Karl Rove possibly tried for perjury?

Page 33 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

irwincur

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2002
1,899
0
0
Huh, I am still wondering what he did wrong.

He did not name her.

He did not call the reporter and was tricked into even discussing it.

He technically did nothing illegal as she was never an undercover agent.


So, what is the problem. If anything, it looks like a well planned media hit on Rove. The reporter tricked him into even mentioning the subject. Rove told the reporter that the story was probably not good as Wilson was about to be caught lying to Congss about it. The NYT still has a secret source that really revealed the name, as well as most likely played a large role in getting Wilson's false report published.

Pretty clear that this was nothing more than a media hit.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
The law doesn't require a criminal to use a name. Only to use identifying information. Stop being ridiculous.

Rove was tricked into discussing it? Stop being ridiculous.

The law forbids revealing identities of former agents as naming them jeopardizes all of their contacts expressly to prevent situations just like this.

The problem is we have a traitor in the White House and a White House that doesn't care. In the context of the larger story, IRAQ, this doesn't surprise me.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Note to Bushies;

The talking points aren't working. They're too ridiculous for even Americans to believe.

Poll suggests drop in Bush's personal credibility

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush's personal credibility appears to be eroding at a time when Iraq has become the top public priority and the White House is engulfed in controversy over senior Bush adviser Karl Rove, a poll released on Wednesday suggested. The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed the percentage of Americans who believe Bush is 'honest and straightforward' fell to 41 percent from 50 percent in January, while those who say they doubt his veracity climbed to 45 percent from 36 percent.
 

irwincur

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2002
1,899
0
0
The law doesn't require a criminal to use a name.

Please find me this 'law'. The law also does not protect her in this case. There are only TWO specific conditions that must be met for mentioning the name of a CIA agent to be illegal. Considering he never even mentioned the name (and the NYT got it elsewhere - HENCE THE STILL JAILED REPORTER) Rove is totally in the clear.

Rove was tricked into discussing it? Stop being ridiculous.

He was called to discuss WELFARE REFORM. Don't know where the CIA and welfare come together but at some point the reporter change the subject. The entire call (which the reporter made) was very curious.

The law forbids revealing identities of former agents as naming them jeopardizes all of their contacts expressly to prevent situations just like this.

Once again find this 'law'. It prevents the naming of under cover agents, only when they are under cover and using an alias. There are thousands of non undercover agents at the CIA that have been mentioned by name in the past, by the media.

The problem is we have a traitor in the White House and a White House that doesn't care. In the context of the larger story, IRAQ, this doesn't surprise me.

The problem is, the NYT has actively worked to undermine the presidency and the government of the USA. They are still sitting on an explosive witness which may provide the Grand Jury with enough evidence to endict the reporters and the NYT editors - not Rove. Rove has nothing to worry about here at all.

Your liberal media it seems tried just a bit too hard this time. From publishing a false report, to revealing her name - from a non Rove source, to protecting their course that actually did break the law.

The was a media hit, nothing more, and it FAILED.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
d00d

This thread is now 41 pages long. It's already been posted. You go back and find it.

If there was no crime committed, why do judges and prosecutors handling this investigation keep referring to the serious threat against national security?

Stop being ridiculous. Even you can't believe the "liberal media did it" rant nonsense you're posting. Did the "liberal media" request the grand jury investigation? Uh, no, that would be the CIA. A true bastion of "liberalism" there.

:roll:
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Talking points....schmalking points.

Bloomberg Article

Wilson's Iraq Assertions Hold Up Under Fire From Rove Backers

July 14 (Bloomberg) -- Two-year old assertions by former ambassador Joseph Wilson regarding Iraq and uranium, which lie at the heart of the controversy over who at the White House identified a covert U.S. operative, have held up in the face of attacks by supporters of presidential adviser Karl Rove.

Rove is a subject of a special prosecutor's investigation into how the name of the agent, who is Wilson's wife, was leaked to journalists. There has been no evidence made public that Rove identified the agent to reporters. Rove's allies are arguing that he was in fact trying to steer journalists away from taking too seriously Wilson's criticism of President George W. Bush's reasons for going to war in Iraq in 2003.

The agent, Valerie Plame, was publicly identified July 14, 2003, a week after Wilson wrote an article for the New York Times about an investigative trip he took in 2002 at the behest of the Central Intelligence Agency. Wilson wrote that the administration's claim that Saddam Hussein's regime tried to buy uranium in Africa for nuclear weapons was wrong.

The main points of Wilson's article have largely been substantiated by a Senate committee as well as U.S. and United Nations weapons inspectors. A day after Wilson's piece was published, the White House acknowledged that a claim Bush made in his January 2003 state of the union address that Iraq tried to buy ``significant quantities of uranium from Africa'' could not be verified and shouldn't have been included in the speech.

While the administration was justified at the time in being concerned that Hussein was trying to build nuclear weapons, ``on the specifics of this I think Joe Wilson was right,'' said Michael O'Hanlon, a scholar of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

Criticism of Wilson

Republicans are attempting to defend Rove by discrediting Wilson, saying the former ambassador misled the public about why he was sent to Niger and what he found there.

Bush supporters such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich contend that Wilson lied in claiming that Vice President Dick Cheney dispatched him on the mission to Niger. That echoes a Republican National Committee talking-points memo sent to party officials.

Wilson never said that Cheney sent him, only that the vice president's office had questions about an intelligence report that referred to the sale of uranium yellowcake to Iraq from Niger. Wilson, in his New York Times article, said CIA officials were informed of Cheney's questions.

``The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office,'' Wilson wrote.


Senate Report

The ``Wilson/Rove Research & Talking Points'' memo distributed by RNC Director of Television Carolyn Weyforth contends, ``Both the Senate Committee on Intelligence and the CIA found assessments Wilson made in his report were wrong.''

Yet the Senate panel conclusions didn't discredit Wilson. The committee concluded that the Niger intelligence information wasn't solid enough to be included in the State of the Union speech. It added that Wilson's report didn't change the minds of analysts on either side of the issue, while also concluding that an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate ``overstated what the Intelligence Community knew about Iraq's possible procurement attempts.''

Vulnerable

Wilson is vulnerable to some criticisms. The Republican talking points say Wilson has lied about the role his wife played in his trip. In his memoir, ``The Politics of Truth,'' Wilson asserted his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger. ``Valerie had nothing to do with the matter,'' he wrote. ``She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip.''

The Senate Intelligence Committee report states that a CIA official told the panel that Plame ``offered up'' Wilson's name for the Niger trip and later sent a memo to a CIA official saying her husband had good relations with leaders in Niger.

Republicans also dismiss Wilson as a partisan because of his ties to the 2004 presidential campaign of Democrat John Kerry, the four-term U.S. senator from Massachusetts. He advised the Kerry campaign for several months on foreign policy and donated money to his race.

The crux of Wilson's argument in his New York Times article was that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program -- a central part of the Bush administration's justification for invading Iraq -- ``was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.''

Backing Away

Well before Wilson's article was published -- though after Bush's State of the Union address -- administration officials were backing off the contention that Iraq sought nuclear material from Africa.

On Feb. 4, 2003, State Department officials gave the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency information it requested about Iraq's attempts to obtain uranium from Niger. It told the agency that it could not confirm the reports and had questions about specific claims.

The next day, Secretary of State Colin Powell presented evidence, based on U.S. intelligence, about Iraq's prohibited weapons program to the UN Security Council. He didn't mention Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium from Africa.

On March 7, IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei told the UN Security Council that the documents that detailed uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger were ``not authentic'' and ``these specific allegations are unfounded.'' On March 9, Powell acknowledged that the documents were false. The U.S. launched the invasion of Iraq on March 19.

A White House Concession

Finally, in July 2003, after Wilson's piece was published, the White House conceded that the uranium assertion should not have been included in the president's speech. Several administration officials have accepted responsibility for allowing it into the speech, including Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser and now secretary of state; Stephen Hadley, then Rice's deputy and now the national security adviser; and then-CIA Director George Tenet.

In October 2002, as the White House was reviewing drafts of a speech Bush would give in Cincinnati on Oct. 7, the allegation that Iraq sought ``substantial amounts of uranium oxide'' from Africa was removed after Tenet called Hadley to raise doubts about the information. On Oct. 5 and 6, the CIA sent memorandums to the White House expressing concerns about the Niger intelligence and differences on it between the U.S. and British spy agencies.

Novak's Column

Plame's identity was first revealed July 14, 2003, by syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who cited two unidentified administration officials as his sources for the information.

Knowingly disclosing the identity of a covert agent is a federal crime, and that is the subject of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation. Part of that probe is seeking information about confidential sources from reporters.

Rove's name surfaced in a July 11, 2003, e-mail from a Time magazine reporter to his editor that was disclosed this week by Newsweek magazine. The memo says Rove gave a ``big warning'' about pursuing Wilson's claims and said it was ``Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on WMD issues who authorized'' Wilson's trip to Niger, according to Newsweek.

Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, said yesterday that Rove has done ``nothing to expose him to any legal liability.''

Cha-CHING!!

Finally someone in the MSM is catching on to the truth!
 

daveymark

Lifer
Sep 15, 2003
10,576
1
0
can someone please provide proof that Valerie Plame was working as a covert operative when this all happened?
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: daveymark
can someone please provide proof that Valerie Plame was working as a covert operative when this all happened?

Don't you people get it? I know you do so stop playing dumb.

From the link above.

Broadly speaking, covert agents (and their informants) fall under the State Secrets privilege. A federal statute requires that "the Director of Central Intelligence shall be responsible for protecting intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure." It is not, in other words, an option for the CIA to decide to reveal an agent's activities.

And of course, there's are many good reasons for this - relating not only to the agent, but also to national security. As CIA Director Turner explained in a lawsuit in 1982, shortly after the Intelligence Identities Act became law, "In the case of persons acting in the employ of CIA, once their identity is discerned further damage will likely result from the exposure of other intelligence collection efforts for which they were used."
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: BBond
d00d

This thread is now 41 pages long. It's already been posted. You go back and find it.

If there was no crime committed, why do judges and prosecutors handling this investigation keep referring to the serious threat against national security?

Stop being ridiculous. Even you can't believe the "liberal media did it" rant nonsense you're posting. Did the "liberal media" request the grand jury investigation? Uh, no, that would be the CIA. A true bastion of "liberalism" there.

:roll:
Irwin's just making up crap again. Ignore him and use the time saved for something productive.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: BBond
d00d

This thread is now 41 pages long. It's already been posted. You go back and find it.

If there was no crime committed, why do judges and prosecutors handling this investigation keep referring to the serious threat against national security?

Stop being ridiculous. Even you can't believe the "liberal media did it" rant nonsense you're posting. Did the "liberal media" request the grand jury investigation? Uh, no, that would be the CIA. A true bastion of "liberalism" there.

:roll:
Irwin's just making up crap again. Ignore him and use the time saved for something productive.

Hell, picking toejam off my feet would be more productive than dealing with Irwin's posts.
 

daveymark

Lifer
Sep 15, 2003
10,576
1
0
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: daveymark
can someone please provide proof that Valerie Plame was working as a covert operative when this all happened?

Don't you people get it? I know you do so stop playing dumb.

From the link above.

Broadly speaking, covert agents (and their informants) fall under the State Secrets privilege. A federal statute requires that "the Director of Central Intelligence shall be responsible for protecting intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure." It is not, in other words, an option for the CIA to decide to reveal an agent's activities.

And of course, there's are many good reasons for this - relating not only to the agent, but also to national security. As CIA Director Turner explained in a lawsuit in 1982, shortly after the Intelligence Identities Act became law, "In the case of persons acting in the employ of CIA, once their identity is discerned further damage will likely result from the exposure of other intelligence collection efforts for which they were used."

again, I ask:

can someone please provide proof that Valerie Plame was working as a covert operative when this all happened?

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: daveymark
can someone please provide proof that Valerie Plame was working as a covert operative when this all happened?
Yep. I just checked my World Directory of Secret Agents - 2003 Edition and there she is. You're welcome. :roll:

This has only been pointed out a dozen times already, but the CIA requested the investigation. Why would they do that if they didn't see a possible crime? Use your head instead of your BushCo talking points.



This non-stop bleating of the same brainless, repeatedly discredited BushCo propaganda is appalling. Is there anyone in the Bush camp who has enough integrity to step up and say, "I don't care if it was my party. What Rove did was absolutely wrong (morally, if not technically legally). He must go for the good of the country and the party." Wishful thinking, I know.
 

outriding

Diamond Member
Feb 20, 2002
3,212
2,328
136
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: daveymark
can someone please provide proof that Valerie Plame was working as a covert operative when this all happened?
Yep. I just checked my World Directory of Secret Agents - 2003 Edition and there she is. You're welcome. :roll:

This has only been pointed out a dozen times already, but the CIA requested the investigation. Why would they do that if they didn't see a possible crime? Use your head instead of your BushCo talking points.



This non-stop bleating of the same brainless, repeatedly discredited BushCo propaganda is appalling. Is there anyone in the Bush camp who has enough integrity to step up and say, "I don't care if it was my party. What Rove did was absolutely wrong (morally, if not technically legally). He must go for the good of the country and the party." Wishful thinking, I know.


Wikipedia

Very good read.

I learned alot from that article.

One thing to add is I think it was Genx that brought up that it was her husband that spilled the beans and it was Plames fault for telling her husband that she was a spy. Well guess what from that article Wilson has / had the clearence to know Plame's role in the CIA.

Also it looks like this is not the first time Rove has done this. look at the timline at Jan 2003
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: daveymark
can someone please provide proof that Valerie Plame was working as a covert operative when this all happened?
Yep. I just checked my World Directory of Secret Agents - 2003 Edition and there she is. You're welcome. :roll:

This has only been pointed out a dozen times already, but the CIA requested the investigation. Why would they do that if they didn't see a possible crime? Use your head instead of your BushCo talking points.



This non-stop bleating of the same brainless, repeatedly discredited BushCo propaganda is appalling. Is there anyone in the Bush camp who has enough integrity to step up and say, "I don't care if it was my party. What Rove did was absolutely wrong (morally, if not technically legally). He must go for the good of the country and the party." Wishful thinking, I know.
When the "frog-march Rove" loopers step up to the plate and admit what Wilson did was wrong, including leaking classified information about his trip to Niger to Kristoff, instead of making apology after apology for his actions, maybe you'd get some compromise from the other side. The only problem is that you're just as hard-headed as they are. Move away from your own damn talking points first before pointing the finger at others.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: outriding
One thing to add is I think it was Genx that brought up that it was her husband that spilled the beans and it was Plames fault for telling her husband that she was a spy. Well guess what from that article Wilson has / had the clearence to know Plame's role in the CIA.
No. The Wikipedia entry makes an assumption and doesn't flesh out the entire truth (nor does it footnote where it got it's information on that comment). You do not, simply by benefit of a security level, automatically qualify to know information...particularly the identities of covert operatives. Such information is strictly provided on a need-to-know basis and it's highly unlikely that Wilson had that need-to-know.

Who authorized Plame to out herself to her, at the time, boyfriend?
 

daveymark

Lifer
Sep 15, 2003
10,576
1
0
no one has answered the question. There's no reason to resort to partisan name calling, I just want to get to the bottom of this.

Once more, I ask:

can someone please provide proof that Valerie Plame was working as a covert operative when this all happened?
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: daveymark
can someone please provide proof that Valerie Plame was working as a covert operative when this all happened?

Don't you people get it? I know you do so stop playing dumb.

From the link above.

Broadly speaking, covert agents (and their informants) fall under the State Secrets privilege. A federal statute requires that "the Director of Central Intelligence shall be responsible for protecting intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure." It is not, in other words, an option for the CIA to decide to reveal an agent's activities.

And of course, there's are many good reasons for this - relating not only to the agent, but also to national security. As CIA Director Turner explained in a lawsuit in 1982, shortly after the Intelligence Identities Act became law, "In the case of persons acting in the employ of CIA, once their identity is discerned further damage will likely result from the exposure of other intelligence collection efforts for which they were used."

again, I ask:

can someone please provide proof that Valerie Plame was working as a covert operative when this all happened?

Irwin, read the...

National Security Act of 1947
TITLE VI?PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
PROTECTION OF IDENTITIES OF CERTAIN UNITED STATES UNDERCOVER INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS, AGENTS, INFORMANTS, AND SOURCES
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/laws/iipa.html

TITLE VI?PROTECTION OF CERTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION
PROTECTION OF IDENTITIES OF CERTAIN UNITED STATES UNDERCOVER INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS, AGENTS, INFORMANTS, AND SOURCES
SEC. 601. [50 U.S.C. 421] (a) 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, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(b) Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identity 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, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(c) Whoever, in the course of a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States, discloses any information that identifies an individual as a covert agent to any individual not authorized to receive classified information, knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such individual and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such individual?s classified intelligence relationship to the United States, shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(d) A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.

Daveymark, the CIA doesn't comment on any questions about agents or reply to any FOIAs. The courts have repeatedly upheld their refusal to do so. But a former CIA official verified her status after her cover was blown in this Time Magazine article reprinted in full here.

Some Bush partisans have suggested that the outing of Plame is no big deal, that she was "just an analyst" or maybe, as a G.O.P. Congressman told CNN, "a glorified secretary." But the facts tell otherwise. Plame was, for starters, a former NOC ? that is, a spy with nonofficial cover who worked overseas as a private individual with no apparent connection to the U.S. government. NOCs are among the government's most closely guarded secrets, because they often work for real or fictive private companies overseas and are set loose to spy solo. NOCs are harder to train, more expensive to place and can remain undercover longer than conventional spooks. They can also go places and see people whom those under official cover cannot. They are in some ways the most vulnerable of all clandestine officers, since they have no claim to diplomatic immunity if they get caught.

Plame worked as a spy internationally in more than one role. Fred Rustmann, a former CIA official who put in 24 years as a spymaster and was Plame's boss for a few years, says Plame worked under official cover in Europe in the early 1990s ? say, as a U.S. embassy attache ? before switching to nonofficial cover a few years later. Mostly Plame posed as a business analyst or a student in what Rustmann describes as a "nice European city." Plame was never a so-called deep-cover NOC, he said, meaning the agency did not create a complex cover story about her education, background, job, personal life and even hobbies and habits that would stand up to intense scrutiny by foreign governments. "[NOCs] are on corporate rolls, and if anybody calls the corporation, the secretary says, 'Yeah, he works for us,'" says Rustmann. "The degree of backstopping to a NOC's cover is a very good indication of how deep that cover really is."

Stop the nonsense. No one is falling for this one. Rove is as guilty as hell and there is at least one other high administration official who is as guilty as Rove is.

Keep tap dancing though. It's fun to watch. All in anticipation of the agony you people are about to endure.

This is going to be better than Watergate.



 

daveymark

Lifer
Sep 15, 2003
10,576
1
0
BBond, thanks for the info, but I was looking for info stating that Valerie Plame was an undercover operative when this all happened, i.e., in 2003. The article you linked talks about her status in the early 1990's.

in fact, from the same article:

Rustmann describes Plame as an "exceptional officer" but says her ability to remain under cover was jeopardized by her marriage in 1998 to the higher-profile American diplomat.

So, at the very latest, questionably 1998 is the last known time she was undercover.

Regardless, I still haven't found any information about her role in the CIA in 2003.

I'd like to know more about her status in 2003, when this all happened.

Does anyone have any substantial proof?

Initially, I'm as quick to convict as the next guy, but in the back of my mind I would hope the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing is still something worth saying.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: daveymark
no one has answered the question. There's no reason to resort to partisan name calling, I just want to get to the bottom of this.

Once more, I ask:

can someone please provide proof that Valerie Plame was working as a covert operative when this all happened?
Despite all the tap-dancing from some about it, the plain answer is an emphatic - No.

According to the requirements of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, Plame does not qualify as a covert agent because she has been back in Washington since 1997 and has not returned overseas in any official capacity with the CIA. In order to qualify as a covert agent, she has to have been in a foreign country in a covert capcity within the last 5 years. She has not.

She was once a NOC long ago. She is not now and was not at the time the Novak article came out.

 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
She only had to be an agent within the past five years. The law also covers former agents to avoid revealing their former contacts.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: BBond
She only had to be an agent within the past five years. The law also covers former agents to avoid revealing their former contacts.

Shh, they don't like facts. Just talking-points.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: BBond
She only had to be an agent within the past five years. The law also covers former agents to avoid revealing their former contacts.

Shh, they don't like facts. Just talking-points.
Who doesn't like facts? You?

Here's the facts:

For the purposes of this subchapter:

(1) The term ?classified information? means information or material designated and clearly marked or clearly represented, pursuant to the provisions of a statute or Executive order (or a regulation or order issued pursuant to a statute or Executive order), as requiring a specific degree of protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national security.
(2) The term ?authorized?, when used with respect to access to classified information, means having authority, right, or permission pursuant to the provisions of a statute, Executive order, directive of the head of any department or agency engaged in foreign intelligence or counterintelligence activities, order of any United States court, or provisions of any Rule of the House of Representatives or resolution of the Senate which assigns responsibility within the respective House of Congress for the oversight of intelligence activities.
(3) The term ?disclose? means to communicate, provide, impart, transmit, transfer, convey, publish, or otherwise make available.
(4) The term ?covert agent? means?
(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency?
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or
(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and?
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

(5) The term ?intelligence agency? means the Central Intelligence Agency, a foreign intelligence component of the Department of Defense, or the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(6) The term ?informant? means any individual who furnishes information to an intelligence agency in the course of a confidential relationship protecting the identity of such individual from public disclosure.
(7) The terms ?officer? and ?employee? have the meanings given such terms by section 2104 and 2105, respectively, of title 5.
(8) The term ?Armed Forces? means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.
(9) The term ?United States?, when used in a geographic sense, means all areas under the territorial sovereignty of the United States and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
(10) The term ?pattern of activities? requires a series of acts with a common purpose or objective
Plame doesn't qualify under any of those definitions.
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
Oh what the hell, I'll post...

Firstly, this sounds exactly like something Rove would do. Even if he's not guilty, he looks guilty so he's toast. (BTW I think he's guilty, and if he's found guilty needs to be punished, as he should be held to a higher standard as a public servant)

Secondly, the damage done IMHO is minimal, diplomats, State Dept staff etc and their families are pretty much assumed to be connected to the CIA.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |