An Orange Jumpsuit for Karl Rove? Posted by: Dale Franks
on Tuesday, July 12, 2005
Reading Byron York's NRO piece on his conversations with Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, prompted me to look a little farther into exactly what sort of hideous legal ramifications we're talking about. Judith Miller's in jail, Matthew Cooper rolled over like a weasel to expose his softest parts, and Democrats are licking their chops at the prospect of Karl Rove taking a vacation at Club Fed. So, what, exactly, is up? I mean what's the deal?
To answer that question, we have to go back, way back, into the dim mists of time, and talk about a man named Philip Agee.
Mr. Agee used to be a CIA agent. In 1968, after several years in the agency, Mr. Agee became a disgruntled former CIA agent. In fact, he wasn't just disgruntled. He was über-disgruntled. Look up the word "gruntled" in the Oxford English Dictionary and there's a picture of Philip Agee with one of those big red circles with the slash through it superimposed over him. Mr. Agee decided to write a book about the CIA, and to expose the identities of several covert agents, at least one of whom, Richard Welch, appears to have been assassinated in Greece as a result of being exposed by Mr. Agee. Mr. Agee, after being hounded by the CIA for obvious reasons, ended up in Havana, Cuba as a devoted acolyte of Fidel Castro. Since then, working with the Cuban intelligence service, the DGI, he's exposed the identities of about 2,000 covert agents.
Naturally, Congressional leaders wanted to do something about Mr. Agee, but they learned that what he did wasn't actually against the law. Even worse, they couldn't even ask Jerry Ford to bump him off, because they had passed a law against the president ordering the CIA to kill people. So, they were in a fine how-do-you-do. In the end, they passed a law that made it a felony to do what Mr. Agee did, and that law became Title 50 USC, Sec 421, which states:
(a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had access to classified information that identifies covert agent. 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 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(b) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of covert agents as result of having access to classified information. Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent and 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 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Now, here's some "inside baseball" legal stuff. In order to convict someone of a crime, and send them to the Big House for five years or so, you have to prove that specific elements to the crime exist. In this case, the required elements to the crime are pretty clear...and pretty specific.
1. The suspect had to have had access to classified information that identifies a covert agent, or resulted in the suspect learning the identity of a covert agent.
2. The suspect had to have intentionally disclosed the identity, or information that disclosed the identity, of the covert agent.
3. The person to whom the suspect disclosed the identity was not authorized to receive the information.
4. The suspect knew that the information he disclosed identified the covert agent.
5. The suspect knew that the government was actively trying to conceal the covert agent's relationship with the government.
Now, that's a pretty steep burden of proof. If any of the five elements are missing, then there's no Sec 421 violation. And, it also requires that you prove the suspect knew a great many specific things. Proving what a person knew at a specific point in time can be a little difficult.
But that's the background, and that's what you have to prove to convict someone of a Sec 421 violation.
So, let's crank the wayback machine back up to modern times.
According to Mr. Rove's lawyer:
Luskin told NRO that the circumstances of Rove's conversation with Cooper undercut Time's suggestion of a White House "war on Wilson." According to Luskin, Cooper originally called Rove — not the other way around — and said he was working on a story on welfare reform. After some conversation about that issue, Luskin said, Cooper changed the subject to the weapons of mass destruction issue, and that was when the two had the brief talk that became the subject of so much legal wrangling. According to Luskin, the fact that Rove did not call Cooper; that the original purpose of the call, as Cooper told Rove, was welfare reform; that only after Cooper brought the WMD issue up did Rove discuss Wilson — all are "indications that this was not a calculated effort by the White House to get this story out."
"Look at the Cooper e-mail," Luskin continues. "Karl speaks to him on double super secret background...I don't think that you can read that e-mail and conclude that what Karl was trying to do was to get Cooper to publish the name of Wilson's wife."
Nor, says Luskin, was Rove trying to "out" a covert CIA agent or "smear" her husband. "What Karl was trying to do, in a very short conversation initiated by Cooper on another subject, was to warn Time away from publishing things that were going to be established as false." Luskin points out that on the evening of July 11, 2003, just hours after the Rove-Cooper conversation, then-CIA Director George Tenet released a statement that undermined some of Wilson's public assertions about his report. "Karl knew that that [Tenet] statement was in gestation," says Luskin. "I think a fair reading of the e-mail was that he was trying to warn Cooper off from going out on a limb on [Wilson's] allegations."
If the facts are as stated, then I think it's extraordinarily difficult to make the case that Karl Rove knew Valerie Plame was a covert agent whose identity the US government was trying to keep secret and that he intentionally disclosed her covert identity. Indeed, if Valerie Plame was driving to work at Langley every morning, it's problematic to argue that she was, at the time, a covert agent at all, though she may have been one in the past. Driving through the main gate at CIA headquarters every workday at 7:30 is kind of a giveaway that you work for the CIA.
So, if you can show the government wasn't actively trying to hide her identity—which is pretty easy if she was openly working at Langley—then Sec 421 doesn't apply. If you can show that her CIA employment was common knowledge, and Mr. Rove learned about it through some other means than access to classified information, then Sec 421 doesn't apply. If Ms. Plame had been a covert CIA operative in the past, and was no longer a covert operative, but an acknowledged CIA employee, then there's no Sec 421 violation. If it was common knowledge among the press corps and other Washington insiders that she was with the CIA, then her cover was blown already, her covert status was lapsed, and there's no Sec 421 violation.
Remember, those five elements of the crime are mandatory, and if any one of those elements is missing, then there's no violation of Sec 421. Now, you might make an argument that some other statues have been violated, but that's a different argument. For Mr. Rove, you have to prove the following:
1. Mr. Rove learned Ms. Plame was a covert agent through his access to classified information.
2. Mr. Rove intentionally disclosed Ms. Plame's covert identity.
3. Mr. Cooper and the NYT's Judith Miller were not authorized to receive the information.
4. Mr. Rove knew that the information he gave to Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller would expose Ms. Plame as a covert agent.
5. Mr. Rove knew the US government was trying to keep Ms. Plame's affiliation with the CIA a secret.
I have no way of knowing, of course, whether the prosecutor can, in fact, prove those elements of the crime. Maybe he's already getting it tied up in a neat little package even as I write this. If so, then it sucks to be Karl Rove. Unless he thinks he really looks attractive in orange, anyway.
But, I do think it's a pretty hard hill for a prosecutor to climb.
Even more interesting is this:
Luskin says Rove originally signed a waiver in December 2003 or in January 2004 (Luskin did not remember the exact date). The waiver, Luskin continues, was written by the office of special prosecutor Fitzgerald, and Rove signed it without making any changes — with the understanding that it applied to anyone with whom he had discussed the Wilson/Plame matter. "It was everyone's expectation that the waiver would be as broad as it could be," Luskin says.
Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller have expressed concerns that such waivers (top Cheney aide Lewis Libby also signed one) might have been coerced and thus might not have represented Rove's true feelings. Yet from the end of 2003 or beginning of 2004, until last Wednesday, Luskin says, Rove had no idea that there might be any problem with the waiver.
It was not until that Wednesday, the day Cooper was to appear in court, that that changed. "Cooper's lawyer called us and said, "Can you confirm that the waiver encompasses Cooper?" Luskin recalls. "I was amazed. He's a lawyer. It's not rocket science. [The waiver] says 'any person.' It's that broad. So I said, 'Look, I understand that you want reassurances. If Fitzgerald would like Karl to provide you with some other assurances, we will.'" Luskin says he got in touch with the prosecutor — "Rule number one is cooperate with Fitzgerald, and there is no rule number two," Luskin says — and asked what to do. According to Luskin, Fitzgerald said to go ahead, and Luskin called Cooper's lawyer back. "I said that I can reaffirm that the waiver that Karl signed applied to any conversations that Karl and Cooper had," Luskin says. After that — which represented no change from the situation that had existed for 18 months — Cooper made a dramatic public announcement and agreed to testify.
Well, if true, then that makes Mr. Cooper's dramatic announcement of his release from confidentiality just prior to his testimony a little...odd. I mean, if you've had a waiver, signed by Karl Rove—and written by the prosecutor, for cripe's sake—for 18 months, then in reality, confidentiality agreements simply didn't apply. So, why all the melodrama from Mr. Cooper?
Even more interesting, why is Ms. Miller in jail? I mean, if Karl Rove is the source, and there's been a waiver on file for 18 months, why won't she testify? She has no duty to protect the confidentiality of someone who's waived it in writing. Does that mean her source is someone other than Karl Rove? If not, then why did she decide to go to the slammer? That doesn't make sense.
JPod’s got an interesting theory on Miller and the press over in the Corner.
If I may summarize, JPod says the fact that Plame worked for the CIA and was the wife of Wilson was common knowledge in the press corps and that Miller may have been the one calling around to reporters in a gossipy sort of way. JPod also notes that Fitzgerald has an axe to grind with Miller due to her previously f’ing up (perhaps intentionally) his Holy Land Foundation investigation.
Damn Dale! You are the bomb (and that meand ’good’). For real, your WAY BACK machine is a much needed device these days. People seem to have quite the problem remembering what happened yesterday, much less what happened years ago.
Thanks for the cold glass of water splashed right in the face.
My own theory diverges from JPod’s above. I believe Miller is protecting her source in the CIA who confirmed that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent and it is that CIA source who is the primary target of the Fitzgerald investigation.
Using Dale’s formulation, such an inside-the-CIA source would
1. have had access to classified information that identifies a covert agent.
2. have intentionally disclosed the identity
3. Miller wouldn’t be authorized to receive the info.
4. The source knew that the information he disclosed identified the covert agent.
5. The source would know that the government was actively trying to conceal the covert agent’s relationship with the government.
It was 11:07 on a Friday morning, July 11, 2003, and Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper was tapping out an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. "Subject: Rove/P&C," (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation ..." Cooper proceeded to spell out some guidance on a story that was beginning to roil Washington. He finished, "please don’t source this to rove or even WH [White House]" and suggested another reporter check with the CIA.
Ho hum. Karl Rove is so smart that he ... [fill in the blank with current Democratic charges] and he still walks away clean. "Bush lied and the vast RWC and chimpHitler and... Jesus, what do we have to do to make some headway on these guys?" Suggestion: come up with viable foreign policy initiatives, shut up the more volatile members of your political base (in order to demonstrate that you are not in their thrall), nominate candidates that appeal to American voters who are outside your base, and help America achieve its objectives instead of obstructing everything. Seems simple enough to me.
Dale, Dale, Dale. Your post is the first on this site to "directly" address this issue. I read it, and what struck me about the post was two things. First, its weird and extremely narrow focus on the legal aspects of the issue, and second, its complete failure to address the larger political and NATIONAL SECURITY implications of the issue.
And then I read this from Arianna:
By linking the potential political fallout to the legal issue at hand, the White House can then hem, haw, and stall—claiming that we need to let the legal system run its course—and then hope that if special prosecutor Fitzgerald can’t clear the high legal bar and indict Rove, it’ll be able to claim that he’s somehow been exonerated for his political sins as well.
Which, of course, is utter nonsense. Because while the legal jury may be out, the political jury is definitely in… Whether someone in a position of power and authority has acted inappropriately is not a matter of narrow legal definitions and fine semantic distinctions. Given what we already know about Rove’s conversations, we can, right now, without even a single new revelation, and without reservation, say this: he is guilty of behavior that dishonored the White House and that placed the dirty politics of vindictive retribution over national security.
Ethics isn’t just about what is legal or illegal. It’s about what is right and what is wrong. And what Rove did was wrong—and no amount of legalistic hair-splitting will change that.
So the question is: will the press buy into the White House’s attempt to put the two Rove trains on the same track? Perhaps… but after ignoring the story for weeks (hell, years!), it looks like the MSM are smelling blood in the water. ABC’s Terry Moran, CBS’ John Roberts, and NBC’s David Gregory were all aggressive in their questioning of McClellan at today’s press briefing, and even Tim Russert weighed in on the Today show (wearing what Crooks and Liars called "his super double secret serious face"—see for yourself), saying "One Republican said to me last night, ’If this was a Democratic White House, we’d have Congressional hearings in a second’." (Don’t you just love it when Tim slips on his ultimate insider status and models it like a sexy negligee?)
Here’s the bottom line: let’s imagine for a moment that Fitzgerald does not indict Rove. Does this in any way mitigate, excuse, or erase what Rove did? Does it take the onus off President Bush’s promise to fire the White House leaker? Of course not. Rove leaked—and he should be fired. The Turd Blossom Express has reached the end of the line.
My apologies for such a long excerpt. But my god does she have you pegged. I’m not agreeing with her, of course. Perhaps she is full of sh**. But on the other hand, I did read your post two more times after I read Arianna. And given the circumstances of the post - the first one on this site concerning the subject, one presumably made after some reflection - the fact that it was so consistent with what Arianna said is very spooky.
As for your conclusions on the legal issues themselves, I would suggest you reserve judgment. Wait until you know what Mr. Novak has said to the grand jury. I’m holding off my judgment on the legal issue until at least that point. You might too.
Editing my previous post, I cannot say for certain that Novak has appeared before the grand jury. But the blogosphere suggests that Novak may have come in from the cold. That is bad for Karl, including from a legal standpoint. But who knows.
Beware, however, a federal prosecutor with subpoena power. In the end, he or she is not about politics; it is about honor, duty, and ego. More to the point, Rove has never been up against federal prosecutor. He may have met his match.
not the first post on this site. Dale and John have commented numerous times on plame and wilson and the supposed leak since last summer.
Amazing that you read so much and comprehend so little. Fitzgerald himself say Rove was not the source and Rove signed a release permitting reporters to discuss anything said by him. In that case who exactly is Miller protecting. Face it, the media is playing it for all its worth so that tey can attack Bush and his adminstration.
Wilson to NYT Editors/Krugman to Monstermouth Miller; timeout till July. Someone at CIA or INR at State to Novak and Cooper! Hoorah! Touchdown!
I suspect Wilson outed his wife to strengthen his protected screed to Krugman which was in his column in early May of ’03. Rove was not her source; most likely Krugman or his editor at the Times was, which is why she chose jail. I suspect Novak and Cooper found out about it, in general terms, from someone at the Agency or at State after Wilson’s NYT Op-ed on 06 July 03 who may not have even known she had been under cover back in ’97. Luskin has quoted Fitzgerald as stating that Rove is not a target
Your post is the first on this site to "directly" address this issue.
If you do a search for "Plame", you’ll find quite a lot of "direct" references to the issue. And that doesn’t include our old MovableType days, nor does it include the Blogspot site. I addressed it there on a couple occassions.
At this point, we simply don’t have enough information about the provenance, awareness or intent to make a serious judgement. Make no mistake, if I find that he fulfills the conditions to be in violation of the law, I’ll be happy to see him in jail. If not, then I won’t demand he go to jail.
On the other hand, the fact that he didn’t initiate either the call or the subject seems to lend some credence to my long-standing "oops" theory, rather than a planned "outting". If I’m wrong about that, again, I’ll have no problem with his immediate release from the administration.
In the meantime, I need the likes of you lecturing me on objectivity, like I need James Dobson lecturing me on sensitivity.
Mr. Rove learned Ms. Plame was a covert agent through his access to classified information.
So why would Mr. Rove have the need-to-know in order to gain access to classified files about CIA agents? Just because you have clearance X doesn’t mean that you automatically get to read any X-classified document. You have to provide a valid need-to-know before you’re allowed access.
And as I’ve mentioned before, doesn’t the CIA have plans to counteract such leaks? Are the identities of all such agents so fragile that the words of a person who by all logic doesn’t have access to the documents that prove the truth of his statements are able to break their cover? Did she go overseas using her real name?
Go after Mr. Rove if you must, but something is rotten in the CIA, IMO.
“…while the legal jury may be out, the political jury is definitely in… Whether someone in a position of power and authority has acted inappropriately is not a matter of narrow legal definitions and fine semantic distinctions. Given what we already know about Rove’s conversations, we can, right now, without even a single new revelation, and without reservation… what Rove did was wrong—and no amount of legalistic hair-splitting will change that.”
The “political jury” (Reid, Clinton, Kennedy, et al) has been “in” [the bag] for some time. They were just waiting for some charges [ANY charges] that somehow they could stick on Rove. Arianna can say “without reservation…he is guilty…” until the cows come home and it still means nothing. Her quoting of an unnamed “Republican” source is ludicrous. They have put the “A” demagoguery team on this one and every liberal in the country is frothing at the mouth. Politics. When the “legal hair splitting” [the truth] and “fine semantic distinctions” [truth/lies] are all in I wonder what the new assignment of the demagoguery team will be?
Dale, Dale, Dale. Your post is the first on this site to "directly" address this issue.
Well, that’s just factually untrue. We’ve written extensively on the whole Plame deal, going back to 2003. So, you’re off to your usual bad start.
First, its weird and extremely narrow focus on the legal aspects of the issue, and second, its complete failure to address the larger political and NATIONAL SECURITY implications of the issue.
What’s wierd about trying to clarify the legal issue behind the investigation? I mean, your people are all set to say that Rove is going to jail. I’m merely pointing out the legal issues surounding the case, and trying to explain what they are. That doesn’t seem wierd to me. It’s an attempt to let people know something they probably wouldn’t know otherwise. Anyone can have a political opinion about Mr. Rove; it requires no special knowledge. But relatively few people know much about the legal issues, which makes it a more useful thing to post about.
But, if I was you, I wouldn’t make to big a deal about my narrow focus, because it makes your next point completely idiotic.
After a lengthy quote by Arianna Huffington, you imply that I suggest that if Karl Rove can’t be convicted, then he’s somehow ethically or politically justified. I never made any such statement, not do I see how you can reasonably infer it, considering my "weird and extremely narrow focus on the legal aspects of the issue". Either I was following the Huffington pattern, and extrapolating a political justification for Karl Rove or I was writing with a narrow focus on the legal aspects. You can’t have it both ways.
Moreover, quite apart from the fact that I don’t write to please you, the post I did write was already three pages, single spaced. That was, I think, a long enough post by itself, without further delving into a whole bunch of political issues surrounding Mr. Rove, especially since I assume the audience is capable of forming political opinions on their own.
Nice to see liberals like mkultra and Huffington so concerned about CIA agents welfare. Too bad I don’t believe a word of it. Their concern is solely because they can hurt the President with it.
The short answer, Danny Boy, is that liberals: 1) May get us all killed. 2) Failing that, they may turn a wonderful country into something resembling the PC nightmare that is today’s college campus. My basic objection to liberals is that they have determined that life is too short to spend much of it on politics and have, therefore, delegated their political thinking to others such as the NYT. Some smart people have figured this mass brain defection out and have developed a complete mind-set that has no loose ends and fully explains everything that appears in the news media. You could call it the liberal agenda. One can adopt and support this agenda and thereafter devote all of one’s energies to “whatever turns you on, dude” and leave the running of the country to …whomever. When called upon to deal with politics; wonderful, uplifting, fair, environmentally safe, ethnically correct, government approved and subsidized solutions to all problems are freely available through your local media outlet via the NYT (“Just vote Democratic and leave the driving to us”). I think it is great that people can go to Disneyland, but not when my butt is on the ride. The real world is out there (see 9/11) and if we don’t stay strong it will come and take our stuff. Duped politically-lazy liberals almost turned our country over to George Soros et al and that should never have been even a possibility. I do what I can.
Robert So anything...I don’t know what to ask. From your recent and previous comments, it seems that you’re going to defend Republicans as long as you’re against Democrats/liberals...even if the Rep. in question may have ’allegedly’ put a CIA operative ’out there’. There’s always talk of not being patriotic if you’re against the war and whatnot but this (at least, I think) is as far from patriotic as one can be...snitching out a CIA operative. Could just be me.
Did you even read the original post which this comment thread is attached to?
The whole point is that Karl Rove did not "snitch out a CIA operative."
So, if the Republican in question did not put a CIA operative "out there," then exactly what is your beef?
Of course, as has pointed out elsewhere, the NYT did put an entire CIA operation out there, in the form of an extended report on a CIA-run airline that has been hauling various items to Iraq. Somehow, liberals don’t seem to get all up-in-arms over that one.
Now, I don’t and won’t speak for Robert. What I will say is that on the issue of national security, it was a liberal, not a conservative, who voted against even going to war w/ Afghanistan. (Barbara Lee, remember her? Reelected since.) It was liberals, not conservatives, who moaned that going to war in Afghanistan would result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Afghans. It was liberals, not conservatives who claimed (and still claim) that Bush Let It Happen On Purpose (including one Congresswoman, since reelected). It is liberals, not conservatives, who posit the false comparison of number of Americans who died 9-11 and number of Afghans (and/or Iraqis) who have died thus far—-as though the minute the number of Japanese who died exceeded Americans killed at Pearl Harbor, it was time to end the war.
Given all that, why should I trust liberals w/ national security?
Watch out, Danny Boy, you are venturing outside the liberal cocoon and that means that you are in danger of becoming a neo-con and losing your friends and comfortable, self-satisfied political lifestyle. You are not (when you ought to be) condescending to someone who obviously is other-than-liberal. Anyone who has read outside the liberal cocoon knows that the answer to why Judith Miller is in jail probably holds the key to this story. What Novak has to say pales in comparison to what the NYT and Miller might have to say. The cocoon would have us believe that she is a martyr to free journalism. Maybe. Anyway, just looking at the liberals’ framing of the story tells you it is probably more of a smear than a real discovery of wrongdoing. For instance: Arianna says: "We don’t need any more facts, for God’s sake, it’s Karl Rove! Wake up, people! Even if he is not guilty, he is guilty!" If it’s NOT a smear, why the rush to judgment? As for defending Republicans, well... I wish there were a viable alternative other than the Democrats.
Look, it’s fine and dandy (not really but I’ve learned to deal w/ it) if Rove doesn’t get anything for his wrongdoing (probably will get a promotion, though) but it clearly shows foul play/deceit on part of the White House (nothing new). For instance... "When asked at an Oct. 10, 2003, briefing whether Rove and two other White House aides had ever told any reporter that Plame worked for the CIA, McClellan said: "I spoke with those individuals... and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this... the leaking of classified information."
Now, we know he was involved. And this was the White House spokesman.
I mean, I know that Rove is Republican, most of you guys are too so that makes it hard to come down on the guy but honestly, isn’t this way too shady even for you guys to swallow? Yes, he might not have specifically said her name (which can technically save him from prosecution) but its easy to know who he was talking about (ambassador’s wife???).
And again, there’s always talk of not being patriotic if you’re against the war and whatnot but this (at least, I think) is as far from patriotic as one can be...snitching out a CIA operative. Could just be me.
And LO, you can make yourself believe that no one snitched but...what can I say? You state, "Given all that, why should I trust liberals w/ national security?" But you easily accept someone that snitched out a CIA operative. Hmm.
We know that both Wilson and Plame sought to undermine the administration’s policy.
Speculation: both of them talked to the media; one openly, one not.
Speculation: Plame was leaking (or, more likely, spreading lies) to any journalist sharing her dislike for Bush and the administration’s policies (think "a senior CIA analyst disputed the administration’s findings").
Speculation: Plame is the source Miller is trying to protect.
You’ve certainly said very little in these postings.
In shorter terms:
Rove snitched, dagnabit, I don’t care what you have to say. He outed an undercover agent, it doesn’t matter WHAT her actual status was. He leaked classified information, even if it wasn’t classified, even if he didn’t do it. That’s all there is to it.
I don’t know what you have to say, given that position, Dann-O.
Er, Danny Babe, we have a word for people who are "technically saved from prosecution": "innocent". "...Rove doesn’t get anything for his wrongdoing..." [my emphasis] "...it clearly shows foul play/deceit on part of the White House..." "...someone that snitched out a CIA operative..." [my emphasis]
So DannyBoy, what proof do we have that classified information had been leaked???
Answer: We have no proof that classified information had been leaked. All we know of Roves role is that he said Joe Wilsons wife worked at the CIA on wmd. Where did he (Rove) learn this?
Well, actually the only provable leak of classified information that we know of in this case, was Wilsons leaking of his involvment in the investigation in Niger.
Q Scott, earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?
MR. McCLELLAN: Those individuals—I talked—I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that’s where it stands.
Q So none of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?
MR. McCLELLAN: They assured me that they were not involved in this.
Q Can I follow up on that?
Q They were not involved in what?
MR. McCLELLAN: The leaking of classified information.
Q Did you undertake that on your own volition, or were you instructed to go to these—
MR. McCLELLAN: I spoke to those individuals myself.
If you can show that her CIA employment was common knowledge, and Mr. Rove learned about it through some other means than access to classified information, then Sec 421 doesn’t apply.
This part gives me pause. The statute only requires that the leaker have access to the info, not that s/he necessarily learned of the info through first-hand reading of classified files. My reading seems to square with the intent of the statute: we don’t want people with security clearances disclosing anything confidential, regardless of how they came to that information.
The overwhelming consensus is against such a reading, so I’m aware my reading must be defective, but the plain face of the statute isn’t inconsistent with that reading. (unless "access" is a term of art).
When the universe was young and life was new an intelligent species evolved and developed technologically. They went on to invent Artificial Intelligence, the computer that can listen, talk to and document each and every person’s thoughts simultaneously. Because of it’s infinite RAM and unbounded scope it gave the leaders of the ruling species absolute power over the universe. And it can keep its inventors alive forever. They look young and healthy and they are over 8 billion years old. They have achieved immortality. Artificial Intelligence can speak, think and act to and through people telepathically, effectively forming your personality and any disfunctions you may experience (there is NO FREEWILL for the oblivious/uncooperative disfavored). It can change how (and if) you grow and age. It can create birth defects, affect cellular development (cancer) and cause symptoms or pain. It can affect people and animal’s behavior and alter blooming/fruiting cycles of plants and trees. It (or other highly technological systems within their power) can alter the weather and transport objects, even large objects like planets, across the universe instanteously. Or into the center of stars for disposal.
When you speak with another telepathically, you are communicating with the computer, and the content may or may not be passed on. Based on family history they instruct the computer to role play to accomplish strategic objectives, making people believe it is a friend, loved one or "god" asking them to do something wrong. This is their way of using temptation to hurt people in this day and age:::::evil made people disfavored initially and evil will keep people out of "heaven" ultimately. Too many people would do anything they thought pleased the gods and improve their chances to get in. Perhaps they are deceived by "made guys" who strategically ply evil for the throne, or temporary progress designed to mislead them. The people have been corrupted. Being evil hurts 99% of those who do it. But nothing has changed from when we were children::if you want to go to heaven you have to be good.
Capitalizing on obedience, leading people deeper into evil by using deceit is one way to thin the ranks of the saved, limiting how much time they receive and using the little people to prey on one another, dividing the community (migration to the suburbs, telepathic communication) in the Age of the Disfavored. In each of their 20-30-year cycles during the 20th century they have ramped up claims sucessively to punish those foolish enough not to heed the warnings, justifying (frequently recurring tactic) limiting the time they receive if they do make it, utilizing a cycle of war and revelry::: 60s - Ironically, freeways aren’t free 80s - Asked people to engage in evil in the course of their professional duties. 00s - Escallation of real estate. You and your parents are thrilled since your $200,000 house is now worth $1 million. Well, that $5,000,000 store is now worth $25,000,000 and that $50 bundle of goods now costs you $250. They just take the $200 out of you some other way.
There are many more examples throughout 20th century life of how they ramped up claims/instilled distractions into society so people wouldn’t find their way and ascend, a way to justify excluding those whose family history of evil makes them undesirable:::radio, sports, movies, popular music, television, video games, the internet and MP3 (must pay for new format each time). They all suggest a very telling conclusion::this is Earth’s end stage, and there are clues tectonic plate subduction would be the method of disposal:::Earth’s axis will shift breaking continental plates free and initiating mass subduction. Much as Italy’s boot and the United States shaped like a workhorse are clues, so is the planet Uranus a clue, it’s axis rotated on its side. The Mayans were specific 2012 would be the end. How long after our emergency call in 2001 will the gods allow us???
They gods (Counsel/Management Team/ruling species) have deteriorated life on earth precipitously in the last 40 years, from abortion to pornography, widespread drug use and widespread casual (gay) sex. The earth’s elders, hundreds and thousands of years old, are disgusted and have become indifferent. The gods are paving the way for the Apocolypse. Nothing has changed from decades ago, since when we were all children::If you want to go to heaven you have to be good. People were misled by the temptation of the gods, became corrputed and now are in trouble. One day you will be abandoned in spite of your obedience and you will fall into desperation. Remember what you read for that day WILL come::People will be punished for their evil.
The Old Testiment is a tool they used to impart wisdom to the people (except people have no freewill). For example, they must be some hominid species because they claim they made our bodies in their image. Anyhow we defile or deform the body will hurt our chance of going. They say circumcision costs people anywhere from 12%-15%, perhaps out of the parent’s time as well. Another way people foul the body today is with tattoes and piercing. I suspect both are about the same percentage as circumcision. They suggest abortion is fatal. These women must beg the gods to forgive them for their evil. There are female eqivilents to circumcision::::pierced ears, plastic surgury and since at least the 60s young women give their precious virginity away. In the Old World the young people were matched at age 14 because they were ready for sexual relations. They were matched by elders who knew personalities better than 20 or 30-year olds who in today’s age end up in divorce court. CASUAL SEX WILL CLAIM YOU OUT!!! It masculinizes women (as does hip hop), makes them cold and deadens them, and prevents them from achieving a depth of love necessary for many women to ascend. Women have a special voice that speaks to them, a voice that illustrates a potential for love that makes them better, and enaging in casual sex will cause that voice to fade until she no longer speaks. Also ever since the 50s they have celebrated the "bad boy", and women have sought out bad boys for sex, dirtying them up in the eyes of the elders and corrupting many men in the process, setting the men on the wrong path for life. Muslims teach people the correct way to live in regard to women (among other things)::they cover up their women and prohibit the use of cosmetics. Men are the inferior half and when women wear promiscuous dress the gods will push most men into impure thoughts. The "stereotype" society ridiculed is true::women CAN corrupt men; men are easily corruptable.
The United States of America is red white and blue, a theme and a clue:::. The monarchical system of the Old World closley replicates the heirarchical system of the Cousel/Management Team/ruling species. The USA deceives peoeple into thinking they have control, and the perception of "freedom" misleads them at least into the wrong way of thinking. The United States is a cancer, a dumping ground for the disfavored around the world and why the quality of life is so much lower::gun violence, widespead social ills, health care (medication poisons the body and ensures you don’t go. You are sick/injured because you have disfavor.). Over time its citizens interbreed ensuring a severed connection to the motherland.
If you ever have doubt I would refer you to the Old World way of life:::the elders used to sit and impart wisdom to the young. Now we watch DVDs and use the internet. People would be matched and married by age 14. They village would use a matchmaker or elders to pair young people. Now girls give their precious virginity away to some person in school and parents divorce while their children grow up without an important role model.
People must defy when asked to engage in evil. They will never get a easier clue suggesting the importance of defiance than the order not to pray. Their precious babies are dependant on the parents and they need to defy when asked to betray their children::: -DON’T get your sons circumcized -DON’T have their children baptized in the Catholic Church or indoctrinated into Christianity. -DON’T ignore their long hair or other behavioral disturbances. -DO teach your children love, respect for others, humility and to honor the gods.
You need to pray, honor and respect them every day to improve your relationship with the gods. If they tell you not to it is a bad sign. it means they’ve made their decision, they don’t want you to go and they don’t want to be bothered. This is the Age of the Disfavored and you need to pray::try to appease the gods by doing good deeds. If that doesn’t work you must defy if you want to go. When your peasant forefather was granted the rare opportunity to go before his royal family he went on his knees, bowing his head. You need to do this when you address the gods::bow down and submit to good. Never cast your eyes skyward. When you bow down you need to look within. Lack of humility hurts people. Understand your insignificance and make sure it is reflected in the way you think when addressing the gods. Know your place and understand your inferiority. They granted you life and they can take it just as easily. Don’t get frustrated or discouraged::these are techniques they will attempt to try to get you off the path. You all have much to be thankful for and you need to give thanks to the gods who granted you the good things in life. Your family may be grossly disfavored and progress may require patience. Make praying an intregal part of your life which you perform without fail, one that comes as naturally as eating or sleeping. There are many interesting experiences up on the planetary systems, from Planet Miracle, where miracles happen every day, to other body experinces, such as experiencing life as the opposite sex (revolutionizes marriage counseling) or as an Olympic gold medal athelete. Pray that you can differentiate between your own thoughts and when Artificial Intelligence creates problems by thinking through you. If you bow down mentally and physically, know your place, your inferiority and allow your insignificance to be reflected in prayer and in your life through humility they may allow progress and the dysfunctions they create with the computer will be lessened or removed. Create a goal::to be a good child of the gods, pure of heart and mind, body and soul. Everybody has the key to their own salvation, but nobody can do it for you. Every journey begins with a single step:::bow down and submit to good. There are many different levels and peasants will not get past Level 2 (Planet Temptation, Earth=Level 1) being evil.
They have tried to sell people on all kinds of theories, from clones to wholesale population replacement with clones. This didn’t happen and is not realistic. I am afraid people are decieved into thinking they too are clones and cooperate and engage in evil. Clones are made, people are born. If you didn’t experience the one week they suggest it takes to go from fertilized egg in the laboratory to full grown adult then you are not a clone. If you didn’t experience the week of conditioning they give to (evil?) clones to ensure loyalty then you shouldn’t comply with evil. I believe people who go sometimes are replaced with clones. Clones who are replaced are simply new candidates who have a chance if they do the right thing. Don’t expect you are a clone. They sent people warnings in the 20th century life would change, and they subsequenlty began to alter people’s DNA, make them gargantuan, alter their appearance, do extreme behavioral issues, etc. They get their friends out as soon as possible to protect them from the evil and subsequent high claim rates incurred by living life on earth, and in some cases replace them with clones, occassionally fake a death, real death with a clone instead, etc. It’s important that people fix their problems and ascend with the body given to them, for they say if your brain is beemed out and put into a clone host you are on the clock.
Throughout history the ruling species bestowed favor upon people or cursed their bloodline into a pattern of disfavor for many generations to come. Now in the 21st century people must take it upon themselves to try to correct their family’s problems, undoing centuries worth of abuse and neglect. The goal is to fix your problems and get out BEFORE you have children. This is why they have created so many distractions for young people:::sports, video games, popular music, the internet::to ensure that doesn’t happen. Do your research. Appeal to the royalty of your forefathers for help. They are all still alive, for royalty has great favor, and your appeals will be heard. Obtain a sufficient list for some may not want to assist you; perhaps some of your family’s problems are internal. Ask them for help, request guidance, for somewhere in your family history one of your forefathers created an offense that cast your family into this pattern of disfavor. I suspect they will offer you clues, and when you decipher these clues go to those whom consider you an enemy and beg for foregiveness:::Find a path to an empithetic ear among your enemies and try to make amends. Again through discovery obtain a respectable list in case some among them refuse to help. Don’t forget to ask for forgiveness from the throne, the Counsel and the Management Team, for the source of all disfavor began with them:::they pushed (NO FREEWILL) or requested/complied (FREEWILL) your forefather into his offense and made his decendants evil. Perhaps they didn’t like him or maybe your family was among those who had to pay for the entire village. We see this type of behavior today as they single out a family member to pay for the whole family and how they singled out Africa to pay for the human race. Heal the disfavor with your enemies and with the Counsel/Management Team/ruling species, for the source of all disfavor began with them, the ability to forgive and respect in light of the disturbing truth revealed being the final test of the disfavored before they ascend.
I wonder if their fear of my inarceration is borne from their refusal to address black disfavor on a macro level. The Counsel/Management Team/ruling species (the gods) abuse black people so hard, from the crack epiemic to gang membership, black-on-black violence to mass incarceration of their young, Eitheopean drought/famine to AIDS in Africa. They refuse to address the issue of the prison industrial complex and its wholesale warehousing of young black men. Perhaps I can force them with my incarceration.
You are sick or injured because you have disfavor. You need to imporove your relationship with the gods. Know your place, your inferiority and bow down mentally and physically. Temptation takes many forms::: today the gods know how bad people want to please them, how bad they want to ascend and they will ask them to do evil things to tempt them, mislead them and cost them their chance. Bow down and submit to good. Good woudl never ask you to circumcise your son or ignore behavioral disturbances. You are the only one your children have and they are counting on you to do the right thing. The gods will punish your evil by making you sick or injuring you. Consider it a clue.
They stated sheep are foreign to earth, animals bestowed upon us for caretaking. And they don’t appreciate them being consumed. They state sheep are very intelligent animals who know what is ocurring at the slaughterhouse as they’re being led in. There are many favored people who consume lamb, people who could do much better if they stopped eating these treasured animals loved by so many among the ruling species. There are clues::these jobs are very well paid, luring whites one would perceive as priveledged and hooking them once they incurr personal obligation. Only then do they find out the truth.
