Jump to content

Plame affair

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 216.160.109.205 (talk) at 05:47, 15 August 2005 (→‎Air Force One memo: clarification). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

File:Plame and Wilson.JPG
Valerie Plame and Joseph C. Wilson

The Plame Affair (commonly referred to as "Plamegate") began in July 2003 when journalist Robert Novak wrote a column in which he disclosed that Valerie Plame, wife of former United States Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, was, quoting Novak, "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." Events leading to this public revelation by Novak began with a 2002 secret mission undertaken by Wilson to the African nation of Niger which was called for by CIA with the purpose of investigating whether the African nation had sold yellowcake ore to Iraq, (yellowcake is a substance used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons). Wilson, upon his return, gave confidential reports that no such activity had taken place, a fact corroborated by the U.S. Ambassador to Niger. However, in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union the president said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The complete contradiction of fact in the president's speech caused Ambassador Wilson much consternation and consequently he wrote an Op-ed in the New York Times challenging the veracity of the president's statement. Following Wilson's Op-ed, Novak published his column containing the leaked information about Plame's identity. Wilson's contention is that the leak was an act of political retribution designed to destroy his wife's career and which, in addition, has caused substantial harm to U.S. national security.

The Plame Affair also involves the subsequent investigation of the Bush White House leak by Independent Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who was appointed by Deputy Attorney General James Comey (then Attorney General John Ashcroft having recused himself from the case) and the possible cover-up by White House staff and officials including Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Ari Fleischer, and other (as of July 30, 2005) unnamed senior White House officials. In addition to Novak, up to six other journalists had the information including, NBC's Tim Russert, and Judith Miller of The New York Times.

Background

On 29 August 2003, retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a career diplomat who had worked under Democratic and Republican administrations, alleged that Karl Rove leaked the identity of his wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative. Although many speculated that the leak was a potential violation of federal law, no charges have been filed against Rove.

Wilson, who in February 2002 investigated claims of attempted 1990s uranium ore purchases by Iraq from Niger, wrote an opinion piece in The New York Times, published 6 July 2003,[1] suggesting that the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence findings to justify war against Iraq. Wilson said that his African diplomatic experience led to his selection for the mission: he is a former ambassador to Gabon, another uranium-producing African nation, and was once posted in the 1970s to Niamey, Niger's capital.[2] Wilson, who was open about the CIA's sponsorship of his trip (which he called "discreet but not secret"), wrote that he had been "informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report" relating to the sale of uranium yellowcake from Niger (see also Yellowcake Forgery). Of his trip to Niger, Wilson wrote, "I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction [purchase of uranium ore] had ever taken place." Wilson also noted that U.S. Ambassador to Niger Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick "knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington."

However, Wilson's assertions have been questioned by some. For instance, a Senate intelligence committee report issued on July 9, 2004 is taken by some to refute Wilson's claims about the extent of his wife's involvement in arranging the trip. As reported by the Washington Post:

The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said. [3]

Wilson writes his own view: "Apart from being the conduit of a message from a colleague in her office asking if I would be willing to have a conversation about Niger's uranium industry, Valerie had had nothing to do with the matter.

Others argue that Wilson has said that his wife did not authorize the trip and that he cannot speak about the details. The Senate intelligence committee report and other sources seem to confirm that Valerie Plame gave her husband a positive recommendation. However, they also confirm that she did not personally authorize the trip, contrary to what Matt Cooper reports having been told by Karl Rove.

Some also suggest that, rather than debunking the Iraq-uranium-Niger theory, Wilson's report actually supported it. As reported by the Washington Post:

Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.
Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq.

Wilson described the situation so, that one source told him, he avoided any talk about subjects, when he once met with an Iraqi official. And never understood what kind of commercial contact the official wanted. They met at a ministerial meeting of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU).

A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson, said (wrongly) that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."

Washington Post ran a correction to the quoted report:

In some editions of the Post, a July 10 story on a new Senate report on intelligence failures said that former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV told his contacts at the CIA that Iraq had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium from the African nation of Niger in 1998. In fact, it was Iran that was interested in making that purchase, but no contract was signed, according to the report.[4]

.

Eight days after the publication of Wilson's article, syndicated columnist Robert Novak wrote that the choice to use Wilson "was made routinely at a low level without [CIA] Director George Tenet's knowledge." Novak went on to identify Plame as Wilson's wife: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him."[5] Although Wilson wrote that he was certain his findings were circulated within the CIA and conveyed (at least orally) to the office of the Vice President, Novak questioned the accuracy of Wilson's report and added that "it is doubtful Tenet ever saw it."

Defenders of White House officials believe that Wilson, in a partisan way, initiated a smear campaign against the Bush administration. They promote the related view that those White House officials who talked on background about Wilson were, rather than trying to punish him by exposing his wife, trying to prevent reporters from believing Wilson's disinformation. Opponents counter this argument by asserting that such officials would still have a duty to diligently avoid exposing undercover officers or other confidential information.

Central figures (list)

Central issues (list)

Known grand jury witnesses (list)

Time line of Plame affair

See main article at: Plame scandal timeline

CIA calls for special prosecutor

Background on special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald

In September 2003, the CIA requested that the Justice Department investigate the matter.[6] Karl Rove was identified by the New York Times in connection to the Plame leak on 2 October 2003, in an article that both highlighted Attorney General John Ashcroft's employment of Rove in three previous political campaigns, and pointed to Ashcroft's potential conflict of interest in investigating Rove. In recusing himself from the case, Ashcroft named Deputy Attorney General James Comey, to be "acting attorney general" for the case; Comey in turn named U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald on 30 December 2003 (Comey names Fitzgerald). Fitzgerald began investigations into the leak working from White House telephone records turned over to the FBI in October 2003. [7]

Though Plame's exposure was claimed to be retaliation for Wilson's editorial on issues surrounding the yellowcake forgery, the White House and the GOP have sought to discredit Wilson with a public relations campaign that claims Wilson has a partisan political agenda. However, Wilson along with current and former CIA officials have asserted the leak not only damaged Plame's career, but arguably endangered U.S. National Security and endangered the missions of other CIA agents working abroad under nonofficial cover (as "NOCs"), passing as private citizens without diplomatic passports. Plame, who worked undercover for the CIA for nearly 20 years,[8] was identified as an NOC by New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller (among others) on 5 October 2003.[9] Articles in The Washington Post,[10] The Wall Street Journal, and many other publications have pointed to Plame's association with Brewster Jennings & Associates, nominally an oil exploration firm, but in fact a CIA front company (now defunct) spying on Saudi and other interests across the Middle East. Under certain circumstances, disclosure of the identity of a covert agent is illegal under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, though the language of the statute raises the issue of whether Karl Rove is within the class of persons to whom the statute applies.[11] However, Title 18, United States Code, Section 641[12] prohibits theft (or conversion for one's own use) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes and was found to apply in the conviction of Jonathan Randel[13].

While it it not known exactly who testified before the Grand Jury (Fitzgerald has conducted his investigation with much more discretion than previous presidential investigations[14]), a number of individuals have acknowledged giving testimony, including White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, Deputy Press Secretary Claire Buchan, former press secretary Ari Fleischer, former special advisor to the president Karen Hughes, former White House communications aide Adam Levine, former advisor to the Vice President Mary Matalin, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell.[15] On 13 May 2005, citing "close followers of the case," The Washington Post reported that the length of the investigation, and the particular importance paid to the testimony of reporters, suggested that the counsel's role had expanded to include investigation of perjury charges against witnesses.[16] Other observers have suggested that the testimony of journalists was needed to show a pattern of intent by the leaker or leakers.[17]

Legal filings by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald contain many pages blanked out for security reasons, leading some observers to speculate that Fitzgerald has pursued the extent to which national security was compromised by the actions of Rove and others. On 18 July 2005, The Economist reported that Valerie Plame had been dissuaded by the CIA from publishing her own account of her exposure, suggesting that such an article would itself be a breach of national security. The Economist also reported that "affirmative measures" by the CIA were being taken to protect Plame's identity at the time Karl Rove revealed her CIA affiliation to journalists. [18]

Contempt of Court: Miller, Cooper

New York Times investigative reporter Judith Miller, who (according to a subpoena) met with an unnamed White House official on July 8 2003, two days after Wilson's editorial was published, never wrote or reported a story on the Plame affair,[19] but nevertheless refused (with Cooper) to answer questions before a grand jury in 2004 pertaining to sources. Both reporters were held in contempt of court. On 27 June 2005, after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to rule on the reporters' request for appeal, [20] Time magazine said it would surrender to Fitzgerald e-mail records and notes taken by Cooper. Miller and Cooper faced potential jail terms for failure to cooperate with the independent counsel's investigations.[21] Columnist Robert Novak, who later admitted that the CIA attempted to dissuade him from revealing Plame's name in print, "appears to have made some kind of arrangement with the special prosecutor" (according to Newsweek).[22]

Miller was jailed on 7 July 2005, and is expected to remain there until the term of the Grand Jury expires in October 2005 unless she agrees to testify. She is being held in Alexandria, VA in the same facility as Zacarias Moussaoui. In August 2005 the American Prospect magazine reported that Lewis Libby testified he had discussed Plame with Miller during a July 8, 2003 meeting. Libby signed a general waiver allowing journalists to reveal their discussions with him on this matter, but American Prospect reports that Miller refused to honor this waiver on the grounds that she considers it coerced. Miller has said she would accept a specific individual waiver to testify, but Libby has apparently not given her one.

Karl Rove

On September 29, 2003, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said, regarding any suggested involvement of Rove with the leak, that "The President knows" that it was not true.

And I said it is simply not true. So, I mean, it's public knowledge. I've said that it's not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove ... He [President Bush]'s aware of what I've said, that there is simply no truth to that suggestion. And I have spoken with Karl about it.[23]

During the Republican National Convention, Rove told CNN:

I didn't know her name and didn't leak her name. This is at the Justice Department. I'm confident that the U.S. Attorney, the prosecutor who's involved in looking at this is going to do a very thorough job of doing a very substantial and conclusive investigation.[24]

On 1 July 2005 Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, on the McLaughlin Group stated: "And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time Magazine's going to do with the grand jury." The document dump has since occurred.[25]

On 2 July 2005, Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, said that his client spoke to Time reporter Matt Cooper "three or four days" before Plame's identity was first revealed in print by commentator Robert Novak. (Cooper's article in Time, citing unnamed and anonymous "government officials," confirmed Plame to be a "CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." Cooper's article appeared three days after Novak's column was published.) Rove's lawyer, however, asserted that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." This second statement has since been called into question by an e-mail, written three days before Novak's column, in which Cooper indicated that Rove had told him Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. If Rove were aware that this was classified information at the time, then both disclaimers by his lawyer would be untrue. Furthermore, Luskin said that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" (three times, according to the Los Angeles Times of 3 July 2005 [26]) and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him and that Rove "has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else." Rove's lawyer declined to share with Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff the nature or contents of his client's conversations with Cooper. [27] [28] [29][30] [31]

On 6 July 2005, Cooper agreed to testify, thus avoiding being held in contempt of court and sent to jail. Cooper said "I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions for not testifying," but told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance at court he had received "in somewhat dramatic fashion" an indication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep his source's identity secret. For some observers this called into question the allegations against Rove, who had signed a waiver months before permitting reporters to testify about their conversations with him (see above paragraph). [32]

Cooper, however, stated in court that he did not previously accept a general waiver to journalists signed by his source (whom he did not identify by name), because he had made a personal pledge of confidentiality to his source. The 'dramatic change' which allowed Cooper to testify was later revealed to be a phone conversation between lawyers for Cooper and his source confirming that the waiver signed two years earlier included conversations with Cooper. Citing a "person who has been officially briefed on the case," The New York Times identified Rove as the individual in question,[33] a fact later confirmed by Rove's own lawyer.[34] According to one of Cooper's lawyers, Cooper has previously testified before the grand jury regarding conversations with Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr., chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, after having received Libby's specific permission to testify.[35]

Rove's email to Hadley

In an email sent by Karl Rove to top White House security official Stephen Hadley immediately after his 11 July 2003 discussion with Matt Cooper (obtained by the Associated Press and published on 15 July 2005), Rove claimed that he tried to steer Cooper away from allegations Wilson was making about faulty Iraq intelligence. "Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming," Rove wrote to Hadley. "When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger. Isn't this damaging? Hasn't the president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this." Rove made no mention to Hadley in the e-mail of having leaked Plame's CIA identity, nor of having revealed classified information to a reporter, nor of having told the reporter that certain sensitive information would soon be declassified.[36] Although Rove wrote to Hadley (and perhaps testified) that the initial subject of his conversation with Cooper was welfare reform and that Cooper turned the conversation to Wilson and the Niger mission, Cooper disputed this suggestion in his grand jury testimony and subsequent statements: "I can't find any record of talking about [welfare reform] with him on July 11 [2003], and I don't recall doing so," Cooper said. [37][38]

Karl Rove revealed as Time source

On 10 July 2005, Newsweek posted a story from its forthcoming July 18 print edition which quoted one of the e-mails written by Time reporter Matt Cooper in the days following the publication of Wilson's Op-Ed piece.[39] Writing to Time bureau chief Michael Duffy on 11 July 2003, three days before Novak's column was published, Cooper recounted a two-minute conversation with Karl Rove "on double super secret background" in which Rove said that Wilson's wife was a CIA employee: "it was, KR [Karl Rove] said, Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip." In a Time article released 17 July 2005, Cooper says Rove ended his conversation by saying "I've already said too much." If true, this could indicate that Rove identified Wilson's wife as a CIA employee prior to Novak's column being published. Some believe that statements by Rove claiming he did not reveal her name would still be strictly accurate if he mentioned her only as 'Wilson's wife', although this distinction would likely have no bearing on the alleged illegality of the disclosure. The White House repeatedly denied that Rove had any involvement in the leaks. Whether Rove's statement to Cooper that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA in fact violated any laws has not been resolved.

In addition, Rove told Cooper that CIA Director George Tenet did not authorize Wilson's trip to Niger, and that "not only the genesis of the trip [to Niger] is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report" which Wilson made upon his return from Africa. Rove "implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate Iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger," and in an apparent effort to discourage Cooper from taking the former ambassador's assertions seriously, gave Cooper a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Cooper recommended that his bureau chief assign a reporter to contact the CIA for further confirmation, and indicated that the tip should not be sourced to Rove or even to the White House. Rove's reported claim that Wilson's mission to Niger was "authorized" by his wife was not strictly true, as Valerie Plame did not have the authority to authorize such a trip. However, CIA sources still differ on the extent of Valerie Plame's involvement in her husband's selection.[40]

Cooper testified before a grand jury on 13 July 2005, confirming that Rove was the source who told him Wilson's wife was an employee of the CIA.[41] In the 17 July 2005 Time magazine article detailing his grand jury testimony, Cooper wrote that Rove never used Plame's name nor indicated that she had covert status, although Rove did apparently convey that certain information relating to her was classified: "Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the C.I.A. and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the 'agency' on 'W.M.D.'? Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know. Is any of this a crime? Beats me."[42] Cooper also explained to the grand jury that the "double super secret background" under which Rove spoke to him was not an official White House or Time magazine source or security designation, but an allusion to the 1978 film Animal House, in which a college fraternity is placed under "double secret probation."[43]

Other journalists with early knowledge

Days after Novak's initial column appeared, several other journalists, notably Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, published Plame's name citing unnamed government officials as sources. In his article, titled "A War on Wilson?", Cooper raised the possibility that the White House had "declared war" on Wilson for speaking out against the Bush Administration.[44]

Both NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell and MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews have been mentioned in the press as having early knowledge of the Plame leak, although their conversations with (unnamed) White House officials may have taken place after Novak's article was published.[45] Two Newsday reporters who also confirmed and expanded upon Novak's account, Timothy M. Phelps and Knut Royce, were also mentioned in October 2003 in connection to an ongoing judicial inquiry.[46]

Walter Pincus, a Washington Post columnist, has written that he was told in confidence by an (unnamed) Bush administration official on 12 July 2003, two days before Novak's column appeared, that "the White House had not paid attention to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s CIA-sponsored February 2002 trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction."[47] Because he did not believe it to be true, Pincus did not report the story.

Air Force One memo

In late July and early August, 2005, a great deal of attention began to be paid to a classified State Department memorandum which may have been the original source of the leaked suggestion regarding Plame, and may help to identify those who were in a position to have and therefore to leak Plame's identity.

According to reports in the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post, the three page memo was originally dated June 10, 2003 and addressed to Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, who had asked to be briefed on the history of opposition by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) to the White House's position that Saddam Hussein was attempting to obtain uranium from Africa. It was a summary of the notes (included with the memo) taken by an unnamed senior analyst, of a meeting at the CIA on February 19, 2002 where Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger was discussed.

The memo mainly shows that the State Department had already decided on the basis of other evidence, detailed in the memo, that Iraq was not in fact seeking to acquire uranium from Niger, and therefore opposed Wilson's trip as unnecessary. However, two sentences of background information in the second paragraph mention Wilson's wife, identifying her as "Valerie Wilson", and speculate that it was she "who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue". Although she is not explicitly identified as a covert agent, the paragraph naming her was marked with an (S) [48], the prescribed way to indicate in a U.S. classified document that a paragraph is classified at the "secret" level. [49] Anyone with a U.S. security clearance is expected to be familiar with this notation. This could make leaking her identity based on this document a federal crime under several statutes, punishable by up to ten years imprisonment.

According to the Post, on July 6, 2003, shortly after Wilson had written in the New York Times and the Post and appeared on Meet the Press criticizing the Bush administration's statements regarding Saddam's attempts to acquire yellowcake, Secretary of State Colin Powell had asked Carl W. Ford Jr., at that time director of INR, to explain Wilson's statements. Ford readdressed the memo to Powell, who received it on July 7, 2003 as he was about to leave for Africa aboard Air Force One with President Bush, White House senior adviser Dan Bartlett, then White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, and others. The memo was passed around on the plane and discussed. The Post's sources report that Ford described the details of the memo in 2004 for the grand jury investigating the leak.

One week later, on July 14, 2003, Robert Novak stated in his column that it was Plame's idea to send Wilson to Niger, in the process exposing her as a CIA agent, which launched the controversy and eventually an investigation regarding the source of the information. Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, who received the leak later than Novak, stated that it was given to him by Karl Rove and confirmed by Scooter Libby. According to Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, Rove has stated that he had not seen the memo until it was given to him by prosecutors investigating the leak, and that he learned of Plame from Novak. Novak has written that he got his information from "another journalist", unnamed, and that for confirmation of Plame's role he called two administration officials as well as CIA spokesman Bill Harlow, who advised him not to mention Plame by name; but he dismissed Harlow's advice because "once it was determined that Wilson's wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as 'Valerie Plame' by reading her husband's entry in 'Who's Who in America.' "

Pincus' description of the contents of the memo was cited as support by anti-Bush bloggers who claim that someone in the administration's inner circle was responsible for the leak[50], [51], and who falsely state that, to date, it is the only known document even tentatively linking Plame to the suggestion that Wilson be sent to Niger (aside from a separate statement of "additional views" filed by three Republican senators in connection with the Senate investigation into prewar intelligence on Iraq, which was not written until 2004); which they claim is the precise information leaked to Novak, Cooper, and the Post's Walter Pincus in order to discount Wilson's qualifications. In their partisan view this is consistent with the memo as the source of the leaked exposure of Plame via someone who was on that flight of Air Force One, which is claimed by them as confirming that the information was known to be secret.

Of course, regardless of the anti-Bush bloggers' partisan views, the fact that the contents of the memo is "consistent with" it being the source of the leak does not exclude the possibility that the source of the leak was actually the earlier June 10 State Department memo, the notes of the meeting with the CIA by the unnamed senior State Department analyst, the analyst and other attendees at that meeting, or the persons at CIA involved with arranging Wilson's Niger trip, rather than someone in the administration's inner circle who read the later memo aboard Air Force One.

Reactions to the controversy

White House reactions

In the beginning the White House called the allegation that Rove disclosed classified information "totally ridiculous" and "simply not true," and stated that "if anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."[52] Once the source was disclosed, the White House refused to comment and stated that they would fire anyone convicted of criminal activity. Critics find an intent to protect Mr. Rove in the new specificity, while supporters indicate say that was what was meant all along.

On September 30, 2003, Mr. Bush said " And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of." Followed by, "I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."[53]

President George W. Bush, who has repeatedly denied knowing the identity of the leaker, called the leak a "criminal action" for the first time on 6 October 2003, stating "[i]f anybody has got any information inside our government or outside our government who leaked, you ought to take it to the Justice Department so we can find the leaker."[54][55] Speaking to a crowd of journalists the following day, Bush said "I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is -- partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers."[56]

On 8 October 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that "no one has more of an interest in getting to the bottom of this than the White House does, than the President does."[57]

On 10 October 2003, after the Justice Department began its formal investigation into the leak, McClellan specifically said that neither Rove nor two other officials whom he had personally questioned – Elliott Abrams, a national security aide, and I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff – were involved and that anyone who was involved in leaking classified information would be fired. [58]

On 10 June 2004, eight months after the formal outside investigation was begun and five months after the appointment of an Independent Counsel, President Bush was asked by a reporter, "Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, suggesting that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name? ... And do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?" The President responded, "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts."[59]

On 11 July 2005, White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who had since become a grand jury witness himself, refused at a press conference to answer dozens of questions, repeatedly stating that the Bush Administration had made a decision not to comment on an "ongoing criminal investigation" involving White House staff.[60] McClellan declined to answer whether Rove had committed a crime. McClellan also declined to repeat prior categorical denials of Rove's involvement in the leak,[61] nor would he state whether Bush would honor his prior promise to fire individuals involved in the leak.[62][63][64] Although Democratic critics called for Rove's dismissal, or at the very least immediate suspension of Rove's security clearances and access to meetings in which classified material was under discussion, Rove remained working in the White House.

Neither Rove nor the President offered immediate public comment on the unfolding scandal.[65][66][67][68][69] Although some elected Republicans remained silent on the issue of the Valerie Plame leak and a White House compromise of national security, as of 18 July 2005, not a single elected Republican member of Congress had called for Rove to be disciplined or impeached. Rove was vociferously defended by Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman and by many conservative news outlets and commentators, some of whom followed cues laid out in a "talking points" memo, circulated among Republicans on Capitol Hill, which questioned Joseph Wilson's credibility.[70] Among others, David Brooks, conservative New York Times editorialist and NPR commentator, attacked Wilson on 14 July 2005 by falsely alleging that he had claimed Cheney sent him on the Niger mission, and that in speaking to Cooper and others, Rove was merely correcting a reporter's misconception.[71] In an even more extreme example of partisanship, the Editorial Board of The Wall Street Journal praised Rove on 13 July 2005 for leaking Plame's identity, referring to him as a "whistleblower."[72]

On 18 July 2005, after having brushed off similar questions about the Rove scandal for nearly a week, President Bush stated that "[i]f someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."[73] This was widely interpreted as a retraction of multiple earlier promises to fire anyone involved in the leak itself. Others counter this view by relying on the one previous mention of illegality, the September 30, 2003 remarks, to suggest that criminality was a pre-requisite all along. Many news outlets speculated that Rove's (future) legal defense might be built upon testimony that he was ignorant of Plame's protected status at the time he outed her as a CIA employee; if it could be proven that he had heard of her CIA covert status before speaking to journalists, however, Rove could face far more serious charges. A New York Times story of 16 July 2005 suggested that the Independent Counsel grand jury has questioned whether a particular top secret State Department report naming Plame may have been the source of Rove's information.[74]. Colin Powell was photographed carrying the report in Africa in the company of the President in the days following the 6 July 2003 publication of Wilson's Op-Ed piece. Powell is reported to have testified before the grand jury.

White House Chief of Staff, Andrew Card was informed by then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales around 8:00 PM on September 29, 2003, that the Department of Justice was beginning an investigation of the Plame affair, and that the next morning, Gonzalez would order the White House staff to preserve all documents which may be related to the case. Gonzalez has stated that he did not send the order to the staff because of the lateness of the hour, but speculation has suggested that he notified Card in order to give him a twelve hour head start before destruction of any incriminating documents would be prohibited.[75] This was unusual, according to the Washington Post, since the White House Staff is usually quickly notified of any investigations so as to safeguard the integrity of any documents, emails or memoranda that might be required for the investigation.[76]

Congressional reactions

On July 15, 2005, 91 members of Congress signed a letter calling for Karl Rove to explain his role in the Plame affair, or to resign; 13 Democratic Members of the House Judiciary Committee have called for hearings on the matter. [77]

A Resolution of Inquiry has been offered by Rush Holt (D-NJ) and John Conyers (D-MI), requesting that the Bush Administration release all documents concerning the exposure of Ms. Plame.

Barney Frank (D-MA) and John Conyers (D-MI) have authorized the Library of Congress to research legal precedent for the impeachment of White House staffers. [78]

A series of nationwide town hall meetings has been scheduled for July 23 to review the Downing Street memo, the Plame affair, (sometimes called 'Rovegate'), and the sitaution in Iraq. [79].

As of 22 July 2005, no Republican member of Congress had publically voiced concern about a breach in national security, nor the continuing role of Karl Rove in the Bush Administration. As of 22 July 2005, not a single Republican member of the House of Representatives or Senate had called for Rove to be fired, impeached, disciplined, or even questioned about his reasons for leaking a CIA operative's identity.

Reactions of former CIA officers

On 20 July 2005, eleven former CIA officers backed Valerie Plame in a 3-page statement and characterized the leak of her covert status as damaging "national security and threaten[ing] the ability of U.S. intelligence gathering." [80]

"Intelligence officers should not be used as political footballs," the 11 said. "In the case of Valerie Plame, she still works for the CIA and is not in a position to publicly defend her reputation and honor."

Former DCI George Tenet told a Senator that he was "furious" with the Bush Administration about the leak in 2003.[81] And Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA colleague of Plame, heavily criticized the Bush Administration's handling of the leak: "This is wrong and this is shameful. Instead of a president concerned first and foremost with protecting this country and the intelligence officers who serve it, we are confronted with a president who is willing to sit by while political operatives savage the reputations of good Americans like Valerie and Joe Wilson."[82]

On 22 July 2005, Johnson,[83] along with former CIA case officers David MacMichael and James Marcinkowski[84], former senior CIA analyst Mel Goodman, and retired Army colonel and DIA officer Patrick Lang,[85] testified at a Senate Hearing on the consequences of the leak.

Lang emphasized his view that the Bush Administration's action in leaking Plame's identity had threatened vital national security interests over the long term, by sending the message to potential assets around the world that their identity will not be protected if they work with the CIA. "This says to them that if you decide to cooperate, someone will give you up, so you don't do it," he said. "They are not going to trust you in any way."[86]

Public opinion

In a scientific poll conducted July 13-17, 2005 by ABC News, a plurality (47%) of people surveyed said the White House is not cooperating fully with the ongoing investigation; the remainder either had no opinion (28%) or thought the White House was fully cooperating (25%).[87]. According to the poll, "75 percent say Rove should lose his job if the investigation finds he leaked classified information. That includes sizable majorities of Republicans, independents and Democrats alike — 71, 74 and 83 percent, respectively." ibid

Critics of the Bush administration allege that this episode, together with the outing of undercover source Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan which prematurely terminated an ongoing operation, demonstrates the low priority of national security in the Bush White House relative to political gain, or even just revenge for political damage.[88]

The movement to impeach George Bush has seized on the charges surrounding Rove and Scooter Libby, and their possible connections to other decisions involving the decision to invade Iraq, as part of their case for demanding an inquiry which would lead to impeachment.

There are many questions surrounding the allegations of illegality by Karl Rove, Lewis Libby, and perhaps other administration officials. These officials are potentially vulnerable under a number of federal laws relating to disclosure of Plame's identity along with laws against perjury, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice.

Intelligence Identities Protection Act

Much of the media attention has focused on whether one or more senior officials violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 USC 421-426). See Intelligence Identities Protection Act for the full text of this act.). However, proving a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act involves several elements which may be difficult to establish in this case.

In order to violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, one must expose the identity of a "covert agent." To be considered a covert agent, one must be "serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States." § 426(4)(a)(ii). (See [[89]] and [[90]] for the definition of covert agent.) Whether Valerie Plame travelled outside the US is not known (as of Aug. 1, 2005).

In his book The Politics of Truth, Joe Wilson wrote that he and Plame, his then future wife, both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Wilson's book indicates neither he nor Plame was again stationed overseas. Novak's article was published more than 6 years later. [91] Neither Wilson nor Plame will say whether she was stationed overseas since 1997, but Wilson responded to a reporter's question that "the CIA obviously believes there was reason to believe a crime had been committed" because it referred the case to the Justice Department.[92], implying that she may have travelled overseas undercover. Many former CIA agents and other former government officials argue that regardless of whether she went overseas in the required time period, her "outing" as an intelligence official harmed national security by compromising the front company and every other CIA employee using that front, moreover the disclosure sends a message to potential CIA agents and assets around the globe that the CIA could not guarantee that their identity would be protected if they chose to work undercover for the Agency or in cooperation with it.

In order for one to be protected by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, it must be proven that the U.S. government "is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States." Republicans have argued, in their talking points on the issue, that if Plame worked at CIA's headquarters it could show that the CIA was not taking the required "affirmative measures." Former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson has strongly disagreed, pointing out that Plame worked for a CIA front corporation created and maintained taxpayer's expense, which would constitute an affirmative measure to conceal her covert employment. Johnson and ten other former CIA and DIA officers and analysts wrote a letter disputing the Republican's argument, saying:

"These comments reveal an astonishing ignorance of the intelligence community and the role of cover. The fact is that there are thousands of U.S. intelligence officers who 'work at a desk' in the Washington, D.C. area every day who are undercover. Some have official cover, and some have non-official cover. Both classes of cover must and should be protected." Source:[93]

Johnson argues that the debate over the legality of the leak functions as a red herring, distracting the public from the direct harms to national security caused by the leak. "What is so despicable about all of this is that the conservative movement," he writes, "is now serving as apologists for political operatives who have destroyed an intelligence network and at least one case officer's distinguished career. The new standard for the Republican National Committee--Karl Rove didn't commit a crime. Boy, there's a slogan to run on, 'At Least I Wasn't Indicted'."[94]

On March 23, 2005, 36 news organizations, including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AP, Newsweek, Reuters America, the Washington Post and the Tribune Company, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington.[95] In this brief these news orgainizations contend that there is "serious doubt" that there was a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act since Valerie Plame's didn't meet the criteria of a "covert" agent and her status as a CIA agent was known to both the Russian and Cuban intelligence operations prior to the Novak article.

Supporters of Rove, including many Republicans, assert that he has testified truthfully, and interpret the law to favor Rove's account of ignorance as to Plame's specific CIA status.

Espionage Act

There is precedent for prosecuting a leak under the Espionage Act. In United States v. Morison, Morison was convicted of espionage for leaking classified surveillance photos of a Soviet aircraft carrier to Jane's Defence Weekly. The court specifically found that there in no need under this law to show any "evil purpose." Morison unsuccessfully argued that he was trying to help the media avoid incorrect reporting on an alleged Soviet military buildup. [96]

In 2003, Sandy Berger, former Clinton administration National Security Advisor, removed classified documents from a National Archives reading room to prepare for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Even though no classified information leaked as a result, he plead guilty to violating the Espionage Act in mishandling the documents and his security clearance was suspended for 3 years.

United States Code Title 18, Section 641

According to John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist and former presidential counsel, Rove is likely to have violated Title 18, Section 641 of the United States Code, which prohibits the theft or conversion of government records for non-governmental use. In 2003, this law was successfully used to convict John Randel, a Drug Enforcement Agency analyst, for leaking files on a contributor to American and British conservative causes to London media. The files related to investigations into drug trafficking and money laundering in Belize and included the name of a DEA agent (Lord Ashcroft). In a statement to Randel, United States District Court Judge Richard Story wrote, "Anything that would affect the security of officers and of the operations of the agency would be of tremendous concern, I think, to any law-abiding citizen in this country." Because Randel pleaded guilty, his sentence was reduced from 500 years in a federal prison, to a year of imprisonment and three years of probation.[97]

This may be seen as setting precedent for the prosecution of similar leaks, and Karl Rove is likely to face greater consequences than Randel if indicted for violating Section 641. Whereas Randel leaked sensitive information about a DEA agent, unlikely to affect the national security of the United States, Rove leaked the identity of a CIA agent, an expert on weapons of mass destruction, during a time when the United States was considering war based on a potential threat to its security from such weapons.

Morison was also convicted of breaking this law, as the court found that an intangible (classified information) can be covered by the law, even where First Amendment issues may be implicated. In 2002, the Bush administration also used this law to convict Jonathan Randel for leaking to the media non-classified information about the Drug Enforcement Administration

John Dean has also argued that federal conspiracy and fraud statutes may apply in this case. "If two federal government employees agree to undertake actions that are not within the scope of their employment," he argues, "they can be found guilty of defrauding the U.S. by depriving it of the 'faithful and honest services of its employee.'"

18 USC 372

Dean and other observers have noted that the the Federal Conspiracy statues are quite broad, and include:

If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.

Which means that if any agreement was made to disclose any information which would have hindered any agent of the CIA, not merely Valery Plame, or any other government official, from performng their duty, or injuring such an officer for having done their duty - then felony charges of conspiracy can be brought.

The Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement

Cooper's thus far unrefuted testimony suggests Rove violated the "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement" (Form SF-312 [98]), which he signed as a condition of employment. However, no charges have been filed against Rove in relation to Form SF-312, and no evidence has yet been presented that implicates that Rove committed any crime related to Form SF-312.

SF-312 prohibits confirming or repeating classified information to unauthorized individuals, even if that information is already leaked. SF-312 is a vehicle for federal employee compliance with Executive Order 13292. Executive orders are not laws, but violation typically results in dismissal. Relevant passages of the agreement read,

I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation.
...
I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or the termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, * the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.

In addition, the briefing booklet distributed with that form states,

Before confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.[99]

Other laws and precedents

The Los Angeles Times reports that Rove pursued Wilson so aggressively because "He's a Democrat." Although it is not at all clear whether Joseph Wilson is protected by federal civil service laws, notably the post-Watergate Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, retaliation against an employee based upon political affiliation is generally illegal. [100]

If Plame's identity as a CIA employee was in fact classified -- and a CIA criminal referral combined with a long running grand jury investigation would suggest so -- then failure to protect classified information, criminal or not, is often grounds for the revocation of one's security clearance.

Actual damage caused

While the breaking of Valerie Plame's cover as a NOC operative of the CIA may be regarded as serious in and of itself, there has been debate over the damage caused by the leak, and the areas into which that damange may extend, particularly in relation to Plame's work with her cover company, Brewster Jennings & Associates. Legal filings by Independent Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald contain many pages blanked out for security reasons, leading some observers to speculate that Fitzgerald has pursued the extent to which national security was compromised by the actions of Rove and others. On 18 July 2005, The Economist reported that Valerie Plame had been dissuaded by the CIA from publishing her own account of her exposure, suggesting that such an article would itself be a breach of national security. The Economist also reported that "affirmative measures" by the CIA were being taken to protect Plame's identity at the time Rove revealed her CIA affiliation to journalists.[101]

Unnamed CIA officials maintain that Novak was asked not to publish Plame's name "for security reasons." However, Novak has stated that prior to naming Plame in his column, a CIA official informed him only that "if her name was printed, it might be difficult if she was traveling abroad," and that "they said they would prefer I didn't use her name." Novak considered this to be a "very weak request," adding that "if it was put on a stronger basis, I would have considered it." [102]

On 14 July 2005 Mike McCurry, White House press secretary to President Clinton, described Rove's role in the entire affair: "a two-minute call such as the one now reported is basically to get the signals straight -- green, yellow, red." McCurry continues, "Rove seems to have been telling Cooper that the yellowcake story was a flashing yellow and [Cooper] needed to be cautious. {...} Unless conversations go well beyond what has been reported, there has to be some other explanation for the zeal with which this investigation is being pursued. Something consequential must have happened because of this leak that we have not yet read about. That's about all I can imagine, because otherwise the whole thing -- leak, story, investigation -- seems a little disproportionate. Maybe a major intelligence operation got botched. Or someone took a real hit somewhere in the world as a result." [103]

Saudi conspiracy interpretation

While a preponderance of evidence to date appears to suggest that Wilson's public contradiction of the Bush Administration claim (that Iraq had attempted to obtain enriched uranium) was the motive for the alleged leak, another explanation holds that the leak was in retaliation for, or to sabotage a possible investigation[104] by Plame into whether the Saudi oil fields had passed their peak of productivity. In this view, the leak was an attempt to block the CIA from informing the Bush Administration of the peak oil problem.

References

[http://www.citizenspook.blogspot.com/TREASONGATE: The Controlling Law-Big Trouble For The White House Staff

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plame_affair&oldid=21046127"