I think Rove mentioned the 'wife' maybe hoping it would be looked into fur

[southernleftylady]

I think Rove mentioned the 'wife' maybe hoping it would be looked into further but most likely didn't cross the legal line.

was what response i got when i asked how can rove deny he leaked her name

[Walt Starr]

1. That's parsing

and it won't fly.

[petepillow]

2. it better not fucking fly n/t

[ProfessorGAC]

3. Then Why Is Fitzgerald Investigating?

You think a long time professional prosecutor would spend this much time if he wasn't sure a law had been broken? This guy isn't Ken Starr. Starr didn't care whether laws had been broken. He was a politcal hatchet man, looking to make his bones.

Fitzgerald has a long track record of succesfully rooting out gov't corruption. And, his reputation is that he doesn't stop with the guppies. He goes after the big fish.
The Professor

[whatever4]

4. As if the reporter would not look up the name of the 'WIFE'

As if using the name Wilson, specific to the person he was discussing, didn't provide a direct and NAMED connection to HER.

No, not her name. Just her husband. And where she worked.

Such illogic. Seems to be the rule.

[napi21]

5. Actually, I don't have a problem with the parsing.

Anyone who is associated with lawyers for any amount of time learns that this is the way the legal world works!

I'm not an attorney, but I learned how to "phrase my statements" 20 years ago. It's a method used to circumvent the law, and, like it or not, works most of the time!

You have to be very careful though, especially when you have to give multiple testimonies like Karl did. It's way too easy to get tripped up by your own calculated words.

[6 sack fiber]

7. That's probably what the investigation is looking at closely

All the subsequent testimony. From what I've heard it's going to be hard to indict on outing Ms Plame because the standards in the law are so high.

[Karmakaze]

8. The standards arent high at all...

The law simply states three types of case:

1) Someone with authorised access to classified information (for example the "take" of an operation) learns the identity of an undercover operative (for example the Ambassadors wife). That person then reveals the identity of the undercover operative to someone not authorised to know. As long as the suspect KNEW the person was undercover and was being protected, then revealing the identity IN ANY WAY is a crime.

2) Someone with authorised access to the identities of covert agents (ie instead of deducing it from other information, the identity is spelled out) who reveals that identity. with the same caveat in regards to knowing they were undercover and being protected.

3) Someone who doesnt have authorised access to classified informatiion but learns the identity of a covert agent and then reveals it with the specific intention of outing an undercover agent, for the purposes of damagaing the ability of the government to gather intelligence information and as part of pattern of such activites


Nowhere in the law does it say that the person has to be named, just identified - ie, Wilson's Wife is more than adequate identifying information.

The first case is meant to prevent someone from saying "I did not officially know the identity, I worked it out myself based on information I had seen"

The second is the straightforward crime of being told the iendtity and leaking it, and the third is to prevent a reporter from being arrested for revealing an agent, but to prevent the type of case where a reporter, for instance, goes out of their way to repeatedly expose agents with the express purpose of damaging intelligence gathering abilites.

The full text of the law is here: http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/protection.html

See for yourself.

The only things in question are whether Rove knew she was undercover and her identity being protected, and whether he had authorised access to classified information. He definiately identified her, to someone not authorised to have that info.

Two pieces of a puzzle in order to get an indictment, and neither of those should be too hard to get proof of - Rove works in the Whitehouse, and he had access to classified information - the only question is, was it authorised. The second is also pretty easy to prove - The fact that he knew she worked at the CIA when NOTHING else said she worked at the CIA (ie she was "employed" by a front company) shows that he must have known she was covert.

However proving that is needed for conviction, NOT indictment.

[6 sack fiber]

9. Thanks for the link

I stand corrected on the standards

[mondo joe]

6. Bush's wife is a murdering stepford wife - but I won't mention her NAME.

See?