Coincidently, here are two points in a news report today germaine to the following discussion. Per Rove, his information about Plame came from two reporters, not the president or anyone in the WH -- making the "sigh, the Pres can clear whomever he wants to know whatever he wants them to know" argument particularly irrelevant.
The second point is that Wilson acknowledges his wife was not in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. Thus it would appear the statue does not apply and Rove, for this and other reasons, cannot be prosecuted under the statute. ****************** 1) Rove told the grand jury that by the time Novak had called him, he believes he had similar information about Wilson's wife from another member of the news media but he could not recall which reporter had told him about it first, the person said. snip 2) But at the same time, Wilson acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job at the time Novak's column first identified her. "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," he said. Federal law prohibits government officials from divulging the identity of an undercover intelligence officer. But in order to bring charges, prosecutors must prove the official knew the officer was covert and nonetheless knowingly outed his or her identity. http://www.nynewsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/sns-ap-cia-leak-rove,0,4798469,print.story?coll=nyc-nationhome-headlines ********************** --- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Again, if you can state with authority and provide evidence that the > > > CIA formally cleared Rove to have access to information of the IDs > > of > > > covert CIA opperative, then Rove meets one criteria for prosecution. > > > Another would be that Plame was actually a covert op, that per > > > authors of the statute say she was not. Several other reqs apply, > > but > > > lets deal with these first. > > > > Sigh, the Pres can clear whomever he wants to know whatever he wants > > them to know. > > > And the sky is blue. Now, let both of us get back to relevant points. > > Rove could have found out about Plame by overhearing a bathroom > discussion. Scooter Libby could have told him on the "hush hush". Rove > might have accidently seen a memo referencing this. If Rove found out > in these ways, he cannot be prosecutted. > > If Chenny told him (having clearnace) and Rove did not have it, Cheny > can be prosecutted but not Rove. There are lots of possibilities here. > > Bush may have told him, and then told Tennnat to give Rove clearnace > for such info. In this case, Rove could be prosecutted. > > Lots of possibilities here. One piece of the puzzle is did Rove in > fact have formal clearance. It does not "solve" the case, but is an > important piece of the puzzle. So, again, if you can state with > authority and provide evidence that the CIA formally cleared Rove to > have access to information of the IDs of covert CIA opperative, then > Rove meets at least one criteria for prosecution. > > > > > Another would be that Plame was actually a covert op, that per > > > authors of the statute say she was not. Several other reqs apply, > > but lets deal with these first. > > > > And the CIA would know betterthan the drafters of a regulation > > whether or not a specific person was "undercover" according to THEIR > > definitions. > > It may be a fantasy of yours that the CIA passes legislation, but it > is not yet the case. The statue, as I understand listening to Sanford > yesterday -- one of the drafters, is that the statute defined "covert > agent" in a limited, tight and precise way. And Plame does not fit > that definition. If the statute does not cover Plame, then "outing" > Plame does not violate the statute. > > Unless the bill defines "undercover" in an unusual way, > > the agency would be the one to consult on that matter, not the > > lawmakers. > > No, if there is a dispute, it is handled by the judiciary, not the > CIA. At least not yet. > > IMO Rove acted in a sleazy scuzzball way by messing with classified > information and leaking it to reporters. I think he may, well > deservedly be, in deep political shit, depending on how the case > unfolds. It just seems that according the the quite focussed and > limited statute, per the available facts to date, Rove has a limited > vulnerability to prosecution. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
