Is Rove going down?

[PaleHorse]

Here's an idea... why don't we wait until the investigation determines if there was any laws broken and go from there.

I agree - lets first allow the investigation to see what actually happened before pronouncing guilt.

But one point I'd like to clear up is; it doesn't matter if she was "covert" at the time Rove make his announcement. Simply connecting her as an agent to any particular mission, whether ongoing or closed for 75 years, is still at least an EEFI violation. It then depends on the extent of damage (usually) the leak of EEFIs causes that determines if a law was actually broken or not. That is what the investigation will determine.

 

[ShawnaAnn]

Yeah, lets all cool down, and fire his worthless butt in a timely fashion.

 

[arnegrim]

The investigation will only determine whether or not he committed a crime. To maintain his position and/or security clearance merely not being a criminal isn't enough. He has to demonstrate trustworthyness and caution when dealing with topics that may be classified (when in doubt shut your mouth). He didn't do so.

His excuse is that he didn't know her status at the CIA was classified. Since when is ignorance an excuse? If a sailor unwittingly reveals the location of a sub is he less guilty because he didn't know that information was classified? Nope.

This isn't the first time Rove has gotten in trouble for his loose lips. What type of information is he going to let slip next time? Troop movements? The location of Camp David? Who's life does he have to endanger for him to be fired?

I believe recent testimony is that he heard her name (and that she was CIA) from a reporter before he talked to Novak...

If that is the case, her name and occupation were already public... the tie-in to Niger may not have been...

Again... let's get the facts before we start hanging people.

 

[kermit]

I believe recent testimony is that he heard her name (and that she was CIA) from a reporter before he talked to Novak...

If that is the case, her name and occupation were already public... the tie-in to Niger may not have been...

Again... let's get the facts before we start hanging people.

Ok, so what if Rove heard this information from reporter. He was still the one that passed in onto Novak. If someone had already leaked information that is still no excuse for leaking information.

You guys are really splitting hairs. I'm sorry our national security is a serious matter. He leaked classified information. Maybe he wasn't the first one to leak this information, maybe he didn't know it was classified, but those things don't matter. He may not be charged with a crime, but he has demonstrated that he cannot be trusted with classified information and by extention our national security.

Like I said this isn't the first time his loose lips have gotten him in trouble. I doubt it will be his last. Who's life will he endanger next time?

 

[burrow_owl]

I believe recent testimony is that he heard her name (and that she was CIA) from a reporter before he talked to Novak...

If that is the case, her name and occupation were already public... the tie-in to Niger may not have been...

I've wondered whether classified info is like attorney/client privilege, where prior disclosure destroys the privilege. My hunch is that it isn't - whether or not a handful of people knew the classified info doesn't impact its classified status. (or lots of people - see: that Justice Dpt. decision to redact patently public info, a cite from a Supreme Court decision, on an ACLU complaint).

I'm not sure, but my hunch makes sense - even if, say, the location of nuclear stockpiles were known by some reporters, it would stand to reason that the information would still be classified.

 

[Doctrine1st]

For the sake of argument, if she was no longer working undercover, her identity (or lack thereof) would no longer be vital to the workings of anything... if it were, then she would have remained 'covert'.

You are not seeing how much damage this can potentialy cause in the bigger picture, and hopefully the Fitzgerald is looking into the overall damage.

Here's an idea... why don't we wait until the investigation determines if there was any laws broken and go from there.

Even if no laws were broken this type of retribution behavior jeopadizing operatives is obsene.

 

[arnegrim]

You are not seeing how much damage this can potentialy cause in the bigger picture, and hopefully the Fitzgerald is looking into the overall damage. Even if no laws were broken this type of retribution behavior jeopadizing operatives is obsene.

I can see where it can cause damage... there is no doubt about that... I just wonder why, if she (or her cover) was so important, she would not remain listed as 'covert'?

As for retribution... there is nothing to indicate this was done out of retribution... and in fact, there is plenty to indicate it was not.

 

[arnegrim]

Ok, so what if Rove heard this information from reporter. He was still the one that passed in onto Novak. If someone had already leaked information that is still no excuse for leaking information.

You guys are really splitting hairs. I'm sorry our national security is a serious matter. He leaked classified information. Maybe he wasn't the first one to leak this information, maybe he didn't know it was classified, but those things don't matter. He may not be charged with a crime, but he has demonstrated that he cannot be trusted with classified information and by extention our national security.

Like I said this isn't the first time his loose lips have gotten him in trouble. I doubt it will be his last. Who's life will he endanger next time?

It's not splitting hairs. Either she was covert or she was not. The fact that reporters already knew her name and her place of work indicated it was not 'covert'... or if it was, the leak is elsewhere.

National security is a HUGE issue. And laws have been put into place to protect it... (those laws may need to be 'adjusted') and as far as the current information goes, Rove has not broken any laws. And whose life was endangered this time?

As for loose lips? Maybe he has them, maybe he doesn't... the past indicates he does... the present doesn't indicate anything... yet.

 

[MikeMcK]

Rove is a Republican. Republican's are allowed to break the law. Nobody cares if they break the law. Not even if it is an "unintensional" act of treason. Nothing will happen to Rove.

Just out of curiousity, was Sandy Berger a Republican?

 

[MikeMcK]

July 10th, 2005 5:13 am
Matt Cooper's Source


What Karl Rove told Time magazine's reporter

By Michael Isikoff / Newsweek...

Why is anybody still listening to this guy after the Quaran story?

 

[Doctrine1st]

I can see where it can cause damage... there is no doubt about that... I just wonder why, if she (or her cover) was so important, she would not remain listed as 'covert'?

Once again I ask, and I think you for the second time, show me the CIA procedure when it comes to NOCs because there are CIA agents out there saying that makes not a bit of difference in her function as a CIA operative.

As for retribution... there is nothing to indicate this was done out of retribution... and in fact, there is plenty to indicate it was not.

Whether it was Rove or not, Novak is still insisting that he got the info from Whitehouse sources. Now why would these whitehouse staffers shop this classified info around to six different journalists if not for Wilson's report? Just so they can have interesting colums?

Of course it was retribution as Rove himself said Plame was "fair game."

 

[kermit]

It's not splitting hairs. Either she was covert or she was not. The fact that reporters already knew her name and her place of work indicated it was not 'covert'... or if it was, the leak is elsewhere.

I guess you don't realize that you are splitting hairs. First off, the CIA still conciders her as covert (or did at the time). Please stop trying to imply otherwise. Also, the fact that her name may have been leaked elsewhere, while a huge deal, doesn't give Rove the right to confirm classified information.

Rove either leaked classified information or confirmed it. He did so either intentional or unintentionally. In any case he did not exercize good judgement, the kind of judgement required to maintain top level clearance.

 

[arnegrim]

I've wondered whether classified info is like attorney/client privilege, where prior disclosure destroys the privilege. My hunch is that it isn't - whether or not a handful of people knew the classified info doesn't impact its classified status. (or lots of people - see: that Justice Dpt. decision to redact patently public info, a cite from a Supreme Court decision, on an ACLU complaint).

I'm not sure, but my hunch makes sense - even if, say, the location of nuclear stockpiles were known by some reporters, it would stand to reason that the information would still be classified.

Yes, you make sense. BUT... following your logic... Rove is at best a third-stringer... Novak would be fourth.

Question... what has Novak been prosecuted with? Has he been prosecuted at all?

 

[arnegrim]

I guess you don't realize that you are splitting hairs. First off, the CIA still conciders her as covert (or did at the time). Please stop trying to imply otherwise. Also, the fact that her name may have been leaked elsewhere, while a huge deal, doesn't give Rove the right to confirm classified information.

Rove either leaked classified information or confirmed it. He did so either intentional or unintentionally. In any case he did not exercize good judgement, the kind of judgement required to maintain top level clearance.

Did they consider her 'covert'? From what I've read there is still a question about that.

If the information is correct, Rove did not leak anything... simply confirmed it... which I don't believe is a crime.