"Rove deliberately omitted key information about conversations with
reporters that he could not possibly have forgotten; he claimed to
have heard classified government information only from a reporter --
despite the fact that he himself was one of the highest government
officials in the nation; and then he admitted that he had no qualms
about enlisting surrogates to betray government employees in order to
achieve political gain.
Rove's statement raised more questions than answers. It also opened a
window into the world of a President's key adviser who never left
campaign mode and who had never before been tripped up, no matter what
he did. Such a man would be quite unprepared for an investigator like
Fitzgerald who operates under a very different timetable and in a
world ordered by radically different rules.
Now that Rove's statement has been shown to be so obviously false, it
would be most surprising if when his world and Fitzgerald's collide,
the result isn't a political earthquake."

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=55695

Tomgram: De la Vega on Why Rove Will Fall

The President passed through his State of the Union address 
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060131-10.html)
-- ill-digested chunks of so many other speeches he's given ("We're
writing a new chapter in the story of self-government -- with women
lining up to vote in Afghanistan, and millions of Iraqis marking their
liberty with purple inkĀ…) -- largely untouched by the media. 
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/02/01/BL2006020101156_pf.html)
is two Supreme Court-changing appointments, Roberts and Alito, were
triumphantly in the front row of the audience. 
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/31/AR2006013101195.html)
undoubtedly, it wasn't a bad way for a besieged President to start
year two of term two. Okay, maybe in distant Baghdad -- "We're on the
offensive in Iraq, with a clear plan for victory" -- things were
actually looking a little peaked and, admittedly, the Bush wave of
freedom in the Middle East had just swept Islamic fundamentalists into
control of the Palestinian Authority, but all in all the President had
reason to feel at least some satisfaction. And yet there lurks a
presidential problem of administration-staggering proportions that few
are even thinking about at the moment.

Quietly, largely below the radar screen, Special Counsel Patrick
Fitzgerald continues to work on the CIA leak case in which the
administration decided to punish ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson for
embarrassing them on Saddam's nonexistent search for yellowcake
uranium by outing his wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA agent. News on the
case has been sparse indeed of late. I. Lewis ("Scooter") Libby,
indicted former chief of staff for Vice President Cheney, crept back
into the papers this week on a fishing expedition for CIA documents;
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/31/AR2006013101464_pf.html)
while a single, shades-of-Watergate sentence in a brief report by
James Gordon Meek in the New York Daily News
(http://www.nydailynews.com/02-01-2006/news/story/387396p-328749c.html)
indicated that "FitzgeraldĀ… said in a letter to Libby's lawyers that
many e-mails from Cheney's office at the time of the Plame leak in
2003 have been deleted contrary to White House policy." (The letter
can be found at the Raw Story website.) Meanwhile, not so long ago in
an investigative report at the Truthout website, 
(http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012306Z.shtml) the fine Internet
reporter Jason Leopold indicated that Fitzgerald "has been questioning
witnesses in the CIA leak case about the origins of the disputed Niger
documents referenced in President Bush's January 2003 State of the
Union address."

Still, the case, having largely disappeared into the media void, has
something of the look of yet another danger dodged by an
administration with at least nine lives. Well, don't let the relative
silence surrounding Fitzgerald fool you. As former federal prosecutor
Elizabeth de la Vega indicates below, the Special Counsel is working
on another time schedule than that of administration officials. So, in
due course, expect fireworks out of his office that will first
illuminate the role of Karl Rove in the case and then may well light
up a far wider stretch of the horizon. Tom

    When Two Worlds Collide
    Rove v. Fitzgerald

    By Elizabeth de la Vega

    For Karl Rove, no news from the Plame case -- Special Counsel
Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury investigation into the outing of
Valerie Plame Wilson's identity as a CIA agent -- is definitely not
good news. Seismic activity is notoriously silent, so we may not be
hearing any rumblings at the moment. But speaking as a former
prosecutor, I believe it highly likely that, just below the surface,
the worlds of Karl Rove and Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald,
shifting like tectonic plates, are about to collide. As was true with
Vice President Cheney's top aide, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, charged with
obstruction of justice and lying to a federal agent as well as to the
grand jury, Rove might not be charged with the leak itself. I am
confident, however, that Rove will not leave this party empty-handed.
He will, at the very least, almost certainly be charged with making
false statements to an FBI agent. Here's why.

    For starters, the evidence that Rove deliberately lied to the FBI
is overwhelming.

    In case anyone's forgotten, on July 14, 2003, eight days after
former Ambassador Joseph Wilson in an op-ed in the New York Times
(http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm)publicly questioned
Bush's claim that Iraq had tried to acquire "yellowcake" uranium in
Africa, columnist Robert Novak wrote that "two senior administration
officials" had told him the trip to Niger, which Wilson referenced in
that piece, had been arranged by his wife Valerie, whom the officials
described as a CIA operative assigned to investigate matters involving
weapons of mass destruction.

    It is now undisputed that Karl Rove spoke with at least two
reporters about Valerie Wilson before Novak's now infamous article
appeared: Novak himself (whom Rove has known for 30 years) and Time
magazine's Matthew Cooper. Some details of the discussion with Cooper
are in dispute, but there's no question that the two men discussed
Valerie Wilson's identity as a CIA agent and the administration's
claim that she had arranged her husband's trip to Niger. After the
conversation, Rove sent an e-mail about it to then Deputy National
Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. Rove's aide Susan Ralston has
reportedly testified that Rove told her not to log in the phone call,
although that was the usual office procedure. On July 17, Cooper wrote
(http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,465270,00.html) an
article in which he described conversations with two government
officials who claimed Wilson's wife was a CIA agent and had arranged
Wilson's trip to Africa. Cooper questioned whether the administration
was declaring war on Wilson.

    Between July 14 and October 8, when Rove was interviewed by the
FBI, the Bush administration held approximately 30 press briefings in
which the leak and/or the Iraq-Niger uranium allegations were
discussed. There were hundreds of news articles and repeated calls for
an investigation by congressmen, columnists, and the CIA.

    By mid-September, Karl Rove was increasingly being named as one of
the "two senior administration officials" who blew Wilson's cover and
Bush's press officer Scott McClellan was facing ever more insistent
questions about Rove's involvement. On September 16, McClellan said
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030916-6.html) that
"it was ridiculous" to suggest Rove was the leaker. On the morning of
September 29, McClellan announced 
(http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_09_28.php) that
"the President knows Rove is not involved." From that date to October
8, when Rove was interviewed, Bush and McClellan were specifically
questioned about Rove's possible role on ten separate occasions. On
October 7, Rove and other White House staffers were required to
provide investigators with all documents relating to any contacts they
had had with reporters about Joseph Wilson, his trip to Niger, or his
wife, Valerie Wilson.

    As has now been widely reported, 
(http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0507/S00227.htm) when Karl Rove
spoke to FBI agents, he specifically told them that he had not spoken
to any reporters about Joseph Wilson's wife before Novak's article
appeared.

    Given the almost seamless press coverage of the leak during the
preceding three months, the time and effort that the White House was
devoting to the issue, as well as the intensifying focus on whether he
himself had leaked the information, it is impossible to believe that,
on October 8, Karl Rove -- known for his brilliance, attention to
detail, and legendary memory -- did not remember those two
conversations with reporters about Valerie Wilson. If Rove told the
FBI agents otherwise, it was surely a deliberate lie.

    According to reports, 
(http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2004/03/waas-m-03-08.html) Rove
then added that he had first heard about Valerie Wilson from a
reporter, though he did not remember which reporter or when he heard
it. He also said that he had enlisted the aid of the Republican
National Committee and conservative news agencies among other groups
to spread disparaging information about Joseph Wilson and his wife,
but only after Novak's article appeared.

    Rove's elaboration not only compounded his initial lie but also
illuminated the world of politics that he has been incapable of
leaving behind -- a world that collides head-on with the one Patrick
Fitzgerald inhabits, where politics have no place and where laws, and
the highest standards of public service, prevail.

    Despite his measured words, Fitzgerald revealed much about his
worldview in the press conference
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/28/AR2005102801340.html)
in which he announced Libby's indictment. He said that the
investigation was serious because the disclosure of classified
information about a CIA officer could jeopardize national security.
But equally serious -- and he repeated this more than once -- was the
betrayal of government employees by their own officials. Anyone who
has worked as a federal prosecutor for two decades, as has Fitzgerald,
has also worked closely, often late and long hours, with law
enforcement agents, so it is not surprising perhaps that when asked
about the damage caused by the leak, Fitzgerald offered the following:

        "I can say that for the people who work at the CIA and work at
other places, they have to expect that when they do their jobs that
classified information will be protected. And they have to expect that
when they do their job, that information about whether or not they are
affiliated with the CIA will be protected. And they run a risk when
they work for the CIA that something bad could happen to them, but
they have to make sure that they don't run the risk that something bad
is going to happen to them from something done by their own fellow
employees."

    Over and over again, in that same press conference, Fitzgerald
demonstrated his belief that if you sign onto a system that has
certain rules, you have to follow those rules even if it might be
personally advantageous to break them. Those who tuned in saw
reporters repeatedly ask him about information he could not reveal
without violating the rules of grand jury secrecy or prosecutorial
ethics. He was asked, for example, whether other people might be
charged. He declined to answer. He was asked to evaluate the strength
of the case. He declined to answer. He acknowledged how frustrating
his inability to answer undoubtedly was to the assembled media, but
explained that he couldn't gather information according to the rules
of grand jury secrecy -- which prohibit talking about people who were
investigated but not charged with a crime -- and then afterwards
reveal the information anyway because it was too "inconvenient" not to
answer reporters' questions.

    Later in the press conference, he said simply, "All I can do is
make sure that myself and our team follow the rules."

    Fitzgerald's world is far removed from the world of expediency and
personal advantage in which Karl Rove operates. In his carefully
crafted statements during the FBI interview on October 8, Rove
indicated an obvious belief that he could get away with spreading
information about government employees for political purposes as long
as someone else had revealed that information first, regardless of
whether or not the information was disparaging or classified. He did
not appear to be concerned with where the information came from, or
even whether it was true.

    Although it is astounding that Rove would blatantly describe such
a despicable ethos (if you can call it that), it should not have been
unexpected. In the world of campaign politics that Rove has so long
inhabited, smears and personal attacks are designed to seem as if they
were spontaneously generated. They can then wander around, undirected,
until they finally curl up in America's living rooms like so many
mysterious, uninvited guests. These intruders may be rude and
destructive, but no one is supposed to be able to get rid of them, in
part because no one is supposed to be able to sort out or pinpoint how
they got there in the first place. Thus, although Karl Rove has lurked
in the background of an unprecedented number of whisper and smear
campaigns -- that, for instance, John McCain had an illegitimate child
(a rumor spread during the Republican primaries that preceded the 2000
election), or that former Texas Governor Ann Richards was a lesbian (a
persistent rumor that was spread during Bush's Texas gubernatorial
campaign) -- he has never been held accountable. And that is a state
of affairs to which Rove became accustomed.

    Rove has escaped responsibility for his sneaky campaign tricks
because the candidates for whom he has worked -- most prominently,
George Bush -- have had a stunning ability to accept, unquestioningly,
the miraculous appearance of information that takes down their
opponents. They had no problem about endorsing brazen dishonesty or
the least interest in ferreting out bad actors in their camps. At the
same time, opposing candidates have had neither the resources, nor the
time to fully investigate the attacks before plummeting in the polls.
Afterwards, of course, it was already far too late.

    Unlike Rove's former adversaries in the political world, however,
Fitzgerald has both the time and investigative resources. When
Fitzgerald was appointed special prosecutor, all the known facts on
the outing of Valerie Wilson indicated that government officials had
broken the rules, if not the law. It's no surprise then that
Fitzgerald has pursued the matter vigorously; nor should it be a
surprise that Rove's statement to the FBI on October 8 would have
raised some obvious red flags and caused Fitzgerald to become
skeptical. Rove deliberately omitted key information about
conversations with reporters that he could not possibly have
forgotten; he claimed to have heard classified government information
only from a reporter -- despite the fact that he himself was one of
the highest government officials in the nation; and then he admitted
that he had no qualms about enlisting surrogates to betray government
employees in order to achieve political gain.

    Rove's statement raised more questions than answers. It also
opened a window into the world of a President's key adviser who never
left campaign mode and who had never before been tripped up, no matter
what he did. Such a man would be quite unprepared for an investigator
like Fitzgerald who operates under a very different timetable and in a
world ordered by radically different rules.

    Now that Rove's statement has been shown to be so obviously false,
it would be most surprising if when his world and Fitzgerald's
collide, the result isn't a political earthquake. The moment an
earthquake arrives remains impossible to predict, but it would be
surprising if, in the CIA leak case, the impact of a Rove indictment
did not cause massive aftershocks.

    Elizabeth de la Vega is a former federal prosecutor with more than
20 years of experience. During her tenure, she was a member of the
Organized Crime Strike Force and Chief of the San Jose Branch of the
U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California. Her
pieces have appeared in the Nation Magazine, the Los Angeles Times,
and Salon. She writes regularly for Tomdispatch. She may be contacted
at [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Current Plame Case Links:

Iraq, Niger, And The CIA
http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0203nj3.htm

Did Bush Receive a PDB regarding Joe Wilson?
http://whateveralready.blogspot.com/2006/02/special-prosecutor-in-cia-leak-case.html

Media largely ignored Fitzgerald revelation that White House may have
destroyed emails
http://mediamatters.org/items/200602020012

The Plame Case, Missing Email, and the President's Daily Brief
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/02/the_plame_case_missing_email_a.html





--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: [email protected]
  Subscribe:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> 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/
 


Reply via email to