"Harwood's assertion (re: Rove) is not supported by the law or the facts."

[understandinglife]

Summary: On MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, Wall Street Journal national political editor John Harwood claimed that White House senior adviser Karl Rove was at most guilty of "backhanded confirmations" of classified information and therefore cannot reasonably be accused of leaking. Harwood's assertion amounts to the claim that mere confirmation -- as opposed to actual disclosure -- of classified information does not constitute an unauthorized leak. Harwood's assertion is not supported by the law or the facts.

<clip>

Neither the Intelligence Identities Protection Act nor the Espionage Act distinguishes between the act of actively disclosing classified information and confirming its accuracy with someone not authorized to have it. Moreover, the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement (SF 312), which is signed by administration officials with access to classified information, explicitly prohibits the confirmation of classified information in addition to its active disclosure.

<clip>

Link:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604280009

And the fact remains, as I and others have posted more than once, both Cheney and Bush, if nothing else, have been in violation of Executive Order 12958 the moment Libby, Rove (and anyone else who reports to them) violated their SF312s.


Peace.

[Peace Patriot]

1. Thanks, Understandinglife, for keeping us current on the law, as

opposed to Bush junta and war profiteering corporate news monopoly disinformation.

I tend to think Patrick Fitzgerald has Karl Rove by the short hairs on perjury and obstruction of justice, and is trying to remove the Libby blockade of this investigation, by giving Rove time to think about it--including time to think about whether or not this president will have any political capital left for promised pardons, down the line. It's not looking good for that now, but, if the War Democrats win in '06/'08, that could change. (They might well permit such pardons, in the flush of victory.) But, for now, Rove is in serious legal trouble, it appears, and what Fitzgerald has made very clear is that he wants to get to the bottom of it (or, rather, the top of it). Rove's lengthy appearance before the GJ recently (his 5th!), no immediate indictment, this long wait (ten days, I understand), all point to a deal in the making, whereby Rove avoids an indictment, or gets lesser charges, by giving up someone else--and I doubt that Fitzgerald would be satisfied with a lateral accusation (say, against Libby, on the main crime), but wants to know how high up the conspiracy went; who ordered it.

Also, you have to wonder--as I have frequently at DU--what's really behind Treasongate; what was Treasongate a cover up FOR? Because, what difference would it make, to Bush, the Bush junta, or the press handling of either, if Bush were to simply confess to outing Plame/Brewster-Jennings for unspecified "national security" reasons, and claim that he has the power to do that. They've already laid the groundwork for this assertion. He would get everyone off the hook, saying that HE has the power to declassify anything at any time, including a CIA agent's name and the name of a CIA counter-proliferation network. Or he could trump up something like they just did about Mary McCarthy--a total fabrication that Plame/BJ had broken some rule or law. Would Congress do anything about it? At best, a slap on the wrist. Not anything Fitzgerald could do, even if the grand jury laid a bill of impeachment before the House. It might cause political splatter, but would anything serious be done about it? Not likely--especially if Bush did a Nixon "Checkers Speech" number, dramatic confession to the nation and request for forgiveness. The corporate news lapdogs would lap it up! That would be that. Bearing in mind that the the reasons for corporate news monopoly and other establishment support of the Bush junta has nothing to do with patriotism or loyalty, but has to do with protecting war profiteering, deregulation and tax cuts for the rich, why would they care what Bush asserts? They haven't balked at anything else, including the most egregious abuses of executive power.

What I'm getting at is WHY Bush hasn't done this. It makes me feel that something deeper and far worse is being covered up. Not that a Bush "confession" would mean otherwise, but I'm talking about how people behave when caught in a trap. They overcompensate, lie when they don't have to, become paranoid and secretive, and can't see any simple way out. And this is especially true if they ARE covering up serious crimes. Panic, adrenalin, fear--things I perceived in their behavior in the week of July 7-14--haste, cover up, great risk. And I don't think it was/is the obvious Iraq war lies. I don't think that's the motivator, then or now, except indirectly. I think you know my WMD-planting theory of Treasongate (and connection to David Kelly's death in England, the same week that Plame was outed). But it could be something else--for instance, having to do with WHO they have "rendered" and tortured. I doubt that they are torturing real terrorists, or that their torture has anything to do with keeping America "safe." It more likely has financial or criminal coverup goals. Could they have some of the Brewster-Jennings' network in custody somewhere--people who know things about Cheney dirty arms dealings or 9/11 (or about the planting of WMD "evidence" in Iraq or Iran; or--I just thought of this--the creation of some kind of Gulf of Tonkin incident with Iran, that is in the offing)?

What is the can of worms that they are trying to keep a lid on--by Libby and Rove both risking jail to obstruct the Plame/BJ leak investigation?

Who knows if Rove will crack under this pressure? Possibly--no, probably--some scenario is being played out (the dumping of Cheney?). Whether or not they will succeed at preserving the tax cuts and all the rest is an open question. Possibly many junta-ists don't care. They've made such a wad on us, they can afford to move on, and go destroy China, or whatever global looting they have planned next. I wonder if we will ever know all of what this gang of criminals got up to. I DO seen many signs, these days, that we WILL survive it, and perhaps become a better country because of it. I have a lot of hope, but I'm also curious about how bad they are, and what-all they got away with, and how.

[DemReadingDU]

2. It does make one wonder

how deep the cover-up goes. Someday, the full story will emerge, I hope I'm still around then.

[understandinglife]

5. I think it may be rather simple. Bush gave the order to "get Wilson" ...

... and didn't even consider the implications of outing a CIA NOC. But when ValerieP appeared in Novak's article, the entire "Brewster Jennings" asset was destroyed. Bush may never have to answer to anyone but his father. And, I think his father has sent plenty of signals (most recently Scowcroft traveling to Seattle for a private meeting with Hu) that his son is worse than a failure, he's a traitor.

As to who Mr. Fitzgerald will eventually prosecute -> Cheney and Bush.

We'll see.


Peace.

[kevinbgoode]

3. One would think a national political editor

of even a "conservative" newspaper would have the ethical and moral foundation to engage in the search for the truth, rather than attempt to snake around a truthiness argument.

I often believe that what is truly rotting this nation are not the gays wanting equal rights, but the slow deterioration of the ability of those who have had power for hundreds of years to reason and have any real commitment to finding truth or searching for the facts. Too many of them have reduced their discourse to a sort of pre-middle school temper tantrum, a drama substitute for the passion for evil they love to cover up. They are soulless prostitutes of whatever provides them personal gain, and they would sell their own mothers out for a personal advantage. Even their "religious" beliefs are too boastful and arrogant, devoid of any real commitment to peace or justice or feeding the hungry...all secondary concerns when the desire for theocracy and the unelected power that comes with it is so much more personally appealing.

This prostitution now infects even the fourth estate, spreading like a cancer until the very public they were meant to protect now emphatically distrusts their work. The public adamantly opposes Congress and the President by a huge margin and yet the two institutions operate as if they have little clue to the mood of the public. The Republican Party, which operates more as a branch of the Moonies than any organization with a real base of supporters, has shown itself to be so hypocritically and morally bankrupt that they are little more than caricatures mimicking the array of televangelista barnyard revivalists who populate an increasingly amount of time on our airwaves.

[symbolman]

4. Firedoglake brought up a good point

that the SPIN is as simple as NOT telling the people how a Grand Jury works and WHO can INDICT..

Fitz CANNOT indict Rove, if Fitz came out and said HE was Indicting Rove, Rove could conceivably get off. It would Piss off the Grand Jury, as THEY are the only ones who can Indict Rove..

Just one sample of Legalisms being spun to the public.