Presented Without Comment

by hilzoy

LATimes, via firedoglake:

"An intelligence analyst temporarily lost his top-secret security clearance because he faxed his resume using a commercial machine.

An employee of the Defense Department had her clearance suspended for months because a jilted boyfriend called to say she might not be reliable.

An Army officer who spoke publicly about intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks had his clearance revoked over questions about $67 in personal charges to a military cellphone.

But in the White House, where Karl Rove is under federal investigation for his role in the exposure of a covert CIA officer, the longtime advisor to President Bush continues to enjoy full access to government secrets."

Comments

[lily]

Wow, Hilzoy, You are really on a roll today!

[Slartibartfast]

And, because prisoners are being beaten and killed, Karl Rove ought to be beaten and killed.

Not proposing this seriously, just noting that the LA Times is not your one-stop shopping for how things ought to be done in the arena of security clearances. That clearances can and have been taken away on shaky grounds doesn't mean that Rove's should be taken away. I'm thinking that no one has the goods on Rove, at this point.

[hilzoy]

Lily: just procrastinating. And Slarti: unless Matt Cooper is lying about Rove telling him about Plame's identity, I cannot imagine on what grounds Rove keeps his clearance. Even assuming that he didn't know Plame was covert, didn't know who else knew about her, etc., I would have thought the rule would be: do not talk about stuff until you know for a fact that it's not classified, is known, etc.

[CharleyCarp]

I'm thinking that no one has the goods on Rove, at this point.

If by 'no one' you mean the President of the United States, I'm inclined to agree with you.

[Slartibartfast]

Not knowing ALL the details, hilzoy, I'd just point to the reticence of the government to pull clearances of high-level officials, even when it looks like they may have screwed up bigtime. Witness the three years or so it took to pull John Deutch's clearance. And how long did it take Berger to lose his, even after he'd admitted to breaking the rules?

[SomeCallMeTim]

And, because prisoners are being beaten and killed, Karl Rove ought to be beaten and killed.

I'd make a joke, but I don't want the FBI visiting me before we've decided whether citizens still get the right to trial.

And of course I fully support George Bush and all that he stands for, Mr. G-man.

[Gary Farber]

Presented with comment: the President's words today and some other quotes from the Admin.

Interesting to know that the President believes that "anything we do [to disrupt the plots of terrorists] to that end, in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law."

Not surprising. Just interesting. It's conservative, if you're a royalist.

[Gary Farber]

"And, because prisoners are being beaten and killed, Karl Rove ought to be beaten and killed."

How silly. No, Rove should be questioned by Patrick Fitzgerald under the same guidelines the President has authorized for questioning that is not torture.

I see no need at all to bring Karl Rove near organ failure, so it should be smooth sailing. He'd probably enjoy a little harmless waterboarding.

[Gary Farber]

"I'm thinking that no one has the goods on Rove, at this point."

So do you think it's that Karl Rove is and has been lying to George W. Bush, or that George W. Bush hasn't had him in to ask him the true story?

[Gary Farber]

"I would have thought the rule would be: do not talk about stuff until you know for a fact that it's not classified, is known, etc."

It is. I could look up a cite, but, then, so could anyone. But the actual language has been particularly posted around the web in the last week.

[Chris]

Isn't this the administration of "not waiting for the smoking gun" and of "its too important to wait until all of the facts are in because then it will be too late"?

That is, does revoking Rove's clearance while an investigation is ongoing and he is a known person of principle interest actually cause harm to the country or to national security?

There aren't actually that many criminal investigations into security leaks that I know about, so this doesn't seem as though it would set great precedant. Even if it did set precedant, I'm comfortable with this one. I don't think that having a security clearance is a right, seems to me to be more of a privilege.

Thus, I don't understand the argument that we should wait until someone has been convicted of a crime involving the misuse of classified information before their clearance can be revoked. And, don't we know that he discussed classified information regardless of whether he was the original source of information about Plame?

[modus potus]

Having worked for the DoD for a number of years (but no longer), I can say that in my experience security clearances are routinely suspended in a "rather safe than sorry" fashion. But it's often a judgement call, and someone working in an important capacity (and not just someone with political connections) is more likely to be given leeway.

One thing to note is that actual compromise (i.e. releasing classified information) is treated far more seriously than potential compromise (i.e. mishandling classified documents or violating procedures related to their use). This is an important distinction to make when making comparisons to Berger or Deutch.

[Jesurgislac]

I cannot imagine on what grounds Rove keeps his clearance.

IOIYAR.

I'm thinking that no one has the goods on Rove, at this point.

Yeah, because all we know is that he freely discussed classified information with reporters. And clearly, that's no reason to pull his security clearance.

Nor is it any reason to have Rove fired. After all, he hasn't (yet) been indicted for anything, and George W. Bush only promised to fire people who had committed a crime, not just people who were involved in the leaking of Plame's identity. Oh wait, he did promise to fire anyone who was involved. But that was ages ago, and no one's going to be cad enough to point that out to him now.

[John Thullen]

"I'm thinking no one has the goods on Rove, at this point."

Yes, but surely there is a former girlfriend somewhere who thinks he might not be reliable. ;)

Or, they could ask McCain's adopted kid. The one from Africa. The minstrel baby.

[Jeremy Osner]

"anything we do [to disrupt the plots of terrorists] to that end, in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law."

Gary -- far be it from me to apologize for Bush; but to my ear that sounds like a spectacularly awkward phrasing where he is meaning to say "(every) thing we (are now doing) to that end... is within the law." I don't think he was trying to invoke the inherent lawfulness of all anti-terrorism tactics.

[Gary Farber]

"I don't think he was trying to invoke the inherent lawfulness of all anti-terrorism tactics."

It's close enough for government work. (I commented on this in the comments on my post, as well.)

[baltar]

For what its worth, I've always felt that political appointees (especially the high ones) should operate under a different set of rules with respect to security clearances: if Bush (or any President) wants any person to have a job that requires a security clearance, then that person gets one. It's the President's responsibility to choose people who live up to the job, not the job of the FBI (or other elements of the bureaucracy) to say those people can't have their jobs. Hence, Rove gets to keep his security clearance because Bush needs him to have one to do his job. If there is a security violation, it's on Bush's shoulders (meanwhile, Rove - and anyone else Bush thinks is critical to running his administration - gets to keep the security clearance).

[Slartibartfast]

How silly.

For once, Farber recognizes I'm being silly while it's happening.

[Slartibartfast]

I would have thought the rule would be: do not talk about stuff until you know for a fact that it's not classified, is known, etc.

Not precisely the case, this. If something comes up in conversation without it being stated as being classified data, and if that something is information that one doesn't suspect is classified to begin with, then of course it shouldn't be assumed to be classified. Normal conversation would be impossible if this were implemented. If, OTOH, Rove had been briefed in to the compartment Plame's identity resided in, he has absolutely no leg to stand on, even if he heard her identity from someone who shouldn't know. Whether or not Rove had need to know is something that I would think Fitzgerald already knows; it'd be fairly easy to verify.

[Jesurgislac]

baltar: if Bush (or any President) wants any person to have a job that requires a security clearance, then that person gets one. It's the President's responsibility to choose people who live up to the job, not the job of the FBI (or other elements of the bureaucracy) to say those people can't have their jobs.

Fair point: and Bush said, years ago now, that if it were shown that anyone in his administration were involved in leaking Plame's identity, they'd lose their jobs.

It has been shown that Karl Rove was involved in leaking Plame's identity. Yet, he still has his job.

[Slartibartfast]

Any theories, then, as to why Rove has not been indicted, or why neither Rove nor Libby have been arrested? It appears that you think that the evidence that a crime has been committed is conclusive (and that who committed the crime(s) is a given); odd then that no arrests have taken place.

Just wondering what your thinking is, here.

[Gary Farber]

"Any theories, then, as to why Rove has not been indicted, or why neither Rove nor Libby have been arrested?"

Scratches head:

Libby was booked, photographed and fingerprinted in normal procedure for an
arraignment, and was released on his own recognizance.

I guess you hadn't heard.

As for Official A, the investigation continues. Are you aware of the timeline and methodology pf Mr. Fitzgerald in his proceedings against Official A (aka "Governor Rod Blagojevich") in Illinois?

[Slartibartfast]

Ok, the bit about Libby was incorrect, acknowledged. Now, what about Rove?

Blagojevich? Did you read any results other than the first hit, Gary?

[hilzoy]

Slarti: whether or not Rove committed a crime is a different question from whether or not he violated the terms of his security clearance. On the former, I tend to accept Fitzgerald's answer: that obstruction of justice made it hard to tell whether he should prosecute, partly because he does not think the Espionage act should be used too often.

On the latter, though, I think the evidence is there. And I don't think revealing that someone is CIA is like revealing something you have no reason to think is classified.

[Jesurgislac]

Slarti: It appears that you think that the evidence that a crime has been committed is conclusive (and that who committed the crime(s) is a given);

Neither one. I said that we know Karl Rove is involved in the leaking of Valerie Plame's identity: so we do. We also know that, once upon a time, Bush promised to fire anyone who was involved in leaking Valerie Plame's identity. It's only recently, that Bush changed his tune and said he would only fire someone if they had committed a crime. Now, as has been discussed to death all over large sections of the Internet, including this blog:

-it is entirely possible that whoever leaked Valerie Plame's identity did not commit a crime under the specific legislation about leaking the identities of covert CIA operatives, because, although covert, she had not been overseas for six years. (That would not change my opinion that leaking her identity was a scummy thing to do: it would merely mean that whoever did it, might never be indicted for doing it - or if indicted, might not be convicted.)

-until someone has been convicted, they have a right to be presumed innocent of having committed a crime.

As you point out, Karl Rove has not yet been indicted. He is, however, unquestionably involved in the leak: and if Bush were to live up to his original promise, he would already have been fired.

But, if Bush only promises to fire someone if they committed a crime, he is free to keep them on the White House payroll even after indictment, right up until conviction.

[Slartibartfast]

whether or not Rove committed a crime is a different question from whether or not he violated the terms of his security clearance.

The only possible difference I can see is that maybe it was sufficiently a mild infraction that it was not a shoo-in for prosecution. Exposing classified information is always basis for prosecution, although prosecution may be waived if the offense is sufficiently slight.

it is entirely possible that whoever leaked Valerie Plame's identity did not commit a crime under the specific legislation about leaking the identities of covert CIA operatives, because, although covert, she had not been overseas for six years.

Jesurgislac, this seems to rest heavily on that IIPA is the only relevant statute; that is incorrect. As Gary's pointed out (not that I ever held otherwise), one can have a classified identity without meeting the requirement for having a covert identity as specified in the IIPA. Any disclosure of classified information is prosecutable. Even exposing classified information to a possibility of exposure is prosecutable. Again, this is not to say that all unauthorized disclosured of classified information are prosecuted, but they are prosecutable.

[Gary Farber]

"aka "Governor Rod Blagojevich")"

Ryan, of course.

[Gary Farber]

"And I don't think revealing that someone is CIA is like revealing something you have no reason to think is classified."

More on target: revealing someone who works the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) of the Directorate of Operations (DO) is revealing someone who is by definition covert. (If someone instead thought a person worked for the Directorate of Intelligence, than they could reasonably be thought to likely be a non-covert analyst; these are the two sides of the CIA.)

[Gary Farber]

"And I don't think revealing that someone is CIA is like revealing something you have no reason to think is classified."

More on target: revealing someone who works the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) of the Directorate of Operations (DO) is revealing someone who is by definition covert. (If someone instead thought a person worked for the Directorate of Intelligence, than they could reasonably be thought to likely be a non-covert analyst; these are the two sides of the CIA.)

[Gary Farber]

"But, if Bush only promises to fire someone if they committed a crime, he is free to keep them on the White House payroll even after indictment, right up until conviction."

Pish-tush. Why, people aren't really guilty until their appeals have been dealt with, doncha know? This is why Oliver North is perfectly innocent, even though he was found guilty and convicted of three felonies.

And, as well, if Mssrs. Libby or Rove or anyone else (surely not the Vice-President!) were to be convicted, they have the comforting knowledge of how the presidential pardon process works (something Mr. Libby knows well from his days as Marc Rich's lawyer -- I seem to recall some saying there was something unseemly going on there, allegedly; Mr. Cheney, of course, hasn't forgotten either the Ford years (when a certain "Donald Rumsfeld" was White House chief of staff) and a certain pardon, or the patriotic pardons of his Reagan years).

So really: no worries, mate! (Yes, not quite, but still.)

[Jesurgislac]

Slarti, I'm entirely unqualified to judge whether leaking Valerie Plame's identity (and Fitzgerald made clear that her employment status is classified) is in and of itself an indictable offense.

My point is, again, that whether or not Karl Rove can be indicted for his involvement in leaking Valerie Plame's identity, he is unquestionably involved. Bush originally promised to fire anyone who was involved: it's only recently that he's changed his tune to if they've committed a crime.

A person can and should be presumed innocent until conviction: that is the benchmark of a fair judicial system.

But the standard of whether someone should be allowed to keep their job is somewhat different.

It's not a crime to surf the Internet, or to read Obsidian Wings. But if my employer had made a rule that I may not surf the Internet on company time, and had made publicly clear that anyone doing so would lose their job, it would be no defense for me to say "but I was only looking at Obsidian Wings!"

Equally, Bush doesn't have to show that Karl Rove broke the law to be able to fire him. He just has to know that Karl Rove was involved in leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative to the media, something which - Bush said - was an offense that merited firing.

[cleek]

speaking of leaking. Trent Lott seems to think it was a Republican who leaked the "Black sites" info to the WaPo. (see Atrios / Kos / Digby / etc)

[Jon H]

slarti writes: ". Exposing classified information is always basis for prosecution, although prosecution may be waived if the offense is sufficiently slight."

Er, no, actually, exposing classified information is *not* always basis for prosecution. I'm surprised anyone still has that misconception after years of Plame-case ranting from both sides.

Laura Bush's panty size could be classified, if Bush wanted it to. Releasing that information would not in any way be criminal, because there is no general law against the release of any old classified information, and Laura's panties don't fall under any of the protected categories unless they're a WMD.

It doesn't matter that Laura's panty size is not a big deal.

If Rove and Libby aren't prosecuted for the leak, it won't be because of the severity of the leak. It'll be because Fitzgerald was unable to prove intent or similar fuzzy things.

[Jon H]

". He just has to know that Karl Rove was involved in leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative to the media, something which - Bush said - was an offense that merited firing. "

And it certainly merits the loss of a security clearance.

There is simply no justification for giving such access to someone who has shown himself not to be responsible enough to handle it like an adult.

[cleek]

It doesn't matter that Laura's panty size is not a big deal

up until now, i had never given a millisecond's though to the first lady's underwear. ...

[Slartibartfast]

because there is no general law against the release of any old classified information

Ah, so Plame's identity was classified at the same mundane level as the First Lady's undies? Do tell. And tell me, please, what is the extent of your experience with classified data?

This looks like it probably applies:

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. (g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

Could be wrong, though. I have to confess that I'm not nearly well read-up on the relevant laws, but it seems to me that the purpose in classifying information is somewhat (by which I mean: greatly) diminished by lack of teeth in applicable statute.

[Jesurgislac]

Slarti, while I agree that if Libby and only Libby is ever indicted, and that he is prosecuted only for the cover-up rather than for the leak of classified information, this would greatly diminish the point of classifying information - since the Bush administration would have demonstrated that it is possible for someone with a security clearance to leak the identity of a covert CIA operative to the media and not be prosecuted for it.

If Libby is the only one indicted, and if he (and others) are in fact only prosecuted for the cover-up, this could be something that President Bush's administration gets remembered for, for a long long time.

However, given that (so far) only one person has been indicted by Fitzgerald, and that Fitzgerald apparently has a reputation for proceeding slowly but thoroughly from lowest to highest, I think your pessimism about the the future of national security in the US is premature.

[Jon H]

"Ah, so Plame's identity was classified at the same mundane level as the First Lady's undies? Do tell."

What do you think was the incentive for the Intelligence Identities Protection Act in 1982?

[Jon H]

Slarti, you're skipping the parts that say

"with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States".

"Intent" and "reason to believe" make things a bit more fuzzy and complicated than would be the case if all that were required was to prove the conveyance of information.

Especially when the defense could present arguments that would create resonable doubt on these things, in the minds of the jury.

If all that was required in court was to prove the passing of information, Rove and Libby would probably have been indicted a while ago.

But it isn't that simple.

[Slartibartfast]

I think your pessimism about the the future of national security in the US is premature.

Not pessimism, Jesurgislac. If you look upthread, I was simply asking you what you thought it meant, that no one had yet actually been charged with a crime relating to divulging classified information. Personally, I don't know if it means anything at all.

What do you think was the incentive for the Intelligence Identities Protection Act in 1982?

Protecting covert agents and assets in the field.

If all that was required in court was to prove the passing of information, Rove and Libby would probably have been indicted a while ago.

But it isn't that simple.

How then do you explain Berger getting anything more than a stern admonition? I really doubt anyone made a case for that Berger attempted to do harm to the United States.

[Jesurgislac]

I was simply asking you what you thought it meant, that no one had yet actually been charged with a crime relating to divulging classified information.

It means Fitzgerald hasn't yet indicted anyone for divulging classified information. What else could it mean? He's made clear that Plame's employment status at the CIA was indeed classified.

How then do you explain Berger getting anything more than a stern admonition?

INOIYAD.

[Jon H]

Slarti writes:

"Protecting covert agents and assets in the field."

But why would that be necessary if that were already covered by the law you cited?

As for Berger he plead to "unauthorized removal and retention of classified material", a misdemeanor, not a felony.

Even this law includes a provision that it's okay if you're doing it in order to give it to Congress.

He wasn't convicted under the Espionage Act.

The statute he was convicted under covers physical items, not the transfer of information alone, so would not apply to Scooter and Rove.

[Gary Farber]

"Laura Bush's panty size could be classified, if Bush wanted it to. Releasing that information would not in any way be criminal, because there is no general law against the release of any old classified information,"

Possibly you may be confusing the fact that there are almost no laws preventing journalists or second parties from publishing or distributing classified material versus the laws against people authorized to deal with classified material not being allowed to release it. If it weren't illegal for the authorized person to release classified material, there would be no point to classifying it. Nonetheless, there is no "official secrets" act preventing anyone unauthorized who is given classified material doing what they will with it.

Short version: it's illegal for authorized people to disclose classified material; there's no similar law binding anyone else.

[Slartibartfast]

But why would that be necessary if that were already covered by the law you cited?

Because of the in the field part.

a misdemeanor, not a felony.

"Prosecutable" and "felony" aren't interchangeable, as far as I'm aware.

He wasn't convicted under the Espionage Act.

You're not telling me anything new or inconsistent with anything I've said.

The statute he was convicted under covers physical items, not the transfer of information alone, so would not apply to Scooter and Rove.

You're refuting a point that I have not made. If Berger had passed the documents in question on to someone unauthorized to receive them, the offense would have been somewhat more serious. It would have been as serious as what Rove and Libby are being accused of (not by Fitzgerald as of this time, just to be clear).

[Gary Farber]

"What do you think was the incentive for the Intelligence Identities Protection Act in 1982?"

See, that's the rare exception of a law that binds unauthorized people, the "everyone else" free to do as they will with classified material. Specifically, Section C:

(c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents

Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual's classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined not more than $15,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Call it the Philip Agee law. Sections A and B, binding only on authorized personnel (such as Libby and Rove) are just frosting, in the context of what led to the passage of the law, i.e., Philip Agee.

[Jon H]

"If it weren't illegal for the authorized person to release classified material, there would be no point to classifying it."

Well, it's not quite that simple.

As I said, you can classify *almost anything*. It's illegal to classify something in order to conceal a crime, but I doubt that'd stop anyone from trying. Beyond that, they could classify the recipe for Bush's favorite homemade snack mix. Information has even been classified after it had already been released un-classified.

The laws against leaking classified information (as opposed to mishandling physical items like documents) are not worded so broadly. The classified information has to be of certain types, generally defense-related.

So, basically, you can classify most anything, but it'd be rather difficult to get a leak conviction unless the information is defense-related, because it wouldn't be a crime to leak Bush's favorite recipes.

That said, one can be fired or administratively punished without being convicted of anything, which is likely sufficient to keep most people in line.

[Jon H]

"If Berger had passed the documents in question on to someone unauthorized to receive them, the offense would have been somewhat more serious."

Well, yes, but then he was dealing with physical items, not pure information, thus doesn't get into First Amendment concerns which Fitzgerald appears to be wary of. As he explained in his press conference, at length, touching on the fact that we don't have an Official Secrets Act.

[Jon H]

"Because of the in the field part."

That's irrelevant. Nor does the agent even have to be in the field, it's the whole 'in the past five years' thing that has been dealt with ad nauseam.

And you still haven't addressed the intent issues with the statutes about classified information.

You're trying to claim that the law hinges only on the fact of passing information, when that is not the case.

So you bring in Berger, who was convicted of a law with entirely different parameters, thus is beside the point when addressing Rove or Libby.

[Jon H]

And Slarti still hasn't addressed why Rove's employment and security clearance should be maintained unless a conviction is returned.

Larry Lindsey wasn't convicted of anything at all, yet Bush fired *his* ass just for being inconveniently honest about likely Iraq War costs.

[Slartibartfast]

thus doesn't get into First Amendment concerns which Fitzgerald appears to be wary of

You've somehow gotten the incorrect impression that this is a First Amendment issue. Read what Gary's posted on this very thread, please.

Nor does the agent even have to be in the field, it's the whole 'in the past five years' thing that has been dealt with ad nauseam.

Jon, this has already been dealt with ad nauseam, agreed. Why are you going over it again?

And Slarti still hasn't addressed why Rove's employment and security clearance should be maintained unless a conviction is returned.

Why should I? It's a point I haven't made. Due to time and space restrictions, I reserve the right to fail to address any number of points that I haven't made.

[Jesurgislac]

Jon H: And Slarti still hasn't addressed why Rove's employment and security clearance should be maintained unless a conviction is returned.

Slarti: Why should I? It's a point I haven't made.

It may not have been your intention to make that point, but it certainly appeared that you were making that point.

In this comment, I asked why Karl Rove still had his job, to which you responded that he hadn't yet been indicted, let alone convicted. I responded at some length to point out that these are two different issues - Karl Rove is certainly involved in the leak, and Bush certainly said he would fire anyone who was involved. Rove doesn't have to have committed a crime for which he can be indicted, to have committed an indiscretion for which he can be fired.

You then, as Jon H correctly pointed out, dropped the subject that you had yourself raised, and went on to discuss other issues. But you did offer, apparently as a reason why Rove shouldn't be fired, that he hasn't been indicted yet.

[Jon H]

Slarti writes: "You've somehow gotten the incorrect impression that this is a First Amendment issue"

Patrick Fitzgerald certainly has concerns about overuse of the espionage act. (Or, at least, concerns about such concerns.)

Leaks may be a form of protected speech, in some cases. For example, the leak of the information about the black CIA interrogation centers in Eastern Europe. The public certainly has a right to know that we're the new management of some Soviet Gulag outposts.

The espionage act carries inherent First Amendment issues, and prosecution may set unwanted precedents, giving a prosecutor incentive to be wary of indicting people with it in leak cases.

[Slartibartfast]

to which you responded that he hadn't yet been indicted, let alone convicted.

Actually, my question was in response to your (at least apparent) confidence that Rove had, in fact, spilled the beans. Given that this sort of bean-spilling is (if Fitzgerald's comments are any guide) almost certainly illegal, something doesn't fit. I haven't made any assertions at all that I think I know what doesn't fit, and it's certainly possible that Fitzgerald has what he needs to indict and simply has not yet done so. It's certainly possible that I thought I'd made that clear yesterday and actually hadn't because of Typepad's dyspepsia.

Just to clarify. Because I'm all about that, these days.

You then, as Jon H correctly pointed out, dropped the subject that you had yourself raised

I don't know what you're referring to, here. A link might be nice, or a quote, or even a brief description.

But you did offer, apparently as a reason why Rove shouldn't be fired, that he hasn't been indicted yet.

It's the gift that keeps on giving, misconception is.

[Slartibartfast]

Jon H:

Leaks may be a form of protected speech, in some cases. For example, the leak of the information about the black CIA interrogation centers in Eastern Europe.

Wrong. The press is protected, but the leaker is not. Crucifying the leaker may be seen as undesirably emphasizing the importance of the leaked material, but that's neither here, there, nor anywhere else.

[Slartibartfast]

Let me further state that there is information inside my head right now that if I were to post it here, I would certainly be fired, lose my clearance for all time, and go to jail. Are you saying I could proceed and then use the First Amendment as a shield?

[CharleyCarp]

Samll data point: my request for declassification of my client's description of being tortured by US forces in a former Soviet prison in Kabul -- known among prisoners as the Prison of Darkness -- was granted. Not all gulag references are created equal.

[Slartibartfast]

Let's go a bit further on my previous post: the press is protected mostly because of the way the law is written: the law discusses consequences of disclosure of classified information by those authorized to hold it in the first place. Given that the press isn't authorized, the law doesn't apply to them. It does, however, apply to the first person who was authorized to know who blabbed to someone who was not authorized to know.

I've tried to make the case that the press could be authorized after the fact but before print, but that was shot down fairly quickly. Basically if you've signed a NDI and you blab, you're prosecutable.

[Jesurgislac]

Slarti: Actually, my question was in response to your (at least apparent) confidence that Rove had, in fact, spilled the beans.

That wasn't clear: thank you for clarifying.

What my response was meant to say, then, that whether or not Karl Rove directly leaked Valerie Plame's identity to the media, he was without doubt involved in the leak. (The link is to a fairly lengthy analysis at TalkLeft, if you're interested.)

What Bush said in 2004 (I have now checked the exact wording) is that he would fire anyone found to have leaked Valerie Plame's name. (Others besides me have pointed out that, properly parsed, Bush could argue that if Karl Rove swears he only leaked her identity as a covert CIA operative and her identity as Mrs Joseph Wilson, then Rove didn't leak her name and so Bush doesn't have to fire Rove. This would be a similiar kind of parsing to the lies Bush told over Iraq, and I am sure Bush would parse it that way if he thought he could get away with it.)

What McClellan said was: "The president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."

Now, it could be that McClellan pledged Bush to something that Bush doesn't in fact stand by - that when McClellan told the press that Bush would get rid of anyone who was involved in the Plame Affair, he was lying or he was lied to. And you may feel that it's not terribly important either way if McClellan did lie to the press, or pass on a lie he was told to tell, or even if he over-enthusiastically pledged Bush to a higher standard of conduct than Bush actually ever intended to be held to.

But that Karl Rove is involved in the Plame Affair - yes, I think that's clear enough to fire him, if Bush actually meant what McClellan said he meant. (If Bush only intends to be committed to firing the person who actually spoke to the media, but not other senior members of his administration who were in on the leak and obstructed the investigation, then you're right: there is as yet insufficient evidence that Rove is the one who spoke to Novak.)

[Jesurgislac]

Slarti: Are you saying I could proceed and then use the First Amendment as a shield?

Well, you've self-identified as an Independent, so, probably not. IOIYAR. But, if you were leaking information that would damage Bush's political opponents, you would undoubtedly find defenders in the right-wing blogosphere who would argue endlessly that you not only had a right to do so, you were right to do so.

[Slartibartfast]

What my response was meant to say, then, that whether or not Karl Rove directly leaked Valerie Plame's identity to the media, he was without doubt involved in the leak.

If "involved in" means anything much more restrictive than "was in the same town as" or "discussed it after the fact", you're going to have to help me a bit as to where that's established.

[DaveC]

There is generally one dummy in the crowd that doesn't know what IOIYAR and such means.

[Slartibartfast]

But, if you were leaking information that would damage Bush's political opponents, you would undoubtedly find defenders in the right-wing blogosphere who would argue endlessly that you not only had a right to do so, you were right to do so.

I haven't noticed that federal prosecutors listen to the right-wing blogosphere all that attentively.

[Slartibartfast]

Two, DaveC.

Two, because she made me look.

[Jesurgislac]

Slarti: If "involved in" means anything much more restrictive than "was in the same town as"

You call the White House a "town"? Well, I suppose it must be as big as many small towns, yes.

or "discussed it after the fact", you're going to have to help me a bit as to where that's established.

If you accept that it has certainly been established that Rove discussed the leak with Libby after the fact, then it has also been established - de facto - that when Bush said that he wanted to get to the bottom of this and that anyone responsible for leaking the name to the media would be fired, Rove did not immediately go to Bush and say "In July 2003, the following people [whether or not that included Rove himself] leaked Valerie Plame's identity to the media.)

(Or if Rove did do that, Bush certainly didn't fire them.)

So, yes, Rove's involved, and sufficiently so to be sacked, if Bush actually meant everything he'd said about the Plame Affair.

[Slartibartfast]

If you accept that it has certainly been established that Rove discussed the leak with Libby after the fact, then it has also been established - de facto - that when Bush said that he wanted to get to the bottom of this and that anyone responsible for leaking the name to the media would be fired, Rove did not immediately go to Bush and say "In July 2003, the following people [whether or not that included Rove himself] leaked Valerie Plame's identity to the media.)

Not following you, here. Are you saying that Rove is guilty of leaking Plame's identity after it had already been leaked? This is your "involved in"?

[Jesurgislac]

Are you saying that Rove is guilty of leaking Plame's identity after it had already been leaked? This is your "involved in"?

Slarti, I'm saying that:

The Plame Affair consists of:
(a) Someone (two) senior people in the Bush administration leaking Plame's identity as a covert CIA operative to the media
(b) A concerted attempt by other senior people in the Bush administration to conceal the identity of the leakers.

On September 26, 2003, the CIA requested that the Justice Department investigate the matter. On September 29, 2003, McClellan claimed that the President knew that Karl Rove was not involved, and that anyone who was involved would be fired from the administration. On September 30, 2003, Mr. Bush said " And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

So, as of September 30 2003, if Karl Rove knew who had leaked the information about Valerie Plame, he either didn't tell Bush or Bush didn't mean it when he said he would fire anyone involved.* So, are you saying that in your view, someone who knows who leaked classified information (either because he did it himself or because whoever did it told him) and does not tell either his boss or a DoJ investigation, is still not involved with the leak?

This is, if you missed it, a request for clarification: you seem to be parsing "involved" to mean "actually leaked the information or knew it was to be leaked before hand". Whereas I would say that involved includes all those who certainly knew about the leak at the time the DoJ investigation began, and knew who was responsible, but decided to obstruct the investigation rather than come forward.

[Jon H]

Slarti writes: " It does, however, apply to the first person who was authorized to know who blabbed to someone who was not authorized to know."

Slarti, you're being obtuse. I don't know if it's on purpose, or if you've had your head up the fijords too long and need a long vacation.

Read Fitzgerald's statement. Given how much time you spend yapping out the case, I'd think you'd perform that minor degree of due dilligence so that the rest of us didn't have to waste our own time explaining and re-explaining and re-explaining.

The point is, an iron-clad grip on classified information is not necessarily healthy for a democracy. Some leaks are, while technically illegal, arguably good for the nation even though they may be embarrassing to the politicians in charge.

It would not be good for our democracy if the government could hide malfeasance by classifying it, and could punish anyone who tried to notify the public.

Do you really believe it would be good to have that kind of system?

A balance is required. And like it or not, the prosecutor has some discretion in the matter of whether to prosecute, even if the technical violation of the law is pretty clear.

[Slartibartfast]

Slarti, you're being obtuse.

Over what, exactly? Is this some kind of substitute for your point?

Read Fitzgerald's statement.

I have, Jon. I have no idea what part of his statement you think gives you some sort of boost, though.

The point is, an iron-clad grip on classified information is...[

Jon, even if some of that might contain a smidgen of truth, none of it is at all relevant to the Plame case.

[Slartibartfast]

So, as of September 30 2003, if Karl Rove knew who had leaked the information about Valerie Plame, he either didn't tell Bush or Bush didn't mean it when he said he would fire anyone involved.

If he knew. Are you saying that this is a given? Please bear with me, I'm slow and prone to some sort of unspecified obtuseness, evidently. I am, however, truly trying to understand what you're talking about.

[LizardBreath]

Paragraph 21 of the indictment, under the assumption that 'official A' is Rove, strongly supports the proposition that Rove leaked to Novak, doesn't it?

[Gary Farber]

"There is generally one dummy in the crowd that doesn't know what IOIYAR and such means."

Usually several. When I'm one, as I was in this case, I put the offending word or acronym into the Google toolbar, and voila.

HTH.

[Jesurgislac]

If he knew. Are you saying that this is a given?

I'm saying that Karl Rove has been identified by several sources as Official A (which I kind of assumed you were aware of). Assuming that all three sources aren't lying/mistaken, then Karl Rove discussed the leak of Valerie Plame's identity to Robert Novak with Libby on 10th July.

I suppose you could argue (and perhaps you are) that Libby might not have been Novak's source, or that Rove might not have been Novak's other source, or that Rove and Libby merely discussed the leak to Novak and wondered (but decided they'd rather not know) who it could possibly have been who leaked that information. And then, not having the faintest idea who leaked that information, decided (independently) to lie about that discussion to the DoJ investigation, just in case whoever it was leaked the information needed protecting.

It still sounds like "involvement" to me. Perhaps not to you.

[Gary Farber]

"It would not be good for our democracy if the government could hide malfeasance by classifying it, and could punish anyone who tried to notify the public."

It isn't good, but it's the way it is. Ask Samuel Loring Morrison.

The government famously over-classifies like mad, of course, and mostly out of reflex, but oft-times to avoid embarrassment.

[Anarch]

Before this thread goes too much further, can I suggest an openish thread wherein we discuss what standards of proof we're operating under in various contexts? I have a feeling that an irritatingly large number of recent "debates" are no more than miscommunications and oblique requests for the distinctions between "proof", "evidence", and so forth, and it might be more productive to just hash that out in a single place while leaving other threads for (hopefully) more substantive issues.

[Slartibartfast]

LizardBreath:

Paragraph 21 of the indictment, under the assumption that 'official A' is Rove, strongly supports the proposition that Rove leaked to Novak, doesn't it?

Well, I think Gary Farber has posted in this (or another, similar) thread that Official A was thought to be the governor of Illinois. Given, though, that we don't KNOW who "Official A" is, I'm thinking this doesn't climb to the level of surety Jesurgislac is conveying. So it's got to be something else. And yes, three nameless people who have suddenly decided to leak in what's been up until now a remarkably watertight investigation, that's something.

Jesurgislac:

It still sounds like "involvement" to me.

Perhaps I see a great deal more daylight between "sounds like" and "is known to be" than you do. Even if Rove is Official A, there's still a bit more in the way of evidence required to suggest that he's the leaker. As for what Rove has told Bush, it's possible that Rove has told Bush the same story he's told the grand jury, and that Bush believes him. That doesn't mean that Rove isn't a liar, or that Bush isn't gullible, or a liar, or both. Just that these things have, as far as I've seen, not yet been shown to be so. In this particular case, just to head off the inevitable.

Anarch:
Fair enough, but I'm not debating this. I'm asking Jesurgislac how she believes she knows something, and I think she's answered. It'd make for an interesting meta-discussion, though, given that Jesurgislac and I have been practically braining each other over similar (but opposite) applications of standard of proof. If I were truly vindictive, I'd be asking Jesurgislac for transcripts of recorded conversations showing Rove to be the leaker, or even A leaker. But that is not my way.

[liberal japonicus]

Well, I think Gary Farber has posted in this (or another, similar) thread that Official A was thought to be the governor of Illinois.
That was here, but I thought it was not a reference to who the actual Official A was, but to the fact that Fitzgerald used the same placeholder when he went after Gov. Ryan, which eventually went through 66 indictments.

Or is this some wry humor that I'm missing?

[Slartibartfast]

No, it's probably more like me not paying all that much attention to what the Google results actually say.

[Jesurgislac]

Slarti: That doesn't mean that Rove isn't a liar, or that Bush isn't gullible, or a liar, or both. Just that these things have, as far as I've seen, not yet been shown to be so.

Actually, it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Rove is a liar: you may be right that it has not been shown to the standards of a court of law that he was lying in this instance.

Likewise, it has been shown to any reasonable standard that Bush is either a liar or so gullible he couldn't find his ass with both hands: but it has not been shown in this particular instance whether Bush is lying or is gullible.

Anarch: Before this thread goes too much further, can I suggest an openish thread wherein we discuss what standards of proof we're operating under in various contexts?

Standard of proof required to terminate an employee's employment. Which in this instance ranges from "Anyone involved" (if we take McClellan's word for it, and which certainly includes Rove) to "Whoever actually leaked Plame's name to the media" / "Whoever actually committed a crime" from Bush direct (which may or may not include Rove).

I'm not sure why Slarti still thinks that Rove isn't involved, or why he still thinks that "involved" means "leaked Plame's identity", when I think I've said three times now that "involved" includes those involved in the cover-up...

[Slartibartfast]

Actually, it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that Rove is a liar: you may be right that it has not been shown to the standards of a court of law that he was lying in this instance.

beyond a reasonable doubt and to the standards of a court of law are different, somehow?

I'm not sure why Slarti still thinks that Rove isn't involved

On the other hand, thinks Rove isn't involved is quite different from isn't convinced Rove is involved. So maybe we need that Anarch thread after all.

[Jesurgislac]

Slarti: are different, somehow?

Sure. In a court of law, Rove is entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and his defense lawyer is entitled to bring up anything that could save him. And it's well known that the Bush administration have serious respect for and committment to the justice system that entitles Rove not to be taken directly to a gulag and locked up there indefinitely without right of appeal.

The difference is, as I think I have now said four times (do I need to explain it differently, somehow?) between the standards of evidence needed to prove someone guilty of a crime... and the standard of evidence needed for your employer to tell you that you're sacked.

Again, I'm asking for clarification (which you still haven't provided):

I asked why Rove hasn't been sacked.

You said, because he hasn't been indicted, let alone convicted, of a crime.

Then you claimed that you didn't mean that Bush shouldn't sack Rove unless he was convicted.

So, what do you mean, when you keep responding to my pointing out that Rove is definitely sufficiently involved with the Plame Affair to lose his job, by asking what evidence is there to find him guilty of a crime?

Clarification would be appreciated.

[Gary Farber]

"Given, though, that we don't KNOW who 'Official A' is, I'm thinking this doesn't climb to the level of surety Jesurgislac is conveying."

Well, yeah, we pretty well do, though we don't to the point of being able to swear we know in court. But in terms of what's in the public record, and commonly discussed in the press and by all concerned, of course we do (maybe you've not been following much coverage of the case?; which I kinda suspect is true, given your general habits, and the fact that you were unaware of Libby having been booked, which was on the front page of every news publication in the country, the lead story on tv and radio news for a day, etc.?).

"Official A" is either Rove, or everyone reporting on the story for weeks is wrong.

[Slartibartfast]

You said, because he hasn't been indicted, let alone convicted, of a crime.

I most certainly did not say anything of the sort, Jesurgislac. I did point to the fact that he hasn't been indicted as something curious given the degree to which you seemed to think the case against him was conclusive, and asked you what you thought about that; the rest you simply made up.

Then you claimed that you didn't mean that Bush shouldn't sack Rove unless he was convicted.

Oops, again. Show me where I did that.

Clarification would be appreciated.

I'd be happy to further clarify, after you point out where I've said anything even close to what you claim I've said. And go easy on the embroidery.