 |
| |
|
|
Timexwatch
|
 |
Columbia Heights, Washington D.C.
Jul 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
Before I head to bed, here's a little more grist for the mill:
The author of the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act says that there is probably no crime here. For Rove to have committed a crime:
quote:
At the threshold, the agent must truly be covert. Her status as undercover must be classified, and she must have been assigned to duty outside the United States currently or in the past five years. This requirement does not mean jetting to Berlin or Taipei for a week's work. It means permanent assignment in a foreign country. Since Plame had been living in Washington for some time when the July 2003 column was published, and was working at a desk job in Langley (a no-no for a person with a need for cover), there is a serious legal question as to whether she qualifies as "covert."
The law also requires that the disclosure be made intentionally, with the knowledge that the government is taking "affirmative measures to conceal [the agent's] relationship" to the United States. Merely knowing that Plame works for the CIA does not provide the knowledge that the government is keeping her relationship secret. In fact, just the opposite is the case. If it were known on the Washington cocktail circuit, as has been alleged, that Wilson's wife is with the agency, a possessor of that gossip would have no reason to believe that information is classified -- or that "affirmative measures" were being taken to protect her cover. |
It's starting to look like the prosecutor is looking to nail someone for a cover-up and not necessarily any crime involving the disclosure of Palme's identity.
The quote from above can be found in the Washington Post here.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Imran - quick question. If Rove did lie, in this case, would it be non-felony or felony perjury? I know Clinton weaseled out of the felony part (his relationship with Monica did not materially affect the case, i.e. sexual harrassment - which we know it most definitively was not with Monica) so what would the case be here?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zkribbler
|
 |
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Feb 1999
time: 21:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Rove said he didn't reveal the name to a grand jury. |
Do you mean: "Rove said to a grand jury he didn't reveal the name"?
quote:
Originally posted by shawnmmcc
If Rove did lie, in this case, would it be non-felony or felony perjury? I know Clinton weaseled out of the felony part (his relationship with Monica did not materially affect the case, i.e. sexual harrassment - which we know it most definitively was not with Monica) so what would the case be here? |
Perjury is the intentional misrepresentation while under oath of a material fact. As I understand it, Clinton was given a civil monetary sanction because he gave an "evasive" response in discovery; that is, his statement was true but misleading. It wasn't "non-felony perjury."
Here, any intentional misstatements to the Grand Jury by Rove about revealing the name of a CIA operative, when that is the subject matter of the probe, would be perjury -- which is a felony. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:19
|
|
Interesting article (I never heard of Joshua Frank or Dissident Voice, so I can't vouch for its reliability):
quote:
Occasionally I get e-mails from Washington folks who work on the Hill claiming to possess juicy insider digs on our public servants and their corporate paymasters. I usually delete said e-mails, as I don't want to be responsible for propagating dirty rumors or false information that can't be corroborated. I'd rather let Judith Miller and the New York Times do that. Nonetheless, in the past 24 hours I have been contacted by three separate congressional Democrats in Washington, and a Justice Department official, first by e-mail and later phone, who all say the same thing: Karl Rove is about to be indicted.
All this comes on the heels of events that transpired over the weekend, as two different individuals, journalist Michael Isikoff and political commentator Lawrence O'Donnell, both claimed that Karl Rove might have been responsible for leaking the identity of an undercover CIA officer's identity to Matt Cooper of Time magazine. Isikoff claims that Cooper talked to Rove during the period that Valerie Plame's identity was leaked, but there is still no proof that Rove was the culprit. As Isikoff of Newsweek wrote on July 3:
“The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper's sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House. Cooper and a Time spokeswoman declined to comment. But in an interview with Newsweek, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for the article.”
If it turns out that Rove did leak Plame’s identity to Cooper, it still does not necessarily mean that he was also Robert Novak's inside guy, although it surely raises suspicion. The indictment, as I am told, will most likely be of felony weight. In fact, Karl Rove may be accused of perjury, as Bush's top strategist told a grand jury that he was not responsible for leaking Plame's identity to Time.
So the charge may not be for leaking top-secret information to the press, but for perjuring himself.
Sources also all say that this indictment is likely to come down either late this week or early next week. Of course Rove's lawyer denies that his client ever “knowingly” handed over classified information to the media, or is the “target” of any investigation. Perhaps Rove “unknowingly” leaked the information, and he's the “subject” rather than a “target” of an investigation. Time will tell.
Apparently, I'm not the only one who has been leaked this information either. Over at Redstate, a right-wing Internet blog, one member who calls himself “Ohsure”, also claims that “[four] Great sources confirmed” the matter, and later added: “I not only don't do this, I have never done this. But here it is; ‘Karl Rove will be indicted late this, or early next week.’ I'm trusting a source. So either I am made a [sic] into an overzealous horses a**, or..., I have good sources and may be more trusted to get these things right.”
Ditto. |
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July05/Frank0705.htm
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
No it's not, which is why so many white collar crimes are not prosecuted. It's much easier to prove X happened than to prove X happened because Mr. Y wanted to do Z. |
Ok, I was speaking from personal experience...
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-07-2005 07:01
) then it is a whitewashing.
|