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.
More at:
Seeing the Forest
DCCC’s Stakeholder
Bill Scher at the Huffington Post
Bill Scher at Liberal Oasis
Swing State Project
Just occurred to me. If this were orchestrated political smear, wouldn’t these guys run it by the legal counsel’s office at the WH? I wonder if there is a finding out there…
CIA could’ve easily made the referral as a cya-good government initiative to ensure they stayed above it all. Another explanation may be the CIA bureaucracy was under fire after 9-11 and they reacted by kicking everything back to the politicos they could possibly to do it Iraq protect turf. I don’t mean to be cynical, but I miss the bureaucracy wars in national security community. The referral was just one more opportunity. These are two plausible answers to the criminal referral.
And the talking point is that he warned Cooper not to go out on a limb 🙂
Exactly, which is why Joe Wilson telling Corn that his wife was a undercover CIA operative and probably even providing the cover is such a big deal. Do you think he got an OK on that before he leaked? Are you going to denounce Wilson over that even more significant leak?
What evidence do you have of Wilson telling Corn that his wife was an CIA operative? May’s article is conjecture and if you want to call for an investigation that is fine, but Corn doesn’t even identify her as an operative in the article–he suggests that if she was covert that’s a problem.
In contrast, we know that Rove talked to at least three reporters while her status was still classified.
Greg,
I find it hard to buy when you put it in context of the former agents who have come forward about the issue. But, yeah, there could be legal cover for the guy–these laws are very complex and I would imagine it’ll be an interesting trial to watch (especially since it may have to be partially secret). But I still don’t get how it’s appropriate to do what he did-which is a far different standard.
I’m hurt, because I have this on my blog.
From Corn’s article:
So he [Wilson] will neither confirm nor deny that his wife–who is the mother of three-year-old twins–works for the CIA. But let’s assume she does. That would seem to mean that the Bush administration has screwed one of its own top-secret operatives in order to punish Wilson or to send a message to others who might challenge it.
The sources for Novak’s assertion about Wilson’s wife appear to be “two senior administration officials.” If so, a pair of top Bush officials told a reporter the name of a CIA operative who apparently has worked under what’s known as “nonofficial cover” and who has had the dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material. If Wilson’s wife is such a person–and the CIA is unlikely to have many employees like her–her career has been destroyed by the Bush administration. (Assuming she did not tell friends and family about her real job, these Bush officials have also damaged her personal life.) Without acknowledging whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee, Wilson says, “Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames.” If she is not a CIA employee and Novak is reporting accurately, then the White House has wrongly branded a woman known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm as a CIA officer. That would not likely do her much good.
This is far more than Novaks “CIA operative”, and make it crystal clear that she was covert. If you read the article, it’s pretty clear that Mr. Wilson was the source, and so Cliff May decided to ask Corn that very question.
From an email Corn sent to Cliff May:
“All I can say again is, nice try. When I spoke to Joe Wilson after the Novak leak, he would not tell me whether or not his wife worked at the CIA. He spoke only in hypotheticals. He said, imagine if she did, what would this leak mean, AND imagine if she did not, what would this leak mean. So I do deny that he told me because he did not. That’s the truth, the absolute truth. No spin. No parsing. No stonewalling. If you find any wiggle room in this response, let me know and I will unwiggle it. And you can believe it or not. ”
If you watch Jeopardy, you know the answers are phrased in the form of a question. Joe Wilson wasn’t asking questions, because he knew the answer. He was providing the answer in the form of a question. If I were on a jury that heard this case, I’d convict. (oops, there goes my chances).
As for Rove, the question(s) are was her employement at the CIA classified, and if so, did Rove know that. We’re assuming her status was because of the referrel, but I don’t know if we’ve actually seen the referrel. But let’s answer yes (and this is a hypothetical since I don’t actually know), in which case for Rove to have committed a crime, he had to know that her status was classified. If Rove knew, then it doesn’t matter if a reporter mentioned it to him first. If he didn’t know, it doesn’t matter if Rove mentioned it to a reporter first. Now if Rove was accurate in saying her learned her status from a reporter, and had no official source, then he didn’t do anything illegal. You might think it sleazy, I might think that he should have asked the White House security people about it before commenting, but not illegal.
I know–which is why I thought I’d mentioned the Andrea Mitchell interview, but can’t find a mention of it now. As usual, I’m confused about what all I posted so far.
Wilson used virtually the same language with her in a television interview–NBC cut it for time and the result was the language about if she was a covert agent was dropped. Wilson says this in his book
“21 July 2003 [morning] Wilson does interview with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell. In this interview the editors at the NBC evening news had omitted important qualifiers in the wording Wilson used to talk about his wife. This, in Wilson’s words, “changed the tenor of the interview and gave CIA lawyers cause to briefly consider whether or not I myself might have been in violation of the same law of the senior administration officials…”. Wilson requested a copy of the raw footage for future use but was denied. Wilson requested Mitchell save a copy; she agreed.”
Virtually the same language was used in both cases according to what Corn and Wilson have both said and the CIA did consider the issue–which would have been very serious if he had not used the full language making it a hypothetical. The CIA was apparently satisfied. The other issue is this is within the scope of the current investigation–and Corn reports absolutely no discussion with the Prosecutor or his team. Fitzgerald isn’t the kind of guy to not seriously look at such an issue if it was an issue.
Personally, I find the hypothetical as a defense laughable.
How many prosecutions of leaks by CIA or ex-CIA to the press have ever been investigated by a grand jury, let alone prosecuted? Other intellegence agencies yes, the press, very very few.
We don’t know exactly what Fitzgerald is investigating or the lattitude he’s been given. But I agree it doesn’t look like it is Joe Wilson. That doesn’t stop me from thinking that based on the info so far made public Wilson has violated laws unlike Rove and damaged US security laws more than Rove – but that could easily changed based on more info.