Zeroing in on Rove

ArchPundit August 2, 2005 No Comments

Kos and others are pointing out that Fitzgerald is zeroing in on Rove, but I hardly find that news. Once Cooper’s notes confirmed Rove was the person in question, it was obvious who Fitzgerald is going after. From the Appeals Court Decision

Cooper refused to comply with the subpoena, even
after the Special Counsel offered to narrow its scope to cover
only conversations between Cooper and a specific individual
identified by the Special Counsel. Instead, Cooper moved to
quash the subpoena on June 3, 2004. On July 6, 2004, the Chief
Judge of the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia denied Cooper?s motion in open court, and confirmed
the denial with reasoning set forth in a written order issued on
July 20, 2004

…………………

Applying this standard to the facts of this case, and
considering first only the public record, I have no doubt that the
leak at issue was a serious matter. Authorized ?to investigate
and prosecute violations of any federal criminal laws related to
the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as
federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to
interfere with, [his] investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of
justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses,?
see Letter from James B. Comey, Acting Attorney General, to
Patrick J. Fitzgerald, United States Attorney, Northern District
of Illinois (Feb. 6, 2004), the special counsel is attempting to
discover the origins of press reports describing Valerie Plame as
a CIA operative monitoring weapons of mass destruction. See
majority op. at 3-5. These reports appeared after Plame?s
husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, wrote in a New
York Times op-ed column that his findings on an official mission
to Niger in 2002 cast doubt on President Bush?s assertion in his
January 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq ?recently
sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.? See id. at
3.

An alleged covert agent, Plame evidently traveled overseas
on clandestine missions beginning nearly two decades ago. See,
e.g., Richard Leiby & Dana Priest, The Spy Next Door; Valerie
Wilson, Ideal Mom, Was Also the Ideal Cover, Wash. Post, Oct.
8, 2003, at A1. Her exposure, therefore, not only may have
jeopardized any covert activities of her own, but also may have
endangered friends and associates from whom she might have
gathered information in the past. Acting to criminalize such
exposure of secret agents, see 50 U.S.C. ? 421, Congress has
identified that behavior?s ?intolerable? consequences: ?[t]he
loss of vital human intelligence which our policymakers need,
the great cost to the American taxpayer of replacing intelligence
resources lost due to such disclosures, and the greatly increased
risk of harm which continuing disclosures force intelligence
officers and sources to endure.? S. Rep. No. 97-201, at 10-11
(1981), reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 145, 154-55.
The leak of Plame?s apparent employment, moreover, had
marginal news value. To be sure, insofar as Plame?s CIA
relationship may have helped explain her husband?s selection for
the Niger trip, that information could bear on her husband?s
credibility and thus contribute to public debate over the
president?s ?sixteen words.? Compared to the damage of
undermining covert intelligence-gathering, however, this slight
news value cannot, in my view, justify privileging the leaker?s
identity.

……………………………..
Read More

I Am Beginning to Get the Term Reality Based Community

ArchPundit August 2, 2005 1 Comment

Much like Truth Girl I often find the term strange–as someone who is a Christian it seems a bit too far for me in that I don’t reject faith and it always seems to me that such a line puts faith as not important. That said, today’s headlines at the Huffington Post cut to the core of what many have problems with

Bush On Intelligent Design: ?Teach It In Schools?…

Bush On Rove: He Has My ?Complete Confidence?…

Bush On Palmeiro: ?I Believe Him?…

Facts don’t matter, only your point of view in this brave new world.

What Have the Reps Said about The Plame case

ArchPundit July 21, 2005 5 Comments

Over at Talking Points Memo, someone called Biggert’s office and got a non-response.

Less Than Half of Republicans Think The White House if Fully Cooperating

ArchPundit July 18, 2005 No Comments

It’s not surprising that Democrats or independents might say that, but less than half of Republicans think the White House is cooperating fully according to an ABC Poll just out.

The second key point is the salience:

The leak investigation is seen as a meaningful issue: About three-quarters call it a serious matter, and just over four in 10 see it as “very” serious. These are down slightly, however, by five and six points respectively, from their level in September 2003.

Fifty-three percent are following the issue closely ? a fairly broad level of attention. Those paying close attention (who include about as many Republicans as Democrats) are more likely than others to call it very serious, to say the White House is not cooperating, to say Rove should be fired if he leaked, and to say Miller is doing the right thing.

Now whether 53% really are following it closely is one thing, but 53% of people think it’s important enough to say they are is very significant.

Via DCCC’s Stakeholder

The Positive Responsibility to Protect Classified Information

ArchPundit July 18, 2005 7 Comments

Of the many GOP talking points out there on the Rove Affair, one of the most bizarre is that Karl Rove didn’t do anything wrong because he confirmed information a reporter asked him about. This is usually confused with the other odd notion that no classified information was leaked which begs the question of how did a CIA referral end up at Justice if that wasn’t the case.

From the ethical perspective, being non-chalant about any CIA employee’s status is stupid since the CIA has fairly firm rules about identifying employees. Deferring to the agency is just good sense. When it comes to a matter of national security, you err on the side of caution.

This is a pretty basic issue. Someone with clearance just doesn’t answer such a question. That Karl Rove did it once would be one thing–let’s assume honest mistakes occur, but we also know after Cooper he told Chris Matthews Wilson’s wife was fair game. Before Cooper he apparently gave the same type of statement to Novak. That’s not an off the kuff mistake.

Question 19: If information that a signer of the SF 312 knows to have been classified appears in a public source, for example, in a newspaper article, may the signer assume that the information has been declassified and disseminate it elsewhere?

Answer: No. Information remains classified until it has been officially declassified. Its disclosure in a public source does not declassify the information. Of course, merely quoting the public source in the abstract is not a second unauthorized disclosure. However, before disseminating the information elsewhere or confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, further dissemination of the information or confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.

From a legal perspective, it’s also fairly clear issue. Think Progress points out the relevant issues for anyone with a security clearance. You don’t just have the responsibility to not be a source for classified information, you have an affirmative responsibility to not confirm even information that is in the public sphere it is still classified and the burden is on the individual with clearance to find out before responding.

Via Carpetbagger Report

More at:

Seeing the Forest
DCCC’s Stakeholder
Bill Scher at the Huffington Post
Bill Scher at Liberal Oasis
Swing State Project

So Will Illinois Republicans Support Fitzgerald?

ArchPundit July 18, 2005 6 Comments

We see the first attack on him by Pat Roberts and when Tim Russert asks Mehlman if he’ll respect the decision by the Special Prosecutor, Ken seems to have to find a lot of words to not say yes. Remember, Just Say Yes

Russert: You say you have tremendous confidence in Pat Fitzgerald.

Mehlman: I do.

Russert: If in fact he indicts White House officials, will you accept that indictment and not fight it?

Mehlman: Uh, first of all, I’m the chairman of the Republican National Committee. I’m not an attorney for anybody. Uh, the fact is, uh, I look forward to his getting to the bottom of this. I can’t speak for.

Russert: But, but if he indicts White House officials, will you pledge today because you have tremendous confidence in him that you will not criticize his decision?

Mehlman: Uh, again, I’m not going to speculate. I have tremendous confidence in him. I look to him to get to the bottom of this. Whatever he does, I can assure you people are going to follow and are going to look to abide by, but —

Podesta: Say yes

Mehlman: I think it would be inappropriate for me as the RNC chairman to say what legal strategy people may take in the future.

Russert: But if you have tremendous confidence in him, then you will accept and respect his decision?

Mehlman: I look forward to hearing what he has to say and I intend to respect what he has to say, but again I’m not going to speculate on what he might do.

For extra fun, check out Bob Schieffer making the point that, Presidents usually find it quite easy to get to the bottom of these things when they want to.

So, how about it Illinois Republicans? Care to speak up and back up Fitzgerald? Or was that only when he was convenient?

Most are Talking About Cooper

ArchPundit July 18, 2005 No Comments

But this one at Talking Points Memo is far more interesting

Four former CIA agents submitted a statement on Capitol Hill in October of 2003.

Clearly some in the Bush Administration do not understand the requirement to protect and shield national security assets. Based on published information we can only conclude that partisan politics by people in the Bush Administration overrode the moral and legal obligations to protect clandestine officers and security assets.

Beyond supporting Mrs. Wilson with our moral support and prayers we want to send a clear message to the political operatives responsible for this. You are a traitor and you are our enemy. You should lose your job and probably should go to jail for blowing the cover of a clandestine intelligence officer.

You have set a sickening precedent. You have warned all U.S. intelligence officers that you may be compromised if you are providing information the White House does not like. A precedent, as one colleague pointed out during our brief appearances, allows you to build out a case based on previous legal actions and court decisions. It’s a slippery slope if it lowers the bar.

Ambassador Wilson’s political affiliations are irrelevant. Political differences serve as the basis for the give and take of representative government. What is relevant is the damage caused by the exposure that Ambassador Wilson’s wife as a political act intended to undermine Wilson’s view.

It is shameful on one level that the White House uses the news media, its own leaks, and junior Congressmen from Georgia, among others, to levy attacks on Ambassador Wilson. Moreover they discount what he has to say, his value in the Niger investigation, and suggest his wife’s cover is of little value because she was “a low-level CIA employee”. If Wilson’s comments or analysis have no merit, why does the White House feel the need to launch such a coordinated attack? Why drag his wife into it?

Not only have the Bush Administration leakers damaged the career of our friend but they have put many other people potentially in harm’s way. If left unpunished this outing has lowered the bar for official behavior. Further, who in their right mind would ever agree to become a spy for the United States? If we won’t protect our own officers how can we reassure foreigners that we will safeguard them? Better human intelligence could prevent any number of terror incidents in the future, but we are unlikely to get foreign recruits to supply it if their safety cannot be somewhat assured. If more cases like Mrs. Wilson’s occur, assurances of CIA protection will mean nothing to potential spies

I guess this is what Ed Meese meant when he said the Adults are Back in Charge.

Cooper’s article is here. I believe you have to subscribe.

Give Rove A Medal

ArchPundit July 13, 2005 2 Comments

Has Fox News been taken over by the Onion? Because you can’t make this stuff up.

John Gibson thinks we ought to out and identify secret spymasters. There’s video. It’s hysterical and sad. Mainly hystical, but maybe after I stop laughing I’ll find it sad–but that’s going to take a long time.

A Telling Insight into the Administration

ArchPundit July 11, 2005 No Comments

Bob Novak covers the situation of Chris Smith of New Jersey. It seems that Smith had the temerity to criticize the Bush Administration because it was shortchanging veterans and, well, Smith ended up with sleeping next to the Horse’s Head. To his credit, Smith isn’t backing down.

Okay, Novak has done something useful besides be evil.

The SS Proposal Gets Even More Bizarre

ArchPundit April 29, 2005 No Comments

Apparently the President’s proposal is to significantly reduce the COLAs for Social Security over time. The problem being:

The Social Security Administration calculates that the system will deplete its reserve of Treasury bonds by 2041, after which it will be able to pay out in benefits only what it receives in taxes. But even then, benefits would be almost three-quarters what is currently promised, and considerably higher in inflation-adjusted terms than they are now. If nothing is done to Social Security, the system will be able to meet the president’s promise to ensure that all seniors receive a benefit larger than current levels.

He’s apparently going to make the system worse.

But remember that the trust fund is not a real obligation and the bonds in there can just be ignored? That would appear to be a rather bad idea from which to then move to this position:

Despite opposition from Democrats and a lukewarm response from the public, he intensified his push for private accounts financed by a portion of a worker’s payroll taxes. To pacify those worried about the risk associated with investment, the president, for the first time, said one of the investment options should be no-risk Treasury bonds.

I believe we now know where CMS learned it’s accounting practices.