97silverlsc
Dedicated LVC Member
De-Spinning the Save-Rove Spin
I'm getting tired of de-spinning the Rove scandal. And I'm starting to think I prefer the silence-is-golden strategy of the White House to the lie-and-mislead approach of the Rove-backers who take to the airwaves and spout disinformation. At least, we don't have to factcheck Scott McClellan's remarks this week on the Rove matter.
I do wish I could keep track of all the bad info being peddled by Karl's Keystone Kops. But then I'd probably end up needing a nice room in a sanitarium. Here's a very unscientific sampling of what I've come across. (I've already debunked the top-priority spin of GOPers who insist that Rove did not leak classified information and that he is in no legal jeopardy because he did not actually ID Valerie Wilson by name to Matt Cooper. See two items below.)
* Yesterday, I was on a Colorado radio show with Tucker Eskew, a former Bush White House official. Eskew kept saying the Rove affair was a summer sideshow orchestrated by Democrats. Funny, I thought it was a criminal investigation being mounted by a special prosecutor--Patrick Fitzgerald--who was suggested for his job as US attorney in Illinois by then Senator Peter Fitzgerald, a Republican (no relation). Patrick Fitzgerald has targeted both Ds and Rs in the Land of Lincoln. Yet Eskew kept saying this was a trivial matter only being kept alive by partisan Democrats. Tell that to Fitzgerald. And, hey, doesn't the White House say no one should "prejudge the investigation." It's a clash of talking points! Shouldn't Bush, the titular head of the GOP, tell all those Republican mouthpieces to stop all the prejudging?
* On NPR's Diane Rehm Show this morning, David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union, said that Rove could not be prosecuted under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act because it's only a crime if a government official discloses the name of a covert agent "with the intent to impair national security." Wrong. There is no intent provision of that kind as the law applies to government officials like Karl Rove. To violate the law, one must intentionally reveal information that identifies an undercover intelligence officer and one must be aware that the officer is working under cover. But the motive is not relevant. Keene was not telling the truth. He also said, "It's clear from the documents that no law was violated." Then seconds later, he said, "We don't know all the facts." Moments after that, he asserted, "I don't think there's a legal pardon here." Well, which is it? If we don't know all the facts, how can we say no law was violated? It's amazing that when a veteran spinner like Keene spins, his head doesn't explode into very tiny pieces.
* Last night, I was on an NPR show with Representative Jack Kingston, a Republican. He claimed that no crime was committed in the Plame/CIA leak matter unless the leaker disclosed her identity "maliciously." I hope this guy is no lawyer. The law says nothing about malicious intent. He also noted that Joseph Wilson had donated money to the John Kerry campaign. I was confused by this. Does that mean it was okay to disclose the CIA identity of his wife? Kingston forgot to mention that Wilson also gave money to George W. Bush during the GOP presidential primary campaign in 2000. Wilson has repeatedly said he regrets doing so.
* Conservative columnist Byron York was also on that NPR show. He's one of the more reasonable rightwing reporters I know. But he, too, parroted the pro-Rove spin, saying, in his mild manner, that it was unclear to him whether Valerie Wilson was undercover in any significant way. From the start of this controversy, conservatives have been insinuating that Valerie Wilson was not under serious cover. their point: this leak was no biggie. In the early days of the controversy, Clifford May, a former New York Times reporter who went on to become a GOP spokesperson, maintained that it was widely known throughout Washington that Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA. Since then, there's been absolutely no evidence to support May's claim. But back to York's observation. Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA under what's called "nonofficial cover." She was a NOC. This means that when she worked overseas she did not have a diplomatic passport and did not pass herself off as an embassy official. If anything happened to her, she'd be in mucho trouble. And she worked with a front group that was set up to give her--and maybe other CIA officials working in the field of WMDs--cover as energy analysts. When the leak occurred, she was indeed at a desk job at the CIA. But NOCs can come and go from CIA headquarters. They maintain their cover so they can return to the field if necessary and to protect the operations they previously worked on and the people (sources, agents, fellow officers) they previously worked with. Outing a NOC can endanger more than the particular person.
Moreover, the CIA thought the leak justified an investigation. It requested that the Justice Department pursue the matter. The Justice Department eventually handed the case to Fitzgerald, and he has seen reason to mount a fierce inquiry. And several federal judges who have reviewed his court filings--in the cases involving Matt Cooper and Judith Miller--all supported Fitzgerald's claim that the leak amounted to a serious breach. True, we still don't know exactly what Valerie Wilson did as a NOC. But York's gentle suggestion that her CIA identity was a minor and not-all-that-important secret is contradicted by the public record.
* Today's Washington Post reported this: "Victoria Toensing, who helped write the [Intelligence Identities Protection Act], has said that there is likely no such evidence [that could convict the leaker] in this case, because the statute was designed to have a high standard and requires proof of intent to harm national security." Well, I would respectfully suggest that Toensing--a good Republican lawyer and commentator, which is not how she is identified in the Post, who is always willing to talk to me--should go back and review the law she helped write. It reads:
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Where's the part that says the leaker has to leak purposefully to harm national security? There is no such standard. Perhaps the Post reporters should also read the law.
I'm getting tired of de-spinning the Rove scandal. And I'm starting to think I prefer the silence-is-golden strategy of the White House to the lie-and-mislead approach of the Rove-backers who take to the airwaves and spout disinformation. At least, we don't have to factcheck Scott McClellan's remarks this week on the Rove matter.
I do wish I could keep track of all the bad info being peddled by Karl's Keystone Kops. But then I'd probably end up needing a nice room in a sanitarium. Here's a very unscientific sampling of what I've come across. (I've already debunked the top-priority spin of GOPers who insist that Rove did not leak classified information and that he is in no legal jeopardy because he did not actually ID Valerie Wilson by name to Matt Cooper. See two items below.)
* Yesterday, I was on a Colorado radio show with Tucker Eskew, a former Bush White House official. Eskew kept saying the Rove affair was a summer sideshow orchestrated by Democrats. Funny, I thought it was a criminal investigation being mounted by a special prosecutor--Patrick Fitzgerald--who was suggested for his job as US attorney in Illinois by then Senator Peter Fitzgerald, a Republican (no relation). Patrick Fitzgerald has targeted both Ds and Rs in the Land of Lincoln. Yet Eskew kept saying this was a trivial matter only being kept alive by partisan Democrats. Tell that to Fitzgerald. And, hey, doesn't the White House say no one should "prejudge the investigation." It's a clash of talking points! Shouldn't Bush, the titular head of the GOP, tell all those Republican mouthpieces to stop all the prejudging?
* On NPR's Diane Rehm Show this morning, David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union, said that Rove could not be prosecuted under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act because it's only a crime if a government official discloses the name of a covert agent "with the intent to impair national security." Wrong. There is no intent provision of that kind as the law applies to government officials like Karl Rove. To violate the law, one must intentionally reveal information that identifies an undercover intelligence officer and one must be aware that the officer is working under cover. But the motive is not relevant. Keene was not telling the truth. He also said, "It's clear from the documents that no law was violated." Then seconds later, he said, "We don't know all the facts." Moments after that, he asserted, "I don't think there's a legal pardon here." Well, which is it? If we don't know all the facts, how can we say no law was violated? It's amazing that when a veteran spinner like Keene spins, his head doesn't explode into very tiny pieces.
* Last night, I was on an NPR show with Representative Jack Kingston, a Republican. He claimed that no crime was committed in the Plame/CIA leak matter unless the leaker disclosed her identity "maliciously." I hope this guy is no lawyer. The law says nothing about malicious intent. He also noted that Joseph Wilson had donated money to the John Kerry campaign. I was confused by this. Does that mean it was okay to disclose the CIA identity of his wife? Kingston forgot to mention that Wilson also gave money to George W. Bush during the GOP presidential primary campaign in 2000. Wilson has repeatedly said he regrets doing so.
* Conservative columnist Byron York was also on that NPR show. He's one of the more reasonable rightwing reporters I know. But he, too, parroted the pro-Rove spin, saying, in his mild manner, that it was unclear to him whether Valerie Wilson was undercover in any significant way. From the start of this controversy, conservatives have been insinuating that Valerie Wilson was not under serious cover. their point: this leak was no biggie. In the early days of the controversy, Clifford May, a former New York Times reporter who went on to become a GOP spokesperson, maintained that it was widely known throughout Washington that Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA. Since then, there's been absolutely no evidence to support May's claim. But back to York's observation. Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA under what's called "nonofficial cover." She was a NOC. This means that when she worked overseas she did not have a diplomatic passport and did not pass herself off as an embassy official. If anything happened to her, she'd be in mucho trouble. And she worked with a front group that was set up to give her--and maybe other CIA officials working in the field of WMDs--cover as energy analysts. When the leak occurred, she was indeed at a desk job at the CIA. But NOCs can come and go from CIA headquarters. They maintain their cover so they can return to the field if necessary and to protect the operations they previously worked on and the people (sources, agents, fellow officers) they previously worked with. Outing a NOC can endanger more than the particular person.
Moreover, the CIA thought the leak justified an investigation. It requested that the Justice Department pursue the matter. The Justice Department eventually handed the case to Fitzgerald, and he has seen reason to mount a fierce inquiry. And several federal judges who have reviewed his court filings--in the cases involving Matt Cooper and Judith Miller--all supported Fitzgerald's claim that the leak amounted to a serious breach. True, we still don't know exactly what Valerie Wilson did as a NOC. But York's gentle suggestion that her CIA identity was a minor and not-all-that-important secret is contradicted by the public record.
* Today's Washington Post reported this: "Victoria Toensing, who helped write the [Intelligence Identities Protection Act], has said that there is likely no such evidence [that could convict the leaker] in this case, because the statute was designed to have a high standard and requires proof of intent to harm national security." Well, I would respectfully suggest that Toensing--a good Republican lawyer and commentator, which is not how she is identified in the Post, who is always willing to talk to me--should go back and review the law she helped write. It reads:
Whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, intentionally discloses any information identifying such covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Where's the part that says the leaker has to leak purposefully to harm national security? There is no such standard. Perhaps the Post reporters should also read the law.
