Roving thoughts

As satisfying as it is to see Karl Rove momentarily exposed publicly for the scoundrel that he is, Bob Somerby (The Daily Howler) makes a good point when he cautions "the liberal web" about jumping ahead of the facts.  Farhad Manjoo gives us a good run-down on the state of the story as of July 12: Smelling like a Rove Salon 07/12/05.

Is Karl Rove going to jail?

Don't know yet. It's clear from recent reports in Newsweek and the Washington Post that Rove was involved in, and possibly headed, a White House effort to discredit Wilson. What's not clear is whether Rove committed a crime, either by leaking Plame's identity, or by lying to investigators who are trying to determine whether he leaked Plame's identity. Even if Rove did violate the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which prohibits divulging an intelligence agent's identity, investigators may lack the necessary evidence to charge him. Rove continues to deny any wrongdoing. ...

Lawyers observing the case have said that the prosecutor, who's known for being tough, may be looking to charge someone for some lesser crime than leaking an undercover operative's name, namely perjury or obstruction of justice. But because we don't know what Rove has said to the grand jury or to investigators, it's impossible to tell whether he's the subject of these investigations, either.

At this point, then, it's distinctly possible that Rove -- the same Rove who recently called liberals soft in their response to the 9/11 attacks -- may face no punishment at all for outing the identity of a CIA agent.

This article from over a year ago is worth revisiting: The Serious Implications Of President Bush's Hiring A Personal Outside Counsel For The Valerie Plame Investigation by John Dean Findlaw.com 06/04/04.

Undoubtedly, those from the White House have been asked if they spoke with the president about the leak. It appears that one or more of them may indeed have done so. .

If so - and if the person revealed the leaker's identity to the President, or if the President decided he preferred not to know the leaker's identity. -- then thisfact could conflict with Bush's remarkably broad public statements on the issue. He has said that he did not know of "anybody in [his] administration who leaked classified information." He has also said that he wanted "to know the truth" about this leak.

If Bush is called before the grand jury, it is likely because [federal prosecutor] Fitzgerald believes that he knows much more about this leak than he has stated publicly.

Perhaps Bush may have knowledge not only of the leaker, but also of efforts to make this issue go away - if indeed there have been any. It is remarkably easy to obstruct justice, and this matter has been under various phases of an investigation by the Justice Department since it was referred by the CIA last summer.

I posted about that article earlier in Bush lawyers up.

John Dean has also had two more recent Findlaw.com columns about the Valerie Plame case.  White House skullduggery is something on which Dean is a leading expert.  One is An Update on the Investigation Into the Leak Of CIA Agent Plame's Identity: Will The Supreme Court Take The Miller And Cooper Cases? 04/22/05.  The other is A New Chapter In The Valerie Plame Case: Insights Gained From The New Edition of The Book by Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson 05/20/05.  In the latter, he writes:

For months, it has been rumored that Fitzgerald has found only a low-level leaker in the White House - one who seems not to have violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which makes it a crime to disclose an undercover CIA operative. But it is only criminal if the leaker knew the name was classified, and that the CIA sought to keep it classified. (A low-level person might not have had this knowledge.)

If so, that's odd. Remember, Novak credited two "senior" Administration sources. But let's suppose it's true. In that event, it is quite likely - and many lawyers following the case believe - that the investigation has shifted to possible charges of perjury and/or obstruction of justice, more than likely by big fish. ...

Finally, it would alsoexplain why Cooper and Miller might now be central players: Their testimony may be needed to make a case of perjury or obstruction of justice.

From the point of view of a perjury/obstruction case, it matters little that Cooper began to report only after the initial link in the Novak column. Nor does it matter that Miller never did report on the leak. Even reporters who don't write what they learn, or who don't report at the very start of the controversy, may learn information crucial to making a perjury or obstruction case.

And this last excerpt is worth bolding:

The Plame leak is a very serious one. It is an especially nasty case of revenge for truth-telling: To go after Wilson's wife, for his Op Ed, is dirty business indeed. Even more important, for Valerie Plame (and possibly others who covertly associated with her abroad, and were outed when she was outed) this leak could be life-threatening.

It is way past time to get to the bottom of the Plame leak. It deserves both the pitiless light of publicity, and the laser focus of prosecution.

And I like the comments on journalistic ethics, with reference to the case of the atrocious Judith Miller, facilitator of fake WMD propaganda, in this column:  Martyrdom for Judith Miller misses the point by Rosa Brooks San Francisco Chronicle 07/12/05.

Her [WMD] scoops relied on information provided by the very folks who were also cooking the books. But because Miller hid behind confidential sources most of the time, there was little her readers could use to evaluatetheir credibility. You know: "a high-level official with access to classified data." Ultimately, even the Times' "public editor" conceded the paper's coverage of Iraq had often consisted of "breathless stories built on unsubstantiated 'revelations' that, in many instances, were the anonymity- cloaked assertions of people with vested interests." ...

Should Miller have refused to offer anonymity to all those "high-level" sources who sold us a bill of goods on Iraq? Yes.

If a journalist discovers that a source lied on a matter crucial to the public good, should the reporter beethically permitted to expose the lie and the liar, despite previous promises of confidentiality? Yes.

If a source with a clear political motivation passes along classified information that has no value for public debate but would endanger the career, and possibly life, of a covert agent, is a journalist ethically permitted to "out" the no-good sneak? You bet. And if the knowledge that they can't always hide behind anonymity has a "chilling effect" on political hacks eager to manipulate the media in furtherance of their vested interests, that's OK with me.

The second of those questions is particularly important.  Miller's sources passed on phony information and her articles based on them were an important factor in persuading the public and Congress to go along with invading Iraq.  Lots of people have been killed, the risk of terrorist attacks against the United States greatly increased, and the country's standing among the democratic nations of the world permanently damaged by that war.

It's absurd for her to protect those sources.  The way Isee it, she has a positive obligation to "burn" sources who lied that badly and used her to promote the most cynical kind of destructive war propaganda.

So I can't find even a hint of sympathy for Miller being in jail.  Especially since there is a certain kind of justice involved because she went to jail for something related to the faking of WMD claims - the outing of Valerie Plame to try to cover up for Bush's deception on his fake claims about Iraq's (nonexistent) nuclear weapons program.

I've written about Judy Miller several times, like on 06/03/04.