Of Leaks--And Spies--Of Kingmakers And Why?s

'It seems a shame,' the Walrus said,'To play them such a trick...'

Published on July 14, 2005 By kingbee In Politics

consider this part 3 of an ongoing lewis carroll-inspired peek at events and policies through the looking glass (parts 1 Link and 2 Link.)

if karl rove did nothing illegal or innapropriate as regards novak's announcement that valerie plame worked for the cia and was married to ambassador joe wilson, wouldn't it have been easier on everyone if he'd stepped up to a microphone 2 years ago and let us know that was the case?

as one of gwbush's closest associates (if not THE closest), couldn't he have simply told the president that he'd done nothing wrong?

as the chief of staff for policy, rove certainly should be well aware of the country's precarious financial situation. why is it costing us a million and change to find out he did nothing wrong?

why is judy miller still in jail?

'I weep for you,'the Walrus said:
'I deeply sympathize.'
With sobs and tears he denied
Alleging wives were spies,
Holding his pocket-handkerchief
Before his streaming eyes.

Comments (Page 2)

kingbee

on Jul 21, 2005

Rove was warning a reporter not to trust Wilson,

this reminds me of a guy i know who was fired from a job atta shipyard when it became necessary for someone to be sacrificed because of some damage done to a navy ship when a faulty drydock went berserk. he told me his boss had him sign 2 blank pink slips to 'help him out'. amazingly, only the pink slip that said this guy admitted sleeping on the job that ever turned up.

without having a actual transcript or having been present to hear what rove said, there are several possible interpretations of what little rove admits to saying. one which wouldnt be outta character for rove--who has quite a history of going overboard on political enemies--would be to punish wilson.

kingbee

on Jul 21, 2005

i've seen several references to statements by judges indicating there is critical information in documents yet to be made public.

in particular judge tatel (who wrote "reason and experience support recognition of a privilege for reporters’ confidential sources” and was clearly loathe to order cooper and miller jailed) reluctantly concluded he “might have” been open to letting them go “were the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national security.”

another judge opined: “Special Counsel’s showing decides the case.”

there's clearly a yet-to-be-revealed something of some magnitude in the mix here.

Lee1776

on Jul 25, 2005

once again, if that were the case, why would a special prosecutor have spent so much time investigating the matter?

That's the million dollar question, isn't it? The only thing we know at this time is that a reporter called Miller is sitting in Jail for not revealing her source of who gave her Plume's name for an article that she never wrote. Why is that?

You can not put a journalist in jail for a source on a story she never wrote, but she can be placed in jail for not revealing the name of the person who leaked a CIA agents name in the first place (i.e. hindering a criminal investigation). So that means that until the original leak is found the prosecutor will continue his job.

But why only Miller and not Novak or Cooper? Because all the other reporters have stated that they had heard rumors/stories about Plume was Wilson's wife and was working for the CIA around the news room even before talking to Rove. This leads one to believe that Miller was where that information came from first. Novak talked to Rove about Wilson, Rove said Wilson's wife helped him get sent to Niger. Novak returned by saying Plume’s name, because he already heard that she worked for the CIA.

Miller's contact can't be Rove, because he already released all the reporters that he talked to from their silence obligation. Yet the Times continue to fight tooth and nail to prevent her leaks name from being released. Why would Time a huge critic of the Bush administration, not release the info? They had already gone behind Cooper's back to release his personnel notes quoting Rove, without his authorization. Why did Time not release Miller's notes?

My personnel opinion is that the original leaker is Wilson himself. He has used his position as a former Ambassador to open contacts in the past, why would he not simply say that with his knowledge of the CIA learned his wife helped him build his credibility on covert details. Miller simply was not going to use the Plume=CIA info in her story, but mess up by sharing the info with others in the news room.

So in the end IMO the investigation is still open because the first leak has not been found. But we really do not know because this grand jury is hold his cards very close and having the media wiggling on the vein.

But that's only my two cents.

Island Dog

on Jul 26, 2005

Miller's contact can't be Rove, because he already released all the reporters that he talked to from their silence obligation. Yet the Times continue to fight tooth and nail to prevent her leaks name from being released. Why would Time a huge critic of the Bush administration, not release the info? They had already gone behind Cooper's back to release his personnel notes quoting Rove, without his authorization. Why did Time not release Miller's notes?

My personnel opinion is that the original leaker is Wilson himself. He has used his position as a former Ambassador to open contacts in the past, why would he not simply say that with his knowledge of the CIA learned his wife helped him build his credibility on covert details. Miller simply was not going to use the Plume=CIA info in her story, but mess up by sharing the info with others in the news room.

Very intersting thought.

kingbee

on Jul 26, 2005

Why did Time not release Miller's notes?

miller doesnt work for time?

Miller's contact can't be Rove, because he already released all the reporters that he talked to from their silence obligation.

miller's position is, as i understand it, as follows: she does not consider those whitehouse employees who signed a form releasing reporters from any confidentiality agreement to which they were party to have freely given that release. in other words, they had no choice but sign or resign.

kingbee

on Jul 26, 2005

the original leaker is Wilson himself

does it seem likely to you that a man with 22 years of government service would call for an investigation that would ultimately lead to his own conviction?

i'm not saying it's impossible...only that you're reaching pretty far.

Lee1776

on Jul 26, 2005

True it could be far reaching, but Rove with all his years in government service never thought at the time or at the early statements that he by just saying "Wilson's Wife, who works at the CIA got him the job", would make him a leaker.

The Rove used his statement as leverage for another story. It could be possible that Wilson (or his wife) could have used the same type of info for leverage not expecting or still not knowing that the info would get past the reporter who may have agreed never to print it.

From what I here half of DC knew where she worked at, after Plame started dating Wilson. You know, look who is dating who type of thing.

It is just my theory. I could be wrong, but the New York Times editorial staff knows who the leak is. Why are they not releasing that info? They are always out to publish anything negative about the Bush administration. What is stopping them now? That is why I think at the very least the leak is from the left side of the political spectrum and would be hazardous to there political views. This whole thing about journalistic rights is BS, when the New York Times themselves repeatedly print how dangerous to national security the leaking of this information is.

Then that even proves that Rove is not Miller’s leak even more. Because Rove has went the extra mile to send his reporters (Cooper and Novak) specific letters of authorizations. Cooper tried to tell his bosses at Time the same thing to stop them from releasing his notes. I guess Rove's lawyer walked the letter over to Time himself. Cooper's lawyer was on FOX news about a week and a half ago talking about this.

drmiler

on Jul 27, 2005

And "this" makes a difference why? All that Miller needed was a release. She got it. What's the problem? Her "position" sucks!

Daiwa

on Jul 28, 2005

I agree with kingbee that there's probably more to this than meets the eye.

Wilson himself may or may not be the original "leaker," intentional or otherwise, but the willingness of Time to throw Cooper under the bus while going "shields up" on Miller makes you wonder. Not necessarily about whether Wilson is the source, but about whether the source is someone in the Democratic Party or a liberal critic of the administration. If it's someone else in the Bush camp, I can't imagine Time wouldn't go balls to the wall to nail him. It defies credulity to believe that Time suddenly arrived at the conclusion that journalistic privilege was no longer "above the law" because they had some sort of an epiphany. The potential opportunity to harm Rove trumped their most cherished ideal - the protection at all costs of anonymous sources, and by inference journalistic integrity itself.

I don't believe Rove is the source of the "initial" leak, or of "any" leak in the legal sense (an intentional disclosure of classified information). You can't deny, however, that there have been a bunch of intentional disclosures of classified information since Rove surfaced as a possible source - the State Department memo, portions of what Rove supposedly testified to the GJ, for starters - yet somehow those "leaks" are just accepted by the press as "in due course" and blythely disclosed as if they were weather reports. The irony of using leaked classified information to buttress a case against someone for allegedly leaking classified information appears lost on them completely. It is all quite odd (well, not really).

I've also been amused and infuriated at the way much of the press is slanting their coverage of this. Here's a snippet of the current Newsweek Periscope article about the investigation, talking about Rove:

"...says the White House aide - who passed info about Wilson's wife to Time's Matt Cooper - only knew about her CIA job..." (emphasis added)

While this language probably passes the technical test of truth in the broadest sense, it is far from an accurate description of what really went down, even according to Cooper, and leaves an impression of intent on Rove's part which is unsupported by the known facts and of substantive content which was nonexistent.

That's just one example, but both the previous Newsweek cover story on Rove and the current Periscope piece are full of such slants & innuendos. Same with our local paper, which has a decidely liberal bent. And we can't take seriously anything that Time itself publishes about this story - they ARE the story, after all.

Cheers,
Daiwa

kingbee

on Jul 28, 2005

the willingness of Time to throw Cooper under the bus while going "shields up" on Miller makes you wonder.

once again, miller doesnt work for time. she's a ny times reporter.

interestingly enuff, miller was not at all shy in expressing support for bush and the invasion of iraq. it's generally believed the whitehouse rewarded miller by providing her with more access and exclusive information which enabled her to keep a leg up on her competitors.

for that reason, it seems more likely than not she is shielding someone in the whitehouse.

Dr Guy

on Jul 28, 2005

does it seem likely to you that a man with 22 years of government service would call for an investigation that would ultimately lead to his own conviction?

Hate is a funny thing. It amkes people do stupid things just to satisfy its burning desire. SO yes, some people cut off their nose to spite their face. That is not too hard to beleive.

Dr Guy

on Jul 28, 2005

for that reason, it seems more likely than not she is shielding someone in the whitehouse.

She may like Bush, but the editors of the NYT are not Bush fans in the least, and they can release the notes. Sorry to blow a hole in your theory.

Daiwa

on Jul 28, 2005

kingbee -

I stand corrected on Miller's employer - I think I knew that & just blew by it. That heightens my suspicions even further, however, because you know the NYT would go balls out to get anyone in Bush's circle. Krugman would gladly have any of them with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!