Karl Rove headed to Prison???

[Gimpy]

Didn't write it................But I wish I had !

[SuperScout]

Has anybody bothered to read what are the elements of the charge of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act? Reading 50 U.S.C. Section 421, (a), and (b) makes clear certain facts. Valerie Plame was not a covert agent, by her own actions and job description, and the US government was not taking 'affirmative measures' to conceal her identity. Like much of the anti-Bush ballyhoo, this entire case is much ado about nothing, a witch hunt of ol' Grey Lady proportions, a toothless hag still trying to gnash her gums and play the "Oh woe is me" game to the max.

[Gimpy]

I don't believe you're reading the 'same' factual information everyone ELSE is there Superfella, are you?

Didn't you SEE this part...."the basic facts concerning the prosecution of her case, which began with a direct request from the CIA to the Justice Department's criminal division, following the agency's own two-month internal investigation." And, "It seems most unlikely that agency officials made such a request....unless they had obtained the approval of then CIA Director George Tenet ."??


And THIS, "The appointment of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald came several weeks later -- after the Justice Department, then overseen by Attorney General John Ashcroft, concluded that an investigation was warranted. The predicate of that conclusion by two top officers of the Bush Cabinet (Tenet and Ashcroft) was that a covert agent had in fact been exposed. " ??



As the man said, "Now one would think these facts would be plain enough to anyone capable of rudimentary reporting, not to mention simple reasoning."


I would add, do YOU consider yourself in these afformentioned categories, or somewhere in the realm of Rio Linda Ludicrous, Lamentable Litigators of South Texas Crap House Law?


Just asking.

[SuperScout]

Gimpy, it seems that every post you write, or copy, always has some very distinct reference to excretory body functions. Were you properly potty trained as a child, or are you so challenged that you can't get your vocabulary out of the gutter or outhouse?

If the "facts" about this situation were so clear and obvious, why hasn't an indictment or three been handed down? How much time does this special prosecutor need to restate the obvious, or is he having such a difficult time finding a grand jury in DC to hear all the allegations? If it was all such a cut and dried case as the NYT and other leftist propaganda machines would have us believe, why the delay? Is this just for dramatic effect, or more likely, a paucity of credible evidence?

[urbsdad6]

Scout and all,

I think the post I made by citizenspook might make some clarifications regarding indictments or true bills.


Doc Urb

[Gimpy]

I just read the article by 'citizenspook' and it's obvious there's much, much more to the ' no comment' that will be forthcoming in the not to distant future!

I think all HELL is about to break loose within the Bush Cartels 'Gang of Thugs'. Their lies, deception and outright treason will finally be brought out into the public for all to see!

[Gimpy]

latest 'tidbit' in this revolting story.

###START###

The Plame Game:

No, it's not all about the Intelligence Identities Protection Act


August 14, 2005


The main stream media have some nice knock-downs of the basic GOP talking points on the Rove/Plame affair. Notice how quickly the Republicans have moved to define deviancy down: now it's perfectly OK for Rove to have wrecked a CIA officer's career, exposed her assets to God-knows-what horrible treatment, and deceived his colleagues and the public for two years about his involvement in revealing Plame's identity, as long as he managed to skirt around actually violating the law in any way that can be proven in court.


But it seems that the main stream media has allowed itself to be taken in by the most fundamental piece of GOP spinning: that if Rove didn't violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, he's in the clear legally.


The elements of a crime under the IIPA are extremely demanding; one of its drafters has been quoted as saying that the law was written so as to be "hard to break." The elements are: (1) authorized access to classified information, (2) learning the identity of a covert agent (3) intentional disclosure of information identifying the agent to (4) an individual not authorized to receive classified information (5) knowledge that the information identifies a covert agent and (6) knowledge that the United States is taking "affirmative measures" to conceal the agent?s role. For the purposes of the bill, someone is a "covert agent" only if he or she has "served overseas" within the previous five years, creating an effective seventh element.


How likely is it that Rove could be proven to have known that the United States was still taking "affirmative measures" to conceal Plame's identity?


But Rove's conduct certainly meets the far less demanding elements of the Espionage Act : (1) possession of (2) information (3) relating to the national defense (4) which the person possessing it has reason to believe could be used to damage the United States or aid a foreign nation and (5) wilful communication of that information to (6) a person not entitled to receive it.


Under the Espionage Act, the person doing the communicating need not actually believe that revelation could be damaging; he needs only "reason to believe." Classification is generally reason to believe, and a security-clearance holder is responsible for knowing what information is classified.

Nor is it necessary that the discloser intend public distribution; if Rove told Cooper -- which he did -- and Cooper didn't have a security clearance -- which he didn't -- the crime would have been complete.


And to be a crime the disclosure need not be intended to damage the national security; it is only the act of communication itself that must be wilful.

It's also a crime to "cause" such information to be communicated, for example by asking someone else to do so.


Open and shut, looks like it.


Judge Hogan told Judith Miller that the disclosure of information to her, and her potential use of it, were crimes. That couldn't have been true under the IIPA, since IIPA applies only to officials, not journalists, except where the journalist has a pattern of exposing agents' identities. It would be true under the Espionage Act. Ergo, the use of that statute must be in contemplation.

(In addition, we know that the CIA made a criminal referral to the Justice Department in the late summer of 2003. That must have reflected a determination by someone in the CIA General Counsel's shop that a crime had been committed, if not under IIPA then under the Espioage Act. Note also that a certain George W. Bush said two years ago that the disclosure of Plame's identity was "a criminal action.")

Moreover, if Rove told Bush, or even McClellan, "I didn't discuss Valerie Plame with anyone," he violated 18 U.S.C. 1001, the law against making false statements to officials. That would still be true even if he managed to skirt around the truth, using misleading language such as "I never revealed her name" as part of a "scheme" to "cover up" a "material fact."


It looks virtually certain that Rove committed one or more felonies, highly probable that he will be indicted, and more likely than not that he will be convicted. By pretending that only the IIPA is in play, the Bushites are setting the stage to try and denounce Patrick Fitzgerald as a "runaway prosecutor" when he nails Rove for espionage and false statements.

###END###

Can't wait to see Karl in his new orange 'jumpsuit' when they tote him off to Leavenworth!

[SuperScout]

Ahhh, yes, the fishing expedition continues! First the whiners and snivelers trot out the absolute certainty that lo and behold, there are clear and present violations of the "Intelligence Identies Protection Act," and then when they find out that few if any of the elements of the charge were present, and that they can't possible make an indictment stick, they trot out another equally obscure law, the "Espionage Act." What, pray tell, did the identity or lack thereof, peratining to one each Valerie Plame, have to do with national security, one of the elements of a violation? How could the identification of ol' Val gal aid another foreign power?

It appears that the odor emanating from the bait bucket on this fishing trip has clouded the reporters' olfactory receptors and cut off oxygen to their brains.

[BLUEHAWK]

I guess we'll just have to wait for due process to take its course.

[SuperScout]

Wonder what comprises a greated threat to our national security, the disclosure of the name of an employee of the CIA who was not a covert operative, who was not involved in any covert mission, or whose identity the government was not taking affirmative actions to protect, or the theft and willful destruction of highly classified (beyond Top Secret) material?

Compare and contrast the incident involving Valerie Plame versus the crime of Sandy Berger, one-time National Security Adviser to the POTUS. Then compare and contrast the respective amount of ink the two stories have received. The world has been virtually covered with ink, blathering about our gal Val and her cover or lack thereof, yet hardly a peep about the theft and destruction of documents by "Shorts" Berger. And what, pray tell did Berger do with all those documents? Since there was no inventory of what he stole, how can we be certain that what he brought back was equal to the sum of his thefts?

Finally, how can the current Justice Department justify the merest of slap upon the wrist of said Sandy? What ever happened to federal sentencing guidelines, which mandate a 5-10 year stripped suntan outing for the crimes which he committed.