally deficient, we resort to the secrecy of sources refuge. If those who, contrary to law, divulge (what the general public would regard as) government wrongdoing to a journalist were adequately protected from prosecution (and persecution) under whistleblower protection statutes, then we'd not need such an elevated immunization of journalists against divulging their sources.

Clearly, this specific 'source' would not be regarded by most as a whistleblower deserving of protection. (It's not inconceivable, however, that those rabidly loyal to this administration would think they were.) That does not imply, however, that it's not conceivable that someone disclosing the identity of a CIA agent wouldn't be deserving of such protections. Just try to imagine, even most ridiculously, just who could be such an agent and whose agency was of intense legitimate interest to the general public. How about Osama bin-Laden or Saddam Hussein? How about Vladimir Putin? :eyes:

It's not simple, even though some of us may be. :silly:

[GinaMaria]

62. As usual, a great post

and again, you've given me a lot to think about. Thanks! Good to see you again :hi:

[TahitiNut]

66. It gets even more interesting, IMHO.

Let's assume, just for grins, that whomever leaked this information to Novak was also not afforded authorized access to classified information and/or that person was also a recipient of the information, merely passing it on. (I know, it's difficult to imagine some "senior administration official" without such authorized access but it wouldn't be the first time a journalist mischaracterized a 'source'.) Absent relevant authorized access to classified information, this 'source' would also be protected against conviction under 50USC421. Novak would then (arguably) not be "Obstructing Justice" by not naming them.

Indeed, what if such a 'leak' came from someone to whom Valerie Plame herself admitted being a CIA agent, perhaps in years past? She's also protected by 50USC422; she's not bound by that statute to not disclose her own agency role. (I'd guess she's perhaps alternatively bound by some contractual agreement with the CIA. I doubt a breach of that contract would be criminal.)

In order to most rigorously apply the "obstruction of justice" claim, the DOJ would be ethically obliged (at least ideally) to show that a violation of 50USC421 actually occurred. If it's at all reasonable to think that the handoff chain of this information doesn't actually lead to a violator of 50USC421 and could instead be a chain of exempted persons, then Novak skates and so does the 'leaker'.

I don't think it's probable, but it's (somewhat) conceivable. I'd be a very disappointed camper, too. :grr:


We all need to remember that we cannot criminalize the discussion of nor dissemination of classified information. If that were the case, we'd all be culpable in merely mentioning the Plame-CIA agency to anyone, including here. That's part of what 50USC422 is all about in protecting people from passing it on once disclosed -- which is what Novak did.

[GinaMaria]

70. This is going to get complicated

I suspect. It is truly frightening that this happened. I wonder how many others have been revealed as operatives, now that Plame is exposed? Was she working with others? Any idea what is at risk?

Looks like all Novak has to do is wait out the s#%* storm. He's still on his feet and will probably remain there.

[0007]

78. Would it be fair to call Robert Novak

a terrorist? A well protected terrorist hiding behind the law in fact.

Didn't Mr. Novak carry the message to the people to do the will of the White House out of vindictiveness? And wasn't that to hurt Mr. Joe Wilson?

The viciousness of Robert Novak will not go unnoticed, or will the person or persons who leaked the secret.

The United States of America is dangerously imperiled by tthis type of behavior.

[TahitiNut]

83. I'd see it more as hyperbole than 'fair'.

I personally detest self-serving Novak's postures and pretences, almost as much at Kate O'Byrne's and Peggy Noonan's. That said, I'm without a clear legal basis in equity to accuse Novak of law-breaking. Yet, I'm not a lawyer, so my opinion shouldn't carry the weight of one. My detailed reading and analysis (much like reading a programming language insofar as parsing is concerned) of the relevant US Codes, 50USC421 and 50USC422, seems to leave little room for his conviction.

When one then migrates into the (psycho)legal area of 'terrorism' (from a poltical ideology that has historically denied justification for 'hate-crimes', no less!), I'm without a way to connect the FEAR one might have (in a political and economic climate of increasing fear) with the acts of others, where I cannot find evidence of extraordainary intent. To some degree, we all react to fear with behavior that tends to "fight fire with fire" -- and there are too few water carriers these days. Novak's behavior isn't near that of many others (e.g. Coulter). Thus, I'd be hard-pressed to call it extraordinary enough to be 'terrorism'.

OTOH, in at least a figurative sense, I agree with you that he's complicit in a political ideology that's using (and promulgating) fear for narrow political and economic advantage. Is there enough room in all our jails to hold those complicit? Surely not. So, I guess we'll have to find another way to fight it.
Got milk? :silly:

[UpInArms]

10. okay then name the leakers

and we'll see them in prison - now!

[Oilwellian]

16. I loved Wilson's comment in this article

Wilson said Monday that if the administration actually took an intelligence asset "off the table," that would have been "a dastardly deed ... coming from an administration that came to office promising to restore dignity and honor to the White House. It was contemptible."


This story has big, sharp TEETH. :D

[hippiechick]

18. "The president knows he wasn't involved..."

.... that's because he hasn't been involved in a damn thing since he got to DC !!! he's just there for the monogrammed bathrobe and slippers, everyone else is doind the dirty work !!!!

:evilfrown:


:hippie:

[underpants]

20. "...it's simply not true"

What isn't true? That he wasn't involved or that the President is sure he is not involved?

[NoKingGeorge]

25. The rules and law of old America apply ?.

So if the rules of old America apply and an Administration official is outed, so what ? If rove is indicted can't he still orchestrate and denigrate our political system?

If rove and card are put on the fast track and indicted the other puppet masters will still oversee the Saudi's pets . No ?

[Soloflecks]

21. Look at the spin from newsmax.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/9/29/103827.shtml
The man at the center of the storm over whether the White House leaked the name of his CIA-analyst-wife to the press swore vengeance against the Bush administration just one month ago, telling a Seattle audience that he'd wanted to "to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs."

With the Washington Post doing his dirty work on Sunday, former ambassador to Iraq, Joseph Wilson seems to be gathering a few allies in his mission, with Democrats like Sen. Charles Schumer proclaiming yesterday, "Whoever should go to jail."
snip>
The CIA's request late Friday that the Justice Department investigate whether the White House leaked Mrs. Wilson's name to columnist Robert Novak has set off media smoke alarms.

But what hasn't gotten much attention is Novak's original report, which made it clear that the White House wasn't the only one who spilled the beans about Wilson's wife.

Here's what Novak wrote on July 14:

"Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him."

So it wasn't just the White House who blew Mrs. Wilson's cover. In fact, the cavalier manner which the CIA seems to have confirmed her role in the imbroglio suggests there was nothing particularly secret about her identity in the first place.

Despite complaints from Democrats like Schumer that the leak compromised both national security and Mrs. Wilson's safety, the agency told the Post for its Sunday report, "No further harm would come from repeating Plame’s name."

In fact, it's an open question as to whether Mrs. Wilson's identity was supposed to be a secret in the first place, with the Post noting far down in its report that the "CIA has declined to confirm whether she was undercover."

[hang a left]

37. The facts are that the CIA at the conclusion

of it's own investigation has determined that the law has been broken, period. The ball is not in the JD court.

[The Magistrate]

22. This Is Not Going To Go Away

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[underpants]

23. The 1982 Intelligence Identity Protection Act (almartinraw.com)

Consider the source.

http://www.wiolawapress.com/karl.htm

According to reliable sources, as well as our own Al Martin Raw.com investigation, Karl Rove is, in fact, the grandson of Karl Heinz Roverer, the gauleiter of Mecklenburg, who was also a partner and senior engineer of Roverer Sud-Deutche Ingenieurb¸ro AG. They built Birchenau, the concentration camp in Nazi Germany.

This law specifically supposed to prevent what has happened in this case and that is the Bush administration attempting to retaliate against a senior government official who tells the truth about that administration by revealing the identities of intelligence members within their own families.

This is a law that was specifically designed to prevent this from happening. It is a law that was proffered by the Democrats in 1982 that the Republicans fought and could not defeat. The law carries an automatic mandatory 10 years to life imprisonment as punishment.

The law specifically states in this case (and this depends on how much Secretary of State Colin Powell is prepared to get involved, if he signs a formal complaint from the State Department, then the Attorney General has no choice but to prosecute. He is required to prosecute, even if he doesn¥t want to do so.

[newyorican]

26. Why is a political hack privy to CIA secrets?

That's what I'd like to know. That's where the breakdown was.

[underpants]

29. He's their mouthpiece their megaphone

He leaked this to undermine Wilson's credibility (somehow). Leaks are used all the time to get the media rolling and shape the argument. This time however it was not only illegal but it dealt with the nation's security that W&Co. hold so very dear in their hearts.

[goforit]

82. One of many blabber mouthe pieces!!!

They just are nauseating!!!

:puke:

[NWHarkness]

34. Thank you!

I was just about to ask that myself. Why does Bush's political advisor get classified CIA documents? That ought to outrage people right there.

[RainDog]

43. go to talkingpointsmemo.com

Josh Marshall explains the "chain of information" that is accessible to various white house administration officials and he speculate about who might be most likely to use that information.

Whether you like him or not, Novak has the right to protect his sources unless a judge or whoever rules that first amendment rights in this situation are overruled by the same idea which makes yelling "fire" in a movie theater outside the bounds of first amendment rights.

I want to protect those who investigate wrong doings in this govt, and that protection of sources is critical for people who are afraid to identify themselves at an early point in an investigation, especially.

just as repukes who oppose the patriot act tell their constituents...remember Hillary Clinton might be the AJ one day...

right now, there are so many crimes in which this administration is complicit, it is very important for those who want to come clean and ease their consciences and do the right thing for this country know they can do so with some confidence they will not be "Kelly-ed" in this country.

I still maintain that this must lead back to Cheney because Wilson's piece in the NYTimes made Dickie look like a, well, Dick, and Cheney was part of Team B which ignored CIA evidence concerning Iraq's WMD, etc.

So Tenet would have a reason to want to make sure Cheney can no longer conduct rogue and false intel gathering to justify another illegal invasion, while Cheney would have reason to want to get to Wilson.

it seems like a tidy little package.

[Sliverofhope]

39. If it really is Rove

Then McClellan will be guilty of misprision of a felony if he really knows and is lying. Deny, folks, deny. Dig yourself a grave, assholes.

[Jacobin]

44. Let the cover-up begin

Will Smirky remember to use the word "stonewall" when he tells everyone to shut up and hide the phone logs?

Did Rove remember to use a disposable non-traceable cell phone when he called NoFacts?

Has the FBI gotten NoFact's cell phone and office phone log? Does NoFacts also have a throwaway cell phone with nothing to trace his name to?

Did they do it in a chat room where it can't be traced.

It'll be very interesting to see how they attempted to hide the connection.

[Nottingham]

53. Well white House better watchout if its lying cause CIA knows!

:bounce: I just love this!

Right before the election too!

[Corgigal]

55. Well we have a NEW Monica

and his name is Robert Novak. While he may not give out his sources then it's time to bring in his whole office staff and family.

Republicans did this over a BJ, so this is the standard Operating Procedure. Novak choose to do this to win brownie points, so I hope it was worth it at the end.

[Rex]

61. Could this be Rove's flaw in the armor?

EVERYONE has at least one flaw, there has been just to many holes in the dam for Rove to plug them all (he's gotten most of them) could this be the one that brings him down?

[DoYouEverWonder]

63. I'll bet on Rove and Cheney

Cheney is one of the brains behind the covert ops and asked Wilson to go to Niger. He would have been one of the few people in the WH to know Wilson's background and the only way Rove could have known about Wilson's wife is if someone told him or allowed him access to Wilson's files. As a political advisor Rove shouldn't be privy to such sensitive information in the first place but that of course is up to the pResident.

[underpants]

64. Sounds like they need some plumbers in there.

:bounce:

[TacticalPeek]

65. In another thread I've lost track of in all the EXCITEMENT,

DUer Snazzy discovers that Ari's final WH press conference was July 14, the day Nofacts' column appeared.

Maybe pure coincidence? Nah.

And many more than "two" had better be getting lawyered up. Who got this highly classified info from who? How many discussed this before and after the column? Etc Etc Etc.

[TahitiNut]

73. While July 14 was, indeed, both the date of Novak's column....

... and the date of the last press conference held by Ari Flyshit, Ari announced his resignation back on or around May 19th. :shrug:

[dolstein]

69. Well, if that's what the White House says, it must be true

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[pfitz59]

71. Send Novak AND his publisher to prison.

Source is irrelevant. The writer and publisher BROKE THE LAW! Fry them!

[TahitiNut]

74. What law did they violate?

(Please see my posts #52 and #66 above for my perspective.)

[DoYouEverWonder]

75. The criminals are in the WH

Novak is just a bit player.

[Snellius]

77. Did Novak actually "out" an undercover CIA agent?

Two assumptions seem to still be unresolved:

(1) Novak's original column does not specifically point to the "top administration officials" as the source that Plame was a CIA agent. Only that she was the one who suggested her husband go to Niger. Could Novak have known she was an agent from another source?

(2) It's also not clear that Plame was an undercover agent, only that she worked for the CIA as a WMD expert. Obviously, hundreds of agents commute to work at Langley each day without being undercover. Does the law that prohibits the "outing" of CIA agents only apply to secret agents?

[Patriot_Spear]

84. Yes. CNN definatively identifies her as an Operative.

1) No matter the 'title' of the betrayer, he should be found- this is federal offense after all.

2) There is no confusion about her status- the CIA would not have made TWO requests to the DOJ for an investigation concerning an analyst.

[Jose Diablo]

89. CIA has concluded a law was broke

That is why the CIA contacted the DOJ

[TahitiNut]

90. It's of little consequence how Novak crafted his language.

What's of greatest consequence is the disclosure itself, not how Novak reported the information in that disclosure or what words he chose.

There's little doubt that the impact of such a disclosure, including Novak's reportage and public discussions by many, is that CIA intelligence assets are compromised and the future value of Plame's efforts is nullified. This is why the focus must be on the disclosure and the discloser, not on all those (including both Novak and us) who report and discuss the disclosure.

The question legitimately centers on whether whomever disclosed this information did so with criminal liability under 50USC421 and without protection under 50USC422.

If, for example, Plame herself were Novak's 'source,' she'd have no criminal liability. (Think about it.)

While that example may sound ludicrous, others might have similar 50USC422 protection from such liability.

[goforit]

79. Go Wilson Go!!!!!..............No MERCY!!!!!

Go straight to their achilles heel!!!

Rove is their weakness!!!

TREASON to the MAX!!!!!!!!

[Bucky__Badger]

86. I wish I were as optimistic

but this thing is already fizzling. Nofacts comes out with his B.S. and already we're hearing "Uh, ok... sounds good to me... Say did you hear that the President signed the "do not call" legislation? Yaaaayyyy for the President! He's stopped tele-terra!"

My guess is Rove will have Wilson smeared as some kind of nutjob with an axe to grind and the whole thing is a distant memory by next November.

Nope, we're going to have to out-work these bastards. No breaks coming our way I'm afraid. Rove may be a lot of things but he *never* commits a turnover, to use football jargon. The man is evil in human form, but he is *FLAWLESS* AT DOING WHAT HE DOES.

[goforit]

92. Well the CIA needs to know the public approves of their behavior!!!

We need to let them know that it is OK to step forward.

The ball is in their court and they now know what must be done.

All the power to them (literally)!!!

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

87. Wilson Said 70 CIA Assets Were Liquidated Because Of This

in a speech about one month ago. Does anyone know what he meant when he said this unfortunate "outing" of his wife has compromised the identities of 70 of her overseas informants? Have 70 people been killed or merely discontinued as CIA informants or overseas contacts? If the latter, have they been given new identities and protection? The cost in human life from this reckless act is what really worries me as it completely undermines the effectiveness of US intelligence services during this war against terrorism.

[Stephanie]

88. I don't think Wilson ever said that

That was from an unsourced story from an offbeat website - never confirmed, merely alleged.

Wilson never said that, AFAIK.

[bobthedrummer]

91. Al Martin was right on this

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/IRA308A.html