Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
June 13, 2006
Rove Won't Face Indictment in C.I.A. Leak Case Damn IT! NYT edit
By DAVID JOHNSTON and JIM RUTENBERG
WASHINGTON, June 13 The decision by a special prosecutor not to bring charges against Karl Rove in the C.I.A. leak case followed months of intense, behind-the-scenes maneuvering between the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, and Mr. Rove's lawyer, according to lawyers in the case.
The move, made public by Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, early today, brought a surprise ending to the investigation of Mr. Rove, President Bush's senior adviser, who at one point last fall seemed to be close to facing possible perjury charges for lapses in his early testimony about a conversation with a Time magazine reporter.
Mr. Fitzgerald's decision left I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, alone among current and former White House officials still facing legal jeopardy in the three-year-old C.I.A. leak case.
Mr. Fitzgerald announced in a letter to Mr. Luskin on Monday that he would not indict Mr. Rove, who had testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.
After months in which the case has proven a major distraction to the White House, the decision frees Mr. Rove in his role as President Bush's top strategist during crucial, midterm elections this year. Mr. Luskin declined to address the legal issues surrounding the case, but added, "We believe that the special counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."
A spokesman for Mr. Rove's legal team, Mark Corallo, said that Mr. Rove had made no deals to cooperate with the prosecution in any way, and that the decision was purely based on Mr. Fitzgerald's own findings. Mr. Fitzgerald's spokesman, Randall Samborn, had no comment.
Mr. Fitzgerald's decision is not expected to have a direct legal impact on the case against Mr. Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff. But it does free Mr. Fitzgerald to focus exclusively on preparations for that trial, which is scheduled to begin in January and continues to hold the potential for embarrassment to the White House.
In a series of court filings in that case, Mr. Fitzgerald has already indicated that he may call Mr. Cheney as a witness, an unsettling prospect that could expose Mr. Cheney to the uncertainties of being questioned in a criminal trial. The decision to decline a prosecution in Mr. Rove's case effectively ends the active investigative phase of Mr. Fitzgerald's inquiry because Mr. Rove was the only person known to still be under active scrutiny.
That leaves some important unanswered questions as the inquiry comes to a close. Among them is the identity of who in the government first told the columnist Robert D. Novak about the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the case in the days before his July 14, 2003 column in which he disclosed the identity of Valerie Plame Wilson.
Ms. Wilson is married to Joseph C. Wilson IV, the former ambassador who wrote in an Op-Ed column in The New York Times on July 6, 2003 that White House officials, including Mr. Bush, had exaggerated assertions that Iraq had sought to purchase nuclear fuel from Africa. Mr. Wilson said his conclusions were based on a trip he had made in early 2002 to Niger, a fact-finding mission that he said had been "instigated" by Mr. Cheney's office.
It is now known that the column upset Mr. Cheney and that within his office it was viewed as an attack on the Vice President's credibility, according to legal briefs filed in the Libby case by Mr. Fitzgerald.
Officials at the White House were careful today not to celebrate too joyously over the news for Mr. Rove. But they were clearly buoyed by what they termed the closing of at least one uncomfortable chapter in the leak case.
Speaking to reporters on Air Force One on his way back from Baghdad, Mr. Bush told reporters: "It's a chapter that has ended. Fitzgerald is a very thorough person. I think he's conducted his investigation in a dignified way. And he's ended his investigation."
But Mr. Bush cautioned: "There's still a trial to be had. And those of us involved in the White House are going to be very mindful of not commenting on this issue."
Mr. Fitzgerald's decision against prosecuting Mr. Rove came after months of private discussions between him and Mr. Luskin, beginning last fall, even before Mr. Libby was indicted.
While in public Mr. Rove showed little evidence of concern about his plight, lawyers in the case said that Mr. Luskin was waging a fierce battle behind the scenes to stave off the prosecution. The lawyers said the prosecutor seemed at times to be at the brink of bringing charges against Mr. Rove over his failure to volunteer early in the inquiry a conversation about Ms. Wilson with the Time magazine reporter, Matt Cooper.
Mr. Rove had testified that he had initially forgotten about that conversation, and that his memory had only been jogged after his lawyers found an e-mail from Mr. Rove to Stephen J. Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser now the chief security adviser referring to a conversation with Mr. Cooper. Mr. Rove had essentially argued that it would have been legal suicide to knowingly lie to a grand jury about a conversation with a reporter.
That argument seems to have been crucial in staving off an indictment. Mr. Fitzgerald, according to several lawyers in the case, believed at least initially that Mr. Rove's effort to find the e-mail meant that he must have already known of its existence. But Mr. Luskin offered an alternative account, at one point switching from his role as a lawyer, offering himself as a witness.
Last fall, Mr. Luskin provided a sworn deposition to Mr. Fitzgerald saying that had been told by Viveca Novak, a friend at Time magazine who is not related to the columnist Robert Novak, that Mr. Rove may have talked to Mr. Cooper. That provided Mr. Luskin with a reason to search for any record of such a conversation.
Mr. Rove himself was said by associates to be ebullient today. Mr. Rove declined comment, but the White House did tip photographers that he would be walking from the White House to the Old Executive Office Building, providing imagery of Mr. Rove, all smiles..
The leak investigation, several associates said, had been a heavy burden for him and his wife and son, whose home was frequently visited by scrums of reporters and cameramen on indictment watches. Officials said Mr. Rove had remained focused on his work throughout, but he was also said to have often seemed less jovial, and less inclined to engage in his usual practical jokes.
Associates said Mr. Rove had seemed to loosen up some in recent weeks, apparently as he and his lawyer grew more confident that no indictment would come even as the liberal blogosphere and some commentators predicted an imminent indictment, based in part on a recent report on Truthout.org.
Truthout.org said today in a posting that it still believed its initial report that there was a sealed indictment against Mr. Rove was accurate, but that he was cooperating with the prosecution.
Elsewhere, liberal blogs were filled with disappointment, disbelief and anger and occasional postings from conservatives seeking apologies after the news broke today.
In a statement, a lawyer for the Wilsons, Christopher Wolf, indicated that the couple was considering taking civil action against Mr. Rove.
"The day still may come when Mr. Rove and others are called to account in a court of law for their attacks on the Wilsons," Mr. Wolf said. Mr. Wilson said in 2003 that he wanted to see Mr. Rove "frog-marched" out of the White House.
Tom Rath, chairman of the state Republican Party in New Hampshire, said he was relieved Mr. Rove could concentrate on winning the midterm elections without the taint of scandal. "It was like being on the disabled list; you see him in a uniform every day but you can't have him on the mound," Mr. Rath said of Mr. Rove's previous legal limbo. "Now he's back on the mound."
Q Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?
THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --
Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.
jasendorf said:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040610-36.html
And, the facts were found. Even after Rove lied about not being involved only to have an email showing he did. His response was typical of a Republican, didn't remember, oops. Rove leaked Joe Wilson's wife's identity. For political gain. End of story. Leaking CIA agents' names is rewarded in Republican circles. OJ Rove still has a job.
jasendorf said:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040610-36.html
And, the facts were found. Even after Rove lied about not being involved only to have an email showing he did. His response was typical of a Republican, didn't remember, oops. Rove leaked Joe Wilson's wife's identity. For political gain. End of story. Leaking CIA agents' names is rewarded in Republican circles. OJ Rove still has a job.
jasendorf said:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040610-36.html
And, the facts were found. Even after Rove lied about not being involved only to have an email showing he did. His response was typical of a Republican, didn't remember, oops. Rove leaked Joe Wilson's wife's identity. For political gain. End of story. Leaking CIA agents' names is rewarded in Republican circles. OJ Rove still has a job.
rtwngAvngr said:A. She was not undercover.
B. he was counteracting the notion that somehow Joseph Wilson was going abroad on behalf of the administration. He was not. He was on a renegade smear campaign.
Novak Speaks Out About CIA Name Leak
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
WASHINGTON Columnist Robert Novak (search) broke his silence Monday about his disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity, defending himself against a former agency official's account that he twice warned Novak not to publish the name.
In his syndicated column, Novak did not dispute that former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow (search) told him he should not print the covert officer's name, Valerie Plame (search), during conversations they had prior to Novak's July 14, 2003 column.
But Novak reasserted that no CIA official ever told him in advance ''that Valerie Plame Wilson's disclosure would endanger her or anybody else.''
Plame is the wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson (search), who was sent to Africa by the CIA in 2002 to evaluate intelligence that Iraq was trying to acquire nuclear materials.
More than a year later, with the U.S. government unable to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Wilson wrote an op-ed piece for The New York Times, ''What I Didn't Find In Africa,'' and asked the question: ''Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion?''
Eight days later, Novak wrote an article in which he disclosed Plame's name and cited as sources two unidentified senior Bush administration officials. Novak wrote that the officials had told him Plame had suggested sending her husband to Niger.
Wilson claims the leak was retribution for his article and criticism of the administration. Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is investigating whether government officials broke the law by disclosing Plame's name to Novak and other journalists.
Harlow was interviewed recently by The Washington Post and acknowledged telling the grand jury investigating the case that he spoke to Novak at least three days before the column appeared.
Harlow said he could not tell Novak that Plame was a covert officer because that information itself was classified. But in at least two telephone calls, Harlow told Novak that Plame had not authorized her husband's mission and that her name should not be used even if Novak went ahead with a story, according to the Post.
Harlow declined to comment when contacted by The Associated Press.
Novak, whose role in the investigation is unknown, has been silent on the series of events he set in motion. But he wrote about it Monday, saying he was ignoring his lawyers' advice because Harlow's account is ''so patently incorrect and so abuses my integrity as a journalist.''
Novak said Harlow's admonition not to disclose Plame's name ''is meaningless. Once it was determined that Wilson's wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as 'Valerie Plame' by reading her husband's entry in 'Who's Who in America.'''
The columnist said Harlow was ''just plain wrong'' in saying he had deliberately disregarded Harlow's comment that Plame had not authorized her husband's trip.
''There never was any question of me talking about Mrs. Wilson 'authorizing.' I was told she 'suggested' the mission, and that is what I asked Harlow,'' he wrote.
jasendorf said:
dmp said:I'm a COVERT Operative, but I'm sitting home doing Jackie Schitt. I'm not 'undercover' (except in bed) - yet I'm a COVERT OPERATIVE.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casec...s/15/subchapters/iv/sections/section_421.html* United States Code
o TITLE 50 - WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
+ CHAPTER 15 - NATIONAL SECURITY
# SUBCHAPTER IV - PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
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.
jasendorf said:Oh, I'm sorry... I thought you were talking about the law... but, instead you guys were just using a carefully chosen different word to distract and mislead... some people might call that lying and/or intellectually dishonest... but not me, I'm going to play Alan Colmes and apologize for not catching your little word-play.... my bad.
Meanwhile, where the law is concerned...
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casec...s/15/subchapters/iv/sections/section_421.html
