also see taranto's take on this in "Best of the Web".

My take: Novak's piece did *not* say that the administration sources claimed she was CIA undercover. Novak mentioned her maiden name and that she "is an agency operative on [WMD]", and in the next sentence makes only the claim that the two admin officials told him that wilson's wife recommended him for the mission.

He does not claim that he got the "agency operative" info from the administration sources, and he does not claim in the article that she is an undercover operative.

Wilson and the various lefty bloggers have been running around screaming scandal, but that don't make it so.

It certainly seems plausible to me that if Clifford May's take is correct, then all Novak was doing was providing background for his slightly-less-informed readers on why her recommendation of Wilson would have carried weight at the White House.

And I still haven't heard any real claim that Plame was indeed an undercover agent.

So the leak's not a felony if Plame's status could be considered "common knowledge"? Kinda like if you ran a stop sign and killed a terminally ill person. Maybe you'd get a traffic ticket, but you wouldn't lose your license or do jail time. Hey ... they were gonna die anyway! No harm, no foul.

no.
1) Novak did not say that the Plame-is-CIA info came from his administrative contacts.
1.5) Novak did not say that Plame was undercover.
2) He did say that they (admin contacts) told him that the recommendation for Wilson came from "wilson's wife".
3) Clifford May claims that the "Plame-is-CIA" info was an open secret.
4) Because of (1) and (3), it seems dubious to finger the administration as the source of "Plame-is-CIA".
5) If the "Plame-is-CIA" info is indeed an open secret, then it's not likely to be connected to the yellowcake affair at all, despite Wilson's accusations of white-house revenge tactics.
6) AFAIK, the CIA has not yet admitted that she is indeed an undercover operative.
7) If she's not undercover but only an analyst, then the "plame-is-cia" information is not classified

From MSNBC:

"CIA lawyers followed up the notification this month by answering 11 questions from the Justice Department, affirming that Plame’s identity was classified, that whoever released it was not authorized to do and that the news media would not have been able to guess her identity without the leak, the senior officials said."

"The CIA response to the questions, which is itself classified, said there were grounds for a criminal investigation, the sources said."

The referral to the DoJ pretty much confirms that there's a problem here.

Now, much as it would delight me to see this land at Rove's feet, I have to admit that Dan is right to say that there is not enough information to do so at this time (and may never be).

Read the Washington Post story, which is the source of most of the outrage. That story says flatly that she was outed by White House officials in order to punish Wilson.

If you claim that somebody is CIA whose job title does not say CIA, then you are by definition claiming that the person is undercover. "George Tenet is with the CIA" doesn't break cover, because that's his official position. "Jane Doe is a CIA operative", when Jane's business card says "Shirley Temple impersonator", is an implicit claim that she's undercover.

Novak said "Valerie Plame is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. " The CIA has asked the FBI to investigate whether laws prohibiting unmasking CIA operatives were broken. Ergo she is/was indeed undercover.

Is anyone else wondering about the timing of all this? Novak ran the column in July, and the Post reports that the CIA asked Justice to investigate shortly thereafter. Wilson's been talking about it publicly since then, implicating Rove as conspirator if not the actual source of the leak. So why does it take until the end of September, over two months later, for a "senior administration official" to call the Post to report that the information was leaked by the White House for revenge?

Somebody just asked Walter Pincus at the Post the same question here.

His reply? "Walter Pincus: It is a difficult story to take further than a column was sourced to "two senior adminsration officials" without have some official steps taken unless some inside source stepped forward. And this weekend, one did."

sknight,

Another reason is that on Friday, the CIA concluded its own internal investigation and officially asked for an investigation by the Justice Department. Before that, reporters were nervous about advancing this story. After the CIA had given it legitimacy, they weren't.

Actually, as I read the statute, it may not have been illegal some one to have "outed" Plame. The critical thing is whether or not they had access to classified information establishing that. If they'd head it on the cocktail circuit and assumed it to be true, it would not be illegal to pass that information along.

In that case, the CIA has a proablem with its trade and no felony was committed. It's just as the case for Novak. He is not guilty of committing a crime since he did not obtain his informatioin from classified sources to which he add access.

Front page of Drudge:

NOVAK RESPONDS: 'NOBODY IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION CALLED ME TO LEAK THIS'

'In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing. As a professional journalist with 46 years experience in Washington I do not reveal confidential sources. When I called the CIA in July to confirm Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband -- he is a former Clinton administration official -- they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of an undercover operatives'

It is quite easy to convert one's reputation from "generally reliable" to "easily gulled and somewhat alarmist".

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/9/29/143328.shtml

"Former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Joseph Wilson admitted Monday morning that he fabricated a key part of his allegation that the White House deliberately blew his wife's cover as a CIA weapons analyst.

Wilson has accused top Bush political strategist Karl Rove of leaking the name to columnist Robert Novak, telling a Seattle audience last month that he wanted "to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs."

But he told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Monday that he got "carried away" and made up the Rove allegation out of thin air.

"In one speech I gave out in Seattle not too long ago, I mentioned the name Karl Rove," Wilson told GMA. "I think I was probably carried away by the spirit of the moment."

Wilson then confessed, "I don't have any knowledge that Karl Rove himself was either the leaker or the authorizer of the leak."

Wilson insisted, however, "I have great confidence that, at a minimum, [Rove] condoned it and certainly did nothing to shut it down."

"A witness determined to be willfully false in one part of his/her testimony may be disbelieved in everything." - jury instruction.

I am not quite sure how Joe Wilson's credibility really matters AT ALL on this story.

Andrea Mitchell confirmed that the story was shopped to her. Novak has already reported it. The WaPo duo reported that their source told them the story was shopped.

I mean even if Wilson was wholly wrong about Niger, what does that have to do with the leak?

Kevin Brennan beat me to the MSNBC link that pretty much eviserates so many other arguments put fourth today: she was just a desk analyst, it was common knowledge, the CIA leaked it, etc.

By the end of Crossfire, Novak backed off his claim that Plame was not undercover. Also of note--the CIA asked him not to use her name (by his own admission). He did it anyway. Novak's opening statement reprinted above is just that, his opening statement. Even he says there is much more to the case.

With regards to Wilson, even as far back as a month ago (beofre any of this broke), he said that by "Rove" he meant the White House (and its political operation). It was figurative language taken out of context, which is why he is (rightly) backtracking now. But he says he has credible sources that say Rove approved of the strategy.

I agree that Rove should not be pilloried unfairly. But enough other sources are on record as saying that there was a leak, that Plame was undercover, and that the CIA sees it as sufficiently problematic to recommend it to the DOJ to investigate further. Rove may not be directly responsible. But there is still a lot of evidence to suggest someone in the White House is culpable.

I will restate what I said in the first post on this controversy:

"This story is too close to the Democrats' "Bush is stupid, evil and gets away with it anyway" meme to be believable.

The insistence of Democrats in the media and bloggerdom that not only is there a Bush Administration dirty tricks squad going after its political opponents, but that it is also a *incompetent* dirty tricks squad _committing easily proven felonies_, should be people's first clue as to whether this story is a hit piece or not."

I also note that this story has been shopped to the various media sources since July to reignite it.

What Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post says the following on the subject at this link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14399-2003Sep28.html

"News organizations often face the dilemma of whether to publish a politically juicy story that might jeopardize someone in a sensitive government position. These judgment calls often involve national security secrets -- troop movements, terrorism investigations, classified military documents -- or police matters, as during the Washington sniper investigation. Journalists sometimes withhold or delay publishing such information at the request of authorities.

It is a violation of law for officials to intentionally disclose the identity of a covert operative. The column by Novak came eight days after Wilson wrote a July 6 New York Times op-ed piece challenging President Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to buy "yellowcake" uranium from Niger. Also on July 6, Wilson, who had gone to Niger to investigate at the CIA's request, was quoted by The Washington Post as saying the administration was "misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental justification for going to war." Bush has since backed off the uranium claim.

A senior administration official told The Post on Saturday that two top government officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame. Wilson said yesterday that journalists for the three major broadcast networks told him they had been contacted by someone in the White House. He named only one, Andrea Mitchell, NBC's chief foreign affairs correspondent, who interviewed Wilson and reported on July 22 that he said the administration was "leaking his wife's covert job at the CIA to reporters." Mitchell could not be reached for comment yesterday.

NBC's Washington bureau chief, Tim Russert, and ABC's bureau chief, Robin Sproul, said yesterday they could not discuss any matter involving confidential sources. But John Roberts, a CBS White House correspondent, said that to his knowledge, no administration official had contacted anyone at the network about Wilson.

If anyone had called him, Roberts said, "I'd immediately have to wonder what the ulterior motive was. We'd probably end up doing a story about somebody breaching national security by leaking the name of a CIA operative.""

Vital Information,

It's over when the complaining witness destroys his credibility.

I suspected from the two and a half month delay between Novak's July 14 story and it becoming an issue that this was the usual hype by the usual suspects. Wilson's admission today confirmed that.

Senator Schumer is already running away. Others will follow.

Some might even learn from the experience.

This is starting to resemble the BBC's self-destruction in the Gilligan affair.

"he said that by "Rove" he meant the White House (and its political operation). It was figurative language taken out of context, which is why he is (rightly) backtracking now."

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah, and by "Plame", the White House meant the CIA (and its intelligence operation). It was figurative language taken out of context!

I am still lost as to how Joseph Wilson is the complaining witness. It seems the witnesses include but are not limited to, Robert Novak (admitted to recieving the leak); Andrea Mitchell (admitted to recieving the leak); George W. Bush (knows it was not Karl Rove who made the leak); Michael Allen and Dana Priest (given the names, not for the record); the un-named White House Official who gave the stuff to the Post reporters, other reporters who were cold called with the leak (according to WaPo's source), AND Joseph Wilson.

This is not a factual issue. The leak happened. As to the delay in things, well who knows, but it appears that the CIA was not happy with the delay in things and leaked their un-happiness to NBC on Friday. See above MSNBC link for additional info on the CIA's position and the nature of the delay.

The critical issue is whether the disclosure of Plame's identity put anyone at risk. Today's front page Washington Post alleges that "intelligence sources" are concerned that the disclosure of her identity could put sources and agents at risk.

The following quotation from today's Washington Post article succinctly sets forth the critical alleged facts.

"She is a case officer in the CIA's clandestine service and works as an analyst on weapons of mass destruction. Novak published her maiden name, Plame, which she had used overseas and has not been using publicly. Intelligence sources said top officials at the agency were very concerned about the disclosure because it could allow foreign intelligence services to track down some of her former contacts and lead to the exposure of agents."

Has anyone addressed this issue? Has anyone denied these factual allegations and concerns?

The Washington Post:
"An administration official told The Washington Post on Saturday that two White House officials leaked the information to selected journalists to discredit Wilson."

I don't think at this point that Novak's opinion about whether or not there was a leak is quite as important as the that of the "administration official".

Andrea Mitchell called it a leak as well, by the way. This matter doesn't live or die on Novak's testimony.

This now seems to be an ugly partisan knife fight about nothing. The Repubs did it to Clinton and now Dems are getting theirs back. Of course the mutual loathing between the WH and the CIA comes into it. Plame is just a pawn in this game and, if Novak is to be believed (for once), she is simply an analyst--therefore no crime. So what's going on?

"About nothing"? Roger, she was a *covert* analyst, and we don't have to rely on Novak for that.

Honestly folks, just because the story is being pushed by liberals who don't like Bush doesn't mean it isn't true. The facts are out there, and facts are facts no matter who spouts them. Some top people in the White House spread this story, it involved exposing a clandestine CIA analyst, and its purpose was to intimidate. How bad does it have to get?

And if it was really common knowledge that Plame worked for the CIA, why did the White House feel it necessary to call six different journalists and tell them?

Actually, Drudge just lifted that quote from Novak's mea exculpa on CrossFire.

(is mea exculpa an actual word? I'm going to start to use it anyway.)

Otherwise, Dan I appreciate integrity from the left or right. Thanks for the well-placed rage at this scandal.

Dan, old boy, you are dillusional. That a crime has been committed is so far beyond any reasonable doubt as to be laughable. Yet all we see are bare rationalizations of a fawning sychophant that don't even pass the laugh test. "She was an analyst" "Her name was common knowlege" "Her husband isn't credible"

You have to be the most willfully gullible free republic escapee I have ever seen. How you ever got such a prestigious job in acadamia is beyond belief.

Actually Drudge was quoting Novak on Crossfire, the first time that show has made news in God knows when...

"Furthermore, even May acknowledged in July that, 'Wilson's conclusion was probably correct.'"

What's lost here is that Wilson's conclusion does not refute what Bush said in the SOTU.

Since Clifford May is part of the PNAC crowd, and rubs shoulders with lots of ex-government officials including ex-CIA head James Woolsey, I'm not sure he's a good judge of what is 'common knowledge' and what is not.

When you're having a beer with Richard Perle, Wolfowitz, Woolsey, and Jeanne Kirkpatrick, I bet common knowledge is very different than usual.

It also may be that his crowd is a little loose with state secrets, at least with people in the same clique, regardless of security clearance.

"Wilson's conclusion does not refute what Bush said in the SOTU."

What, Wilson's conclusion doesn't contradict the statement that the British had information about uranium from Niger? Doesn't contradict the information that certain Micronesians have about John Frum, either.

"Certain Micronesians" are not British intelligence. But you knew that. He said Hussein did not obtain uranium, he did not say Hussein did not seek uranium.

Also contra one of the commenters, Novak maintained throughout the program that his information was that she was not covert.

Novak said that on Crossfire.

Later on CNN, CNN's own national security correspondent David Ensor reported the following:

ENSOR: All I can say is my sources tell me that this is a CIA operative. This is a person who did run agents. This is a person who was out there in the world collecting information

It's entirely possible that Novak's covering his ass, particularly by playing up the chronological factor. Novak's source may be correct about Plame's role _at the moment_, but that might not be an accurate description of what she was doing two years ago, or four years ago.

The woman apparently has had at least two children with Wilson, and I think there's a set of twins.

No sane woman would maintain a role as a globe-trotting CIA operative while trying to start a family, let alone when dealing with young twins. A deskbased analyst job in Washington would be just the ticket.

If she was working overseas as an operative four years ago, then changed to a desk job, that would still be an illegal leak.

Heavens to Betsy! Are you guys smoking something, just stupid, or are you lying on purpose?

THE CIA HAS ASKED JUSTICE TO INVESTIGATE

Why would the CIA do this if Plame was not an undercover agent?

Does anybody think it strange that the CIA confirmed to Novak that Plame worked for them? If Plame's work is classified, wouldn't the CIA line be more like "we can neither confirm nor deny that information?"
Not that this excuses anyone at the White House if they did leak Plame's name to the Press.
I just think whoever is manning the phone calls from the press at the CIA better think twice at what information they confirm.

Charles Chapman quotes the Washington Post:

"She is a case officer in the CIA's clandestine service and works as an analyst on weapons of mass destruction. Novak published her maiden name, Plame, which she had used overseas and has not been using publicly. Intelligence sources said top officials at the agency were very concerned about the disclosure because it could allow foreign intelligence services to track down some of her former contacts and lead to the exposure of agents."

Interesting, since Wilson's bio accompanying his June 14, 2003 talk to the “Education for Peace in Iraq Center” (exactly a month prior to the Novak article) also discloses his wife's maiden name. I summarized the talk here. The WaPo is wrong.

What I don't get, was what was the point of anyone leaking the fact that this guy's wife worked for the CIA?

I mean, what was that supposed to accomplish in the first place?

Nothing good for the Bush administration. So why would they leak that info?

Andrea Mitchell (via NBC spokesmen) now says she got a call on Plame after the Novak column ran. I'm curious whether anyone got a call before it ran.

The whole thing doesn't make sense. The wife's CIA status doesn't undermine Wilson's credibility.

MSNBC.com:

NBC News said Monday evening that reports that Mitchell was one of the reporters who was called were not completely accurate. Mitchell was contacted in connection with the story, it said, but only after Novak revealed the woman’s name in his column in July.

NBC News has decided not to report the woman’s name. MSNBC.com has removed her name from its coverage.

"Certain Micronesians" are not British intelligence.

Well, exactly. Bush was citing British intelligence to support his purported belief, as well as what he wanted the audience to believe- that Saddam was trying to obtain uranium from Africa. I suppose he had no choice but to use the British; US intelligence rightly didn't support the claim. I suppose from HH's twisted point of view, the citing of British intelligence provided Bush with plausible deniability when it turned out the claims were bogus. As they were bound to, given the investigation conducted by Wilson. The facts didn't go their way, so they use a weasely construction to force it into the SOTU. So much for moral clarity.

heather writes: "Does anybody think it strange that the CIA confirmed to Novak that Plame worked for them? If Plame's work is classified, wouldn't the CIA line be more like "we can neither confirm nor deny that information?"

It would make sense if Plame has shifted into a non- or less-classified role from a more-classified role, and Novak's source was only familiar with her current status, rather than Plame's role at the CIA for the last 5 years, which is what the law covers.

The agent-outing law makes it a felony to reveal the identity of a covert agent who has been active outside the US in the last 5 years.

Re brew: I know Dan well enough to be able to state that he is not "delusional" or "gullible," nor is he a "fawning sycophant."

Before you go making up excuses, and denigrating the various witnesses in the case, consider the central issues. The issue is not that Novak spilled this story several months ago. That's old news. The reason this story suddenly has legs again is:

(1) The CIA has asked the justice dept to investigate.
(2) The CIA is sufficiently upset about the case that it leaked the existence of its request to the media.

What are the possible causes for 1:
* A desire to clear somone's name. Unlikely. I hadn't heard a thing on this case in over a month.
* Credible evidence that someone committed a crime.
* Pressure from below: a sufficiently mutinous state from perceived political interference in the profession of spying. "Strike for your right to privacy!" In all fairness, succumbing to this pressure this counts as being loyal to your troops.

What are the causes for (2)
* A desire to make political trouble for some person X
* A concern that the investigation is getting unofficially tabled.
* A public threat saying: don't you dare stab us in the back like this again.

These reasons are not mutually exclusive. But it's pretty clear that Wilson's and/or Plame's credibility really isn't the issue at this point.

Just as a point of interest, Joseph Wilson's wife is identified *by name* in his Middle East Institute bio (located at http://www.mideasti.org/html/bio-wilson.html). His association with MEI is identified in a February article in The Nation that was linked from May's National Review Online today (located at http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200309291022.asp).

In short, someone who met a woman named "Valerie Plame" overseas who was knowledgable about American Middle-East scholars might very well ask "Are you Joe Wilson's wife?" -- not a very good cover name, all things considered...

Jeez Louise, folks! Get a grip!

We're no longer in the slow news days of August when the slightest excuse for a story was grounds for earthquakes in the blogosphere.

There's lots of conflicting information floating around, and certainly lots of what was asserted as "ironclad irrefutable fact" as recently as yesterday looks pretty silly today.

If you want something remarkable to comment about from the little bit that we know for sure so far, I'd suggest this: The "Rove frog-march in handcuffs" line was a bit of shocking hyperbole from former Ambassador Wilson. He's the only one who ever pointed a finger directly at Rove on the record; now he's backtracking about as fast as a man can. Even if an impropriety or perhaps even a crime has been committed -- and the simple fact that CIA has asked Justice to investigate is a LONG way from establishing either of those two things, but a useful step toward finding out! -- it looks as if Amb. Wilson may end up owing Rove a personal apology (not that anyone ought to hold his/her breath waiting for that).

My knowledge of the CIA doesn't go much beyond Tom Clancy books and movies, but golly gosh, folks, we all know that there are not-very-secret analyst-type people (early-stage Jack Ryan) and very-very-secret operative-type people (the John Clark character). A lot of Clancy's plot lines have involved the blurring of the Ryan character's wonk role (since it conveniently turns out he's an ex-Marine, crack shot, etc.) into James Bond-type action scenes. I have no clue where Amb. Wilson's wife is on that spectrum, but neither do any of you yet, unless you work for the CIA maybe, since there are competing and inconsistent stories floating around in the press right now.

There are a lot of weird facts that don't fit yet, but guys and gals, there are career prosecutors at Justice -- long-time careerists who have the respect of both Janet Reno and John Ashcroft -- who have the clearances and can get the right people to talk to them to sort this out.

In the meantime, it doesn't do any of us any good to make like the over-rev'd engines in those Castrol commercials. Heck, there's some really good baseball action coming up, or lots of regular old presidential politics goin' on out there if you insist on bloodsports.

One last set of points directed to commenter "brew," if you happen to be checking back: It's really bad form to gratuitously insult your host. Regular readers here from both left and right of center know better, and it only diminishes your own credibility to go off the deep end. If you really think such nasty things about Dan Drezner, get yourself a blog and have at it on your own bandwidth, I'd suggest, "old boy." And in the meantime, for this week's spelling practice quiz, it's "delusional," "sycophant," "knowledge," and "academia"; we all have the occasional typo or misspelling, but both in and out academia, little things like spelling and punctuation and capitalization are noticed as indicia of one's capabilities, attention to detail, and elegance. As for your certainty about the "reasonable doubt" threshold having been passed, if by chance you live in the Houston area and happen to be in any panel of prospective jurors that I'm sorting through, would you be kind enough to identify yourself to me? I'll make sure you're not unduly troubled by having to wait around for evidence and help you about your business without further ado.

rummy asks: "THE CIA HAS ASKED JUSTICE TO INVESTIGATE

Why would the CIA do this if Plame was not an undercover agent?"

My question is: Why would they do it if she was? If cover and confidientality is at the heart of all this, why would you ask an outside agency in to take a look around?

rastajenk you make my head swim.

Okay, because the CIA has asked for an investigation on who outed Plame, that means that Plame is not a covert agent. Is that it?

Zeroth, her cover was blown, what confidentiality are you referring to?

First, it's the law they do so.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-leak30sep30,1,7004579.story?coll=la-home-headlines

"A 1982 federal law specifically prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of the identity of a clandestine intelligence officer. Nobody has been prosecuted under the law, according to Steven Aftergood, director of the project on government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists.

U.S. intelligence officials declined to discuss details of the case, but said exposing an operative's identity is a serious breach with unpredictable consequences. It not only deprives the operative of being able to work undercover in the future, but threatens to expose her sources, some of whom might be risking their lives to share secrets with the CIA. Outing an officer also places in jeopardy any CIA operative who replaced her in her overseas "cover," often a diplomatic post at a U.S. embassy.

The official said the agency is obligated under federal law to refer leaks of classified information to the Justice Department. The agency refers about 50 such leaks a year, the official said.
"

Second, I assume you're saying that anytime the CIA asks for an investigation, it's just disinformation. If they say black, it's really white. If they say they seek the Red Queen, they are really seeking Alice. If Plame were a covert agent, they wouldn't seek an investigation. If she were not a covert agent, they would seek an investigation.

Of course, you are smarter than that, aren't you my mad hatter? If Plame were a covert agent, they would know that not seeking an investigation would confirm she was. So they are forced to seek an investigation to show to you that she is not!

By the way, I put some knock-out drops in your drink!

Heavens to Betsy!

It seems to me that there are two questions here: if she's not covert, then why is the CIA so upset? And if she is covert, then how could the White House have been so stupid as to leak that?

But what if she is covert, but nobody at the White House knew it? What if all that came out of the White House was that she worked for the CIA, which isn't in itself classified information. But her husband knows that she's covert, and not being a person knows for terminological exactitude, he concludes that her status has been leaked, and starts yelling to high heaven about it. Pretty soon, her cover is blown, and now the CIA is worried. for good reason.

I haven't read all through these comments, but it doesn't seem to be getting very much play that Rove very well may have done something like this before and been fired for it.

"Sources close to the former president [George H.W. Bush] say Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist Robert Novak about dissatisfaction with campaign fundraising chief and Bush loyalist Robert Mosbacher Jr. It was smoked out, and he was summarily ousted."

http://www.ronsuskind.com/writing/esquire/esq_rove_0103.html

rastajenk asks: why CIA would request DOJ to investigate?

Well, very simple, the DOJ is the department that prosecutes crimes committed against the United States. And let's be clear, the allegation is that a crime was committed against the government, though Wilson, his wife, and her network of contacts could be damaged.

Now that it is at DOJ, what Wilson and Novak or you and I say publicly doesn't matter. The FBI as the investigative agency of the DOJ has the authority to compel anyone with a security clearance to answer any question in this investigation or risk losing their clearances, which would mean they can't work in the White House anymore.

Let's not kid ourselves. A security clearance is a trust. The words of G.H.W. Bush are authoritative on what it means to betray our trust by exposing the names of our sources. The penalties are harsh for a reason. This is the principal crime committed by Aldrich Aimes.

There are really only three questions:

1) what if any violation has happened?
2) who did it?
3) what was the harm?

The CIA wouldn't have recommended it to DOJ if they didn't believe a crime has happened. There doesn't seem to be any reliable public information about who did it.

The FBI will have to get to the bottom of it either under a US Attorney or a Special Investigator. If they don't then allegations will dog George Bush for the rest of his days.

The third question is only relevant for assessing the amount of punishment. I believe a few years in prison would be the minimum for betraying a CIA operative. Aimes got a life sentence, his wife got 63 months.

rummy, I understand the serious nature of the CIA's secrecy, and the harsh consequences for breaching it. Not from any personal experience, of course, just as a matter of common sense. So I'm not as stupid as you might think, although I admit the whole thing has more than a few baffling bits. But you cited that no one has been prosecuted in over 20 years...is it because there have been no real violations to be prosecuted, or that the costs of shining the light of truth into every corner of an undercover agent's activity exceed the benefits of throwing someone in the pokey? I suspect the CIA has other means of dealing with transgressors; I prefer not to know the hows and whys.

My use of the word confidentiality wasn't referring to Plame's, which, of course, is already past-tense; it was to any other colleagues, contacts, sleazeballs, and other useful types still out there.

Fifty cases a year, and no one's been convicted? You suppose that after the CIA fulfills their obligation to report cases to Justice, they decide to drop charges?

I follow these bloglinks to learn things, not to impose my infinite wisdom on the rest of the world. I don't know....who the hell does?

This uranium business has the best legs I've seen in a long while. What I find most interesting, although slightly off this topic, is that the Brits to this day stand by their Africa conclusions.

As recently as a few weeks ago a Select Intelligence Committee or some such reviewed the earlier finding that Iraq was seeking uranium ore in Africa and found that it was a "reasonable" finding based on more than one source (not just the forged documents, etc etc). What follows from this ? The whole tempest over the SOTU speech was bogus; the phrasing and claim were valid and still are. Why the White House backed off of this is unclear to me; why Rice et al apologized or admitted error is unclear to me. The speech was accurate after all.

The Brit's review was not published at all in this country and hardly at all in Britain; Cheney referred to it in a Sunday interview. A google search turned up exactly one reference, a small mention at the end of an article related to Kelly's suicide inquiry. Yet to this day the uranium claim is without fail described as "discredited".

But recall the firestorm this topic generated and all the claims of lying and very bad behavior... As the story gathered hurricane force it became confusing as who said what when and what speech was being referred to and whether it was Niger or all of Africa and blah blah blah.

Sound familiar ? Here we go again. Case in point, Andrea Mitchell is one of the six journalists who was contacted - within an hour this was accepted fact and being re reported, until the retraction (?) that she was actually contacted at a later date, out of the relevant time frame. Too late, the first release has stuck and will be part of the Record from here on. The Record will grow more and more confusing and contradictory in the rush to report, as facts come out but are not placed in context or time, until, as in the first go around, "truths"will emerge and solidify. These truths may or may not have an relation to actual events...

One other thing, if Mrs. Wilson was so very deep cover and so on (even though her husband's bio uses her old operational maiden name ?!) , why on earth would she raise her head up to get this gig for her high profile husband. Does this make sense ?? Maybe he needed the work. And what is this verbal reporting ? We presumably pay this guy's way to Africa and back, he spends 8 days at it, and when he gets back he has a conversation or two but no written report ? Very strange...

rastajenk wrote:

Fifty cases a year, and no one's been convicted? You suppose that after the CIA fulfills their obligation to report cases to Justice, they decide to drop charges?

The fifty number is a reference to all reports of abuse of confidential information, not just to blowing cover of covert operatives. The 1982 statute only covers the latter, but there have been many convictions not involving blowing cover of covert operatives since 1982. However, certainly one of DoJ's important functions is to apply its collective and hard-earned experience and judgment not just to prosecuting the guilty, but to clearing the innocent. Presumably some portion of those 50 per year fall into that category. This, too, is a good thing for the nation and its citizens.

john wrote:

The CIA wouldn't have recommended it to DOJ if they didn't believe a crime has happened.

This is profoundly incorrect. The CIA's job isn't to prosecute, or even to determine whether a domestic crime has been committed; their expertise and their mandate lie in completely different areas. The CIA's duty does include, however, passing along any remotely plausible claim that the statute has been violated to the DoJ, and the CIA has a strong and altogether valid institutional interest in seeing that no such cases get swept under the rug. DoJ, in turn, has the job of gathering facts, applying law to those facts, determining if there's probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, and if so, prosecuting the offenders. And even then there's not yet been a determination that a crime has been committed, only an accusation — which of course must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

That CIA passed this report along to DoJ proves only that the rule of law is being followed and enforced by the appropriate authorities rather than inappropriate, unqualified ones. That's no small benefit, but it's far different than saying that "a crime has happened." There is conflicting information in the press about whether Mrs. Wilson met the statutory criteria for protection under the statute, and definitive resolution of that question can only be undertaken by investigators with proper security clearance (FBI/DoJ folks qualify, bloggers don't). There's also a subjective intent (mens rea/guilty mind) component to the statute, meaning that until you know all the circumstances of the alleged leaker and the surrounding context, you're unlikely to be able to make even a reasonable inference about his subjective state of mind. But evaluating whether such knowledge and intent can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt -- which always must be done via circumstantial evidence, of course -- is all part of a day's work for the DoJ. They have tools that none of us have -- nor should we have them!

Finally, rastajenk wrote:

I don't know....who the hell does?

Precisely. None of us posting here do.

It really hit me last night, how the Bushies see their out. Around the right-wing blogoshpere, and thru some nut on Hardball, I kept on hearing the same lines, "it was no crime if she was not covert."

There first line of defense has really been in play for a while. "We know of no leak of classified information." Fleisher did this back when, and McLellen is doing it now, it's just not being picked up. "Tell us about a leak of classified information, we do not know of any," he said yesterday. I believe they have already decided within the White House that they never leaked classified information.

As to how they can arrive at this conclusion, I see two angles. First, they will use the common knowledge/ignorance defense. "Gee, she was classified, everyone was talking about her." Second, I believe they will emphasize that the law has a subjective standard. "Did the leaker personally know the information was classified.

So, my guess, is that within few days, there will be some names put fourth. These defenses will be offered. There will be uproar, but the defenses, echoed from the mighty wurlitzer, will somewhat squash the issue. There will be resignations, and promises to change procedures, and contrition, and promises not to leak. And then they will move on.

Ummm .. Vital ... have you possibly read the statute?

It's no crime unless she was "covert," as defined in the statute (50 U.S.C. § 426(4)); moreover, the gov't had to be making "affirmative measures" to keep her that way (50 U.S.C. § 421). And yes indeed, the law does have a subjective standard built into it.

That isn't a question of being a "Bushie" or right-wing or not, it's a question of whether you bother to read the statute, or even a good summary of it, before you start giving opinions about whether it's been violated.

God Almighty. It took all the way down to BELDAR's post on the previous thread for much sense to come of this. Oversight - especially of NATSEC type orgs - needs to come from separate agencies and departments.

And I hope all of the Anti-Bush types see the next shot coming in the tail-end of that last sentence: She is an "Agent" merely by employment of her named organization. So quit playing with the language in order to play pretend that's she's out and about with Boris and Natasha.

And by the way, we're all of us here at our little cell "classified" - it refers to my security rating, my bosses, and everyone in the damn building - to include our janitorial staff. Yes - they, too, have a security classification. Guess maybe now they can tell the women at the bar that the work they do is "classified".

But , wow - 90 plus posts - two days running? It's good to see all of the maggots come to the fish. Better biscuits for the crew. Your opinions are so noted.

Beldar, of course there are factual questions. Defining any crime depends on fitting facts into the law. Of course, proving any law with speficic intent is trickier. I mean look at the Kobe Bryant case.

The question in this case, ultimately is not legal. We know there were leaks. We know the leaks were done for some reason. Was this leak illegal?

Ultimately, it is a political question alone. At what level do you think this is acceptable politics. I mean one can easily find the actions hugely wrong and distasteful regardless of whether they are illegal.

I mean do you really want your position to be, "not technically illegal?"

Most of the 'doubting' posts have now been proved irrelevant since the DoJ has accepted there is sufficient evidence of a possible crime to warrant a full investigation.

If a crime was committed, let there be punishment.

But this "scandal" looks like it's headed for an Enron (or, for that matter, 1996 illegal campaign fundraising) fizzle.

Cordially...

"I suppose from HH's twisted point of view, the citing of British intelligence provided Bush with plausible deniability when it turned out the claims were bogus."

But the claims have never been shown to be bogus, because British intelligence had nothing to do with the forged documents and it is rather likely that it had more to do with the Congo than Niger.

Beldar :

"Precisely. None of us posting here do."

should be

"Precisely. None of us posting here _does_."

/nit to pick

beldar differs with my statement that

The CIA wouldn't have recommended it to DOJ if they didn't believe a crime has happened.

saying

This is profoundly incorrect. The CIA's job isn't to prosecute, or even to determine whether a domestic crime has been committed; their expertise and their mandate lie in completely different areas. The CIA's duty does include, however, passing along any remotely plausible claim that the statute has been violated to the DoJ, and the CIA has a strong and altogether valid institutional interest in seeing that no such cases get swept under the rug.

---------

Now I never said the CIA is a prosecutor, had or could determine a crime had happened, but merely that they had enough belief to recommend a criminal investigation. Perhaps I should have said they believe a crime may have happened. Regardless, the CIA has more than just the staff lawyers in the Office of General Counsel that make sure they comply with the law. They have their own internal investigators responsible for assessing the merits of the allegations before recommending them for criminal investigation. They have the requisite clearances and experience. Moreover, CIA is the lead agency for assessing damages from intelligence breaches anywhere in the government. They don't just dump plausible gossip and rumors or faith-based innuendo on John Ashcoft's desk.

We can be sure the CIA determined there was an unauthorized release of potentially damaging classified information. They may not know anything more, such as who or even which department. I think any speculation about Rove or others is unseemly and unfair and belittles the seriousness of the allegations. I'll leave the politics of this to others.

Unless we are willing to believe that this was just an accidental statement or some sloppy document handling, then anyone that has ever had a security clearance knows a crime has been committed. I certainly agree that DoJ/FBI will handle the criminal investigation and possible prosecution. There may never be criminal charges.

The CIA remains responsible for closing their security breach from within. The concept of reasonable doubt works in reverse for security. You may be innocent until proven guilty, but a CIA security clearance is a trust not given lightly or without consequence. At the very least someone should lose his or her clearances.

Moreover, CIA is the lead agency for assessing damages from intelligence breaches anywhere in the government. They don't just dump plausible gossip and rumors or faith-based innuendo on John Ashcoft's desk.

Not even if said innuendo has starred in major newspapers for days? Riiiight.

The hype itself is a plausible explanation for the investigation request, and THEREFORE your silly assertion that the request can only mean that the CIA had good reason to believe a crime had taken place is toast.

It may very well be that the CIA has such reason, but you can't prove it merely from the fact that a investigation was requested, because plausible alternative expanations exist. Media pressure being one of them.

Oh, and Vital Information? The law *IS* technical. Always has been. Get over it.

Personally I think this is a tempest in a teapot. But in an atmosphere were accusation is tantamount to guilt in this country, should we be surprised?

By the way this is not only a repudiation of the current Justice Dapartment and John Ashcroft. Far too many of our politicians have made their political careers on the basis of being elected as local and State prosecutors. With these peoples as our legislators and political leaders, is is surprising that they see impropriety everywhare?