Rove and at least 1 other will be indicted in Plame case, maybe 3-4 others

[skip fox]

Easy to figure out . . .

How many calls/sources/conspirators?

There were at least 6 initial calls and 2 different callers, which means Rove likely coordinated it by conspiring with others to make the calls as primary sources and confirm the information as secondary sources, and was perhaps a primary source himself. It also means there will be more than one indictment of the administration's top officials. Read on.


Rational for above numbers:

The situation strongly implies that there were at least 2 different primary sources (since Matt Cooper's specifically released him, but Judith Miller's apparently did not do the same for her) and reason maintains there were at least 6 initial calls (the 6 reporters contacted: Robert Novak, Cooper, Miller, and 3 others), and 3 follow-up calls (Novak, Miller, Cooper). This is the minimum.


Scenario:

In order to make sure the story leaked properly, discrediting Wilson's yellow-cake findings (concerning Iraq's supposed activity to acquire materials for nuclear bombs) by implying he and his wife, Valerie Plame, had an agenda against the current administration since before the Iraq War, a single person talented in this realm would be very likely have to coordinate the calling. (Of course he could have made calls as well.) He would insure, for instance, that neither of the 2 or more primary sources should call the other's initial contact(s) (that would seem too eager, perhaps a dirty trick). In addition, 4-5 others would have to know the story was true in order to confirm it, and they had to be encouraged to do so.

Who better to coordinate and a historic master of the odious activity of defaming an opponent, Karl Rove? Perhaps Cheney (who would have felt responsibility in such a matter since it was the behest of his office that the CIA sent Wilson to Niger) used his clearance to discover this information and brought it to Rove at a meeting of the White House Iraq Group (see snippy's beautiful post in DU, link at bottom of this post). Then Rove would go into high gear, doing what he does best (worst). He coordinated the callings, made sure there were the requisite secondary sources ready and willing to confirm (perhaps each having different details or a different slant to make it sound realistic and not a set-up).

Therefore, Rove may well be both a conspirator (a little RICO, anybody?), and the leaker of illegal information, AND we may have at least one other indictment handed down. Think of the possibilities! Rice, Cheney, Libby, Hughes (why the hell did she retire before?), Matalin, etc. Maybe even W. (But the more I think about it, I wonder how many real reporters wouldn't be suspicious of a call from Rove? He might be the primary source for the likes of Novak, but few others.)

How's that for "knowingly"??? He will have no way to plead innocent to having "knowlingly" revealed the name of a CIA undercover agent since he coordinated several in that very activity (i.e., it wasn't a slip of the tongue or inadvertant blunder).

But think about the above and then read snippy's lovely item backed up by a Washington Post article:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=142863&mesg_id=142952

[Pallas180]

1. Remember, after the thing broke, two years ago, lots of WH people left -

interesting. You have to wonder if they left because they knew there was going to be trouble, or because they themselves were involved, or because they just couldn't stomach anymore?

[liberalnurse]

2. I remember that very clearly.

The media played it as a "traditional exodus" seen with all administrations.


It didn't feel like that to me.

[XemaSab]

4. Looked to me like the

"traditional exodus" of rats deserting a sinking ship.

*Visualize an independant counsel*

[Pallas180]

17. I had the same thought - rats leaving the ship - especially

Hughes ---

[skip fox]

3. When did Hughs leave? When was Rove's job changed to D. Chief of Staff?

all great questions, like those above by Pallas180

Do we have answers for these???

[la la]

9. Mary Matalin left then?

I've always felt that she had something to do with it.

:argh:

[Pallas180]

18. She and Hughes left at the same time - I felt Carville insisted

she get out....it was very suspicious....

didn;t Blum the speech writer leave then too?

[u2spirit]

8. Bad strategy

If any of these people who left the admin were involved, that was a bad strategy for them. Rove had the right idea by insulating himself by becoming associate cheif of staff or whatever he calls himself. Executive privelege is an effective stonewall. Not a permanent one, but an extra buffer. Tell me if I'm wrong on this.

[skip fox]

11. Good idea.

:toast:

[skip fox]

5. If the above is true, a leader of a conspiracy can't work "unknowingly."

How do you direct an operation of the order without knowingly revealing the name of a CIA covert operative? You have to know it. You might not know it was against the law (or your passion for discrediting Wilson blinded you the the possibility of illegal activity), but a law is a law whether you know it or not.

[baby_bear]

6. Response to skip fox

Hi,
I just responded to something you wrote in response to me on another thread (same subject) yesterday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=137493&mesg_id=138083

And I just ran across this, which makes a good point:

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_19114.shtml

"Freedom" of the American Press, Judith Miller in "The Times of our Lives"
By Dr. Gerry Lower, Eugene, Oregon
Jul 9, 2005, 08:52
</snip>

"Freedom of the press" and the right of journalists to not divulge the identity of their sources is critical to maintaining even a semblance of democracy. It is right of the New York Times to support this right. It is wrong of the New York Times to be "proud" of Judith Miller for invoking this right in her current state of contempt.

Invoking this right in order to protect honest journalists and honest informants is meritorious, simply because "no government ought be without censors" (Jefferson, 1792). Certainly there is no need in a democracy to have honest people beheaded for being honest. But, if one invokes this right in order to protect dishonest journalists and dishonest informants, then that very same right becomes criminal in its application, to the extent that it makes invoking this right into a means of hiding both the truth and the names of criminals from the people.

In other words, because a right has been granted does not mean that the right must be uniformly applied in all cases. Invoking this right is properly left to the discretion of the individual journalist. If one is hoping to protect innocent people, the right must be invoked. If one is hoping to protect criminals, then the entire purpose of the right has been lost and the freedom it guarantees has become nothing more than license.

In the case of Judith Miller, available evidence would suggest that neither Miller or her informants were honest.

</snip>

As a proponent of government whistleblowers, I fear that the Miller case will set us back irrevocably.

b_b

[skip fox]

7. Yes, I just saw your other post and replied to the effect that

Rove's lawyer's statements have given me pause as well, but that they (Rove and lawyer) are probably bluffing/bargaining. Taking a hard stance, hoping for a break and extending his duty in the WH.

Another good post above.

[baby_bear]

10. Another interesting tidbit

http://www.suntimes.com/output/marin/cst-edt-carol081.html

BY CAROL MARIN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

I don't agree with the overall thesis of Marin's column, but this I had not read previously:

<snip>
Anybody who thinks they want to be a reporter should be required to read every single word of the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia No. 04-3138. That's the one that ordered Miller and Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper to reveal their confidential sources to a federal grand jury.

Pay particular attention to pages 72 through 78. Why? Because they're blank, that's why. Even experienced constitutional lawyers are flabbergasted by this. But at the request of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor assigned to this inquiry, his most powerful arguments for why Miller and Cooper should break their promises to sources are too sensitive for any of us to see.

</snip>

On edit, here's what follows the blank pages:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200502/04-3138a.pdf

<snip>

In sum, based on an exhaustive investigation, the special
counsel has established the need for Miller’s and Cooper’s
testimony. Thus, considering the gravity of the suspected crime
and the low value of the leaked information, no privilege bars
the subpoenas.

One last point. In concluding that no privilege applies in
this case, I have assigned no importance to the fact that neither
Cooper nor Miller, perhaps recognizing the irresponsible (and
quite possibly illegal) nature of the leaks at issue, revealed
Plame’s employment, though Cooper wrote about it after
Novak’s column appeared. Contrary to the reporters’ view, this
apparent self-restraint spares Miller and Cooper no obligation to
testify. Narrowly drawn limitations on the public’s right to
evidence, testimonial privileges apply “only where necessary to
achieve purpose,” Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391,
403 (1976), and in this case the privilege’s purpose is to promote
dissemination of useful information. It thus makes no difference
how these reporters responded to the information they received,
any more than it matters whether an attorney drops a client who
seeks criminal advice (communication subject to the crime-fraud
exception) or a psychotherapist seeks to dissuade homicidal
plans revealed during counseling (information Jaffee suggested
would not be privileged, see 518 U.S. at 18 n.19). In all such
cases, because the communication is unworthy of protection,
recipients’ reactions are irrelevant to whether their testimony
may be compelled in an investigation of the source.
Indeed, Cooper’s own Time.com article illustrates this
point. True, his story revealed a suspicious confluence of leaks,
contributing to the outcry that led to this investigation. Yet the
article had that effect precisely because the leaked
information—Plame’s covert status—lacked significant news
value. In essence, seeking protection for sources whose
nefariousness he himself exposed, Cooper asks us to protect
criminal leaks so that he can write about the crime. The greater
public interest lies in preventing the leak to begin with. Had
Cooper based his report on leaks about the leaks—say, from a
whistleblower who revealed the plot against Wilson—the
situation would be different. Because in that case the source
would not have revealed the name of a covert agent, but instead
revealed the fact that others had done so, the balance of news
value and harm would shift in favor of protecting the
whistleblower. Yet it appears Cooper relied on the Plame leaks
themselves, drawing the inference of sinister motive on his own.
Accordingly, his story itself makes the case for punishing the
leakers. While requiring Cooper to testify may discourage
future leaks, discouraging leaks of this kind is precisely what the
public interest requires.
IV.
I conclude, as I began, with the tensions at work in this
case. Here, two reporters and a news magazine, informants to
the public, seek to keep a grand jury uninformed. Representing
two equally fundamental principles—rule of law and free
speech—the special counsel and the reporters both aim to
facilitate fully informed and accurate decision-making by those
they serve: the grand jury and the electorate. To this court falls
the task of balancing the two sides’ concerns.
As James Madison explained, “ people who mean to be
their own Governors must arm themselves with the power which
knowledge gives.” See In re Lindsey, 148 F.3d 1100, 1109
(D.C. Cir. 1998) (quoting Letter from James Madison to W.T.
Barry (Aug. 4, 1822), in 9 The Writings of James Madison 103
41
(Gaillard Hunt ed., 1910)). Consistent with that maxim, “
free press is indispensable to the workings of our democratic
society,” Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 28
(1945) (Frankfurter, J., concurring), and because confidential
sources are essential to the workings of the press—a practical
reality that virtually all states and the federal government now
acknowledge—I believe that “reason and experience” compel
recognition of a privilege for reporters’ sources. That said,
because “iberty can only be exercised in a system of law
which safeguards order,” Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559, 574
(1965), the privilege must give way to imperatives of law
enforcement in exceptional cases.

Were the leak at issue in this case less harmful to national
security or more vital to public debate, or had the special
counsel failed to demonstrate the grand jury’s need for the
reporters’ evidence, I might have supported the motion to quash.
Because identifying appellants’ sources instead appears essential
to remedying a serious breach of public trust, I join in affirming
the district court’s orders compelling their testimony.
</snip>

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SENTELLE.



b_b

[skip fox]

12. So . . . sources in cahoots with contacts in some cases to discredit

Wilson?????

All the more reason to believe that coordination was needed.

And a turd blossom blooms once again in the field of my thinking.

[skip fox]

13. Here's a DU link which has a link to the streaming video of The News Hour

last night with both Shields and Bronk taking this on:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1915403

[skip fox]

14. From a Huffington article Thurs.

Copied from article:

“Rove will have no compunction about lying through his teeth to save himself, counting on the fact that Cooper’s e-mails are, apparently, not cut and dried,” one of the group said. And it doesn’t hurt that Rove’s underlings would rather fall on their swords than tell the truth... which, in the Bush White House, is seen as selling out. All of which would leave McClellan to “take one for the team and eat major crow about all the assurances he’d given the press.” Of course, if they continue to avoid asking him about it, he may not even have to do that.


http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/huffpost/20050707/cm_huffpost/003750_200507062329

[jedr]

15. the parallels to the Nixon "fall from grace";

is over whelming...let's get these ba**ards in jail and then get DSM moving...impaechment is soon to follow! ( sorry; but I can smell blood)

[skip fox]

16. Everybody's very jittery on the administrative side of this issue.

I haven't seen Fox address it, but from the statements of people like Brock, I think they're preparing for the "hit."

Here's a link to a DU thread will get you a video of Brock and Shields going around about this last night on The News Hour.