Dems Seek Probe on Rove Role in CIA Leak

[maddezmom]

Dems Seek Probe on Rove Role in CIA Leak
By DAVID ESPO




WASHINGTON - Democrats stirred the pot Thursday in the case of presidential aide Karl Rove and the news leak that unmasked a CIA agent, pushing the issue toward the Senate floor, pressing for a congressional investigation and inviting the operative's husband to the Capitol to accuse the White House of a "smear campaign."

The case is not about Rove, said Rep. Rush Holt of New Jersey, who called for a probe that would compel senior administration officials to turn over records relating to the disclosure that Valerie Plame was a CIA officer. "This ... is about holding the executive branch accountable for a breach of national security."

Democratic Leader Harry Reid led the effort to push the issue onto the Senate floor, seeking a quick vote on legislation to strip national security clearances from any official who discloses the identity of a covert agent.

"It is up to the president to decide whether or not he will keep his word to fire whoever is responsible for the leak," said Reid's spokesman, Jim Manley. "It is up to the lawyers to decide what laws were violated. Congress has the right and responsibility to state clearly that anyone who divulges classified information should lose their security clearance."

more: http://www.tristate-media.com/articles/2005/07/14/ap/headlines/d8bbd49g0.txt

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cssmall]

2. Uhm. . .

I believe if you are in an operative position at any level within the CIA, you are not supposed to be leaked to the public.

[soothsayer]

5. absolutely! all the spooks I grew up with worked for the "State

Dept."

My friend thought her NSA dad (in charge of keeping tabs on all the oil reserves around the world) made pennies!

And our spook neighbor (who turned out to have something to do with satellites and the CIA) was supposedly a math teacher at a local school. We bought it, too!

[maddezmom]

3. some say she was undercover

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4098464

[Carolab]

4. She WAS undercover.

There would be no "outing" if she weren't--so why bother to "leak" something that is NOT a secret?

Her classmate acknowledged on dailyKOS that she was definitely NOT a desk jockey.

[kainah]

6. does anyone know how the vote came out?

Searching for a DU thread on this Senate debate -- which I had to leave in the middle -- and can't find one. Anyone know what happened after the repugs introduced a second degree amendment aimed at silencing Durbin?

[Kenneth ken]

7. a little help here, please.

Fitzgerald is already conducting a probe; why, apart from politics, do Dems want to start up a second probe?

Would a Congressional probe have more power to get documents from the WH? It seems to me Fitzgerald is doing fine so far, a bit slow for everyone around here I will grant, but in his own way, he does seem to be making progress and turning up the heat.

Is this a case of Dems jumping on board because they smell blood, or are feeling heat from their constituents?

Would a Congressional investigation turn the whole thing into a media circus, and muddy the waters enough so that all the criminals manage to slip away? - that's my big concern.

TIA

[pinkpops]

8. Partly just trying to keep it in the news. As long as it is hot the press

will keep on digging, more info will leak out. There are those out there who know what happened, and there must be a lot of stuff the prosecutor doesn't know about.

[grytpype]

9. No, not just to keep it in the news.

It's an important point: this is about much more than whether Rove violated the narrowly-drafted criminal law that is gotten all the attention.

Rove seriously impaired national security, and that is an issue all it itself. It needs to be totally exposed and people need to be held accountable.

[WhiteTara]

10. the watergate congressional probe

ended in nixon's resignation. I believe that this congressional investigation would lead to impeachment, which is why of course the partisan repukes would never let that happen

[Kenneth ken]

11. granted.

My recall of Watergate is fuzzy, so I did a quick Wikipedia read. It seems in that case, the Senate committee was set up first, then the Nixon administration set up Cox as Special Counsel. I'm guessing they thought they could better control and contain the investigation by doing so. Turned out they were wrong, and Nixon initiated the 'Saturday Night Massacre.'

I think in the Plame case, the maladministration also thought they'd be able to control and contain the investigation, and it may have seemed so since it's been a very quiet matter for its duration till lately. But lately, it is starting to seem like the maladministration really wasn't controlling it very well, so I'm not sure I see the need *yet* for a Congressional investigation.

I'm willing to let Fitzgerald continue to the end, see what he does in terms of indictments etc. and then, if need be, do the Congressional probe.

In Watergate, the Senate started investigations/hearings because the Nixon administration wasn't pursuing the problem at all.

So, again, apart from politics, why do Dems want to set up a second probe?

[WhiteTara]

12. So we can have a public record?

Or maybe it is just politics. But the politics of treason should be opened up as far as possible.
:shrug: