Rove-How do you "unknowingly" out a CIA agent?

[gardenista]

It looks like Rove is laying the groundwork for his defense by introducing the term "knowingly" in regard to outing Plame. How could someone do this withoug "knowing" the implications? And in this case, is ignorance of the law a defence?

[StClone]

1. He knows all yet has no common sense defense?

Wow. They've pulled off some wild stuff but this should be the cherry on top of the turd.

[norml]

2. Maybe he was talking in his sleep to Judy the Mattress?

Although I think Gannon/Guckert is more Karl's type.

[krkaufman]

3. "knowingly" refers to outing of *covert* operative

The key factor is whether Rove knew Plame was a *covert* CIA operative, and Rove, through his lawyer, appears to be building his defense on NOT knowing she was undercover.

(Apparently, it's OK to out a CIA agent so long as he/she isn't undercover.)

[Moochy]

5. Ignorance is bliss, but no defense

Officer, I didnt know that there was a stop sign there.
Sure I ran through the intersection, but I didn't do it Knowingly.

[krkaufman]

12. Actually, ignorance *is* a defense in this case

But I just hope there's evidence *somewhere* controverting Rove's claim of ignorance.

[The Night Owl]

19. I doubt any prosecutor worth his salt would have spent...

... two years and God only knows how much money investigating the Plame case if he or she didn't have proof that someone knowingly broke the law.

[Igel]

4. Easy, if you've even a done a naive reading of the law in question.

Some current options:

-- Say you know Wilson's wife works for the CIA, and no more. You say that. You don't know much more about her, but others know her name's Plame. Done.

-- Say you know Wilson's wife is Plame, working behind a desk at the CIA, and no more. You say that. Done.

-- Say you even know that Wilson's wife is Plame, and had been a deep-cover operative for the CIA, and no more. You say this. Done.

All of these are possible; all of these make Rove innocent before the law.

Either you know her name, you didn't know she was a covert agent, or you didn't know her cover was being actively maintained by the CIA. One must know all three to be guilty under that particular law. Ignorance of the law is not a defence; ignorance of some of Plame's particulars is *the* defense. Tellingly, the first few weeks after the story broke, 'covert' seems not to have been a word used wrt Plame.

Let's be even *more* provocative:

-- Say you don't have authorized access to the classified information, but you've seen documents saying Plame is a covert operative and her cover's being maintained. You tell the reporter that. You didn't break the law, because it requires that you have be authorized to have access to the information! If someone allowed to have the documents knowingly showed them to you, that someone broke the law; if it wasn't intentional--they were left out by accident, you were given the wrong folder, you lied and said you had authorization when you didn't--then *nobody* broke the law.

Welcome to a dumbass law.

[Moochy]

8. Link?

Can you post a link to the law?

[Igel]

22. I tried to post this before; server problems, apparently.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/15/subchapters/iv/sections/section_421.html

U.S. Code as of: 01/22/02
Section 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources

(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had
access to classified information that identifies covert agent
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified
information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses
any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert
agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be
fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or
both.
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of
covert agents as result of having access to classified
information
Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified
information, learns the identify of a covert agent and
intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert
agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified
information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies
such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative
measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship
to the United States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned
not more than five years, or both.
(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of
activities intended to identify and expose covert agents
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 to any individual not
authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the
information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the
United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such
individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United
States, shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than
three years, or both.
(d) Imposition of consecutive sentences
A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be
consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.

[skip fox]

13. A great post, but see #11 below. It suggests Rove led a conspiracy

even of such soft-core "leaks." Since these leaks led to the outing, the conspiracy itself (and any perjury in front of the grand jury) would result in indictments for its participants and its leader (Rove).

Anyway, that's my best thinking on this issue to date.

[dansolo]

20. So would that be conspiracy to commit treason?

I agree that it will be hard to pin a treason rap on Rove. But can he be charged with conspiracy to cimmit treason? If the information didn't come from a single source, but was combined from several sources, would the law still apply? Heck, after the impeachment affair, I'd settle for perjury.

[jrthin]

6. Agreed. It also begs the question, what

was the point of naming her?

[spooky3]

14. That's my question. What's newsworthy about naming someone

who is NOT a covert agent?

"Psst--did you hear that Jane Doe is a first grade teacher at the Public School #1?"
"Say, you didn't hear it from me, but...Sandy Smith is an FBI OFFICER!"

Not likely to get Novak's, or anyone else's, attention.

[StopThief]

24. The point is. . . .

it was a reply to a specific question. Something like: Why the hell would the Bush Administration pick a known critic such as Joe Wilson to go on a sensitive mission? The answer was: He was recommended by his wife, Valerie Plame, who works for the CIA.

[spooky3]

28. I think you're answering a different question than what we asked.

IF in fact that was how the events occurred (and do we know he was asked this question?), then there is no reason why he could not have said "highly placed intelligence sources recommended him" or simply point to Wilson's background, and take any number of other routes to answer it.

There is no reason or benefit to naming names, and anyone in Rove's position would know that there is no benefit and considerable risk of naming anyone in the CIA. Further, saying you picked someone because his or her spouse recommended it certainly does not sound reassuring to someone who doubts the choice. So there is no reason to name her at all.

[Zhade]

7. Kick

Kick

[Vickers]

9. It sure puts the lie to his "genius" no matter which way you look at it

Didn't know?

Dumbass.

Knew?

Dumbass traitor.

[emulatorloo]

10. Clue here in this Rove quote: "I didn't know her name, and I didn't leak

her name."

He leaked it as 'Mrs. Joe Wilson is a spy.'

Therefore he didn't knowingly leak that V. Plame was CIA NOC.

Here's the source of the quote:




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/07/AR2005070702215.html

<Rove, who has testified before a grand jury investigating the case, likewise has maintained that he did not break the law, saying in a television interview, "I didn't know her name, and I didn't leak her name.">

[gardenista]

15. Ok, it's starting to become clear...

Now my question is, if Rove is being dangled as the "leaker", then I wonder if he's falling on a rubber sword in order to protect Cheney or even Bush, himself.

[emulatorloo]

18. Fitzgerald will not fall for Rove Shenanigans -- read this article here:

washingtonpost.com
The Prosecutor Never Rests
Whether Probing a Leak or Trying Terrorists, Patrick Fitzgerald Is Relentless
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 2, 2005; Page C01

<snip>

Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (no relation) was looking for an outsider to battle the state's notoriously corrupt political apparatus.

<snip>

"I thought, 'He is the original Untouchable,' " Peter Fitzgerald says. "You could just see it in his eyes that he was a straight shooter. There were no levers that anyone had over him. He had no desire to become a partner in a private law firm. He has no interest in electoral politics. He wanted to be a prosecutor."

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55560-2005Feb1?language=printer

[skip fox]

11. If you coordinate a conspirarcy to get Plame's name in print, it's

impossible not to do so knowingly. Rove (and others) may try to get out of it by saying that the reporters already knew Plame was covert at CIA, saying only "Wilson's wife got him the assignment. Doesn't he work for CIA" and let the reporter's knowledge or sources fill in the name, which is almost necessary for the story. But to conspire to do even this (which will result in the outing of Plame) has to be clearly illegal, at the least under RICO).

How do we know he led the coordination of primary calls &c.? The rational is not very difficutlt. The number and diversity of leakers requires coordination and Rove is the grand master of destroying the messenger:


How many calls/sources/conspirators?

There were at least 6 initial calls and 2 different callers, which means Rove likely coordinated it by conspiring with others to make the calls as primary sources and confirm the information as secondary sources, and was perhaps a primary source himself. It also means there will be more than one indictment of the administration's top officials. Read on.


Rational for the numbers:

The situation strongly implies that there were at least 2 different primary sources (since Matt Cooper's specifically released him, but Judith Miller's apparently did not do the same for her) and reason maintains there were at least 6 initial calls (the 6 reporters contacted: Robert Novak, Cooper, Miller, and 3 others), and 3 follow-up calls (Novak, Miller, Cooper). This is the minimum.


Scenario:

In order to make sure the story leaked properly, discrediting Wilson's yellow-cake findings (concerning Iraq's supposed activity to acquire materials for nuclear bombs) by implying he and his wife, Valerie Plame, had an agenda against the current administration since before the Iraq War, a single person talented in this realm would be very likely have to coordinate the calling. (Of course he could have made calls as well.) He would insure, for instance, that neither of the 2 or more primary sources should call the other's initial contact(s) (that would seem too eager, perhaps a dirty trick). In addition, 4-5 others would have to know the story was true in order to confirm it, and they had to be encouraged to do so.

Who better to coordinate and a historic master of the odious activity of defaming an opponent, Karl Rove? Perhaps Cheney (who would have felt responsibility in such a matter since it was the behest of his office that the CIA sent Wilson to Niger) used his clearance to discover this information and brought it to Rove at a meeting of the White House Iraq Group (see snippy's beautiful post in DU, link at bottom of this post). Then Rove would go into high gear, doing what he does best (worst). He coordinated the callings, made sure there were the requisite secondary sources ready and willing to confirm (perhaps each having different details or a different slant to make it sound realistic and not a set-up).

Therefore, Rove may well be both a conspirator (a little RICO, anybody?), and the leaker of illegal information, AND we may have at least one other indictment handed down. Think of the possibilities! Rice, Cheney, Libby, Hughes (why the hell did she retire before?), Matalin, etc. Maybe even W. (But the more I think about it, I wonder how many real reporters wouldn't be suspicious of a call from Rove? He might be the primary source for the likes of Novak, but few others.)

How's that for "knowingly"??? He will have no way to plead innocent to having "knowlingly" revealed the name of a CIA undercover agent since he coordinated several in that very activity (i.e., it wasn't a slip of the tongue or inadvertant blunder).

But think about the above and then read snippy's lovely item backed up by a Washington Post article:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=142863&mesg_id=142952

[gardenista]

16. Thanks, let's hope Fitzgerald is thinking along these lines.

Mind if I quote your text in an email to my family, who are following this closely?

[gardenista]

17. Great posts, thank you.

[wallwriter]

21. The Steve Martin Defense:

I forgot armed robbery was illegal.

[ClassWarrior]

23. How do you "out" a CIA agent AT ALL??

You "out" gay people. You BLOW THE COVER of a CIA agent!!! By saying Plame was "outted," you turn her from an agent of the United States into a surrogate lesbian. Don't advance the Radical Rightwing agenda by adopting their language!!

NGU.

[gardenista]

27. Oh please, that is a stretch. But if you would prefer us all to say

"blow the cover", please post a memo so that we all meet your criteria.

[kodi]

25. impossible. to attack wilson plame's job had to be known

plame was outed because it was an attempt to discredit wilson's credentials and thus undermine his attacks on bush.

to know of plame meant to know of what she did at CIA in relation to the niger trip. her job to monitor nuclear materials was covert.

if rove said he did not know of plame's covert status, someone who did know told rove, and that adds up to a conspiracy.

this is going to eventually look like a pac-man game where folks get goobled up.

[Endangered Specie]

26. Its kinda like the 6 foot stretch