Rove's Security Clearance Widely Questioned

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Imagine that. The President's top advisor with top security clearance. Get over it, libbies. That's the way it has been for decades.

Talk about grasping at straws. Hopefully you don't choke...

So what about this administration won't you defend? If Bush eats a fetus on TV, will you somehow claim that liberals are worse for supporting abortion?

Christ guys, security clearances are a serious issue. First, you had Gannon and his press pass, which shouldn't have been given because of his fake name. Now you have Rove talking about confidential info and you're passing it off like, "oh yea, he should be able to talk about anything, the president picked him, yAHHHH"

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Imagine that. The President's top advisor with top security clearance. Get over it, libbies. That's the way it has been for decades.

Talk about grasping at straws. Hopefully you don't choke...

You're missing the point: There's mounting pressure to strip Rove of his security clearance. That would be tantamount to firing Rove (or getting him to resign).

So the realistic future we libbies are looking toward is a White House without Rove, not a White House WITH an uncleared Rove.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: maluckey
If this incident had merit, Rove would have already lost his clearance until they could investigate the matter.

This would probably be true for most cleared people. But the news article seems to be saying that the White House has ultimate authority to grant or revoke Rove's clearance.

Another consideration: We all know that Washington could not survive without selective leaking of information (classified and otherwise). The question in this case is whether the leak is of a nature - and for a purpose - that cannot be justified by the normal (unstated) rules operating in Washington.

I personally believe that Plame's outing was not the intent of Libby, Rove, et al. My belief is that their purpose was to discredit Wilson's credentials (and therefore the weight of his argument against the Administration's claims about the status and intent of the Iraqi nuclear program), and that they attempted to do this by implying that nepotism was the only reason he got his Niger assignment. Unfortunately for Libby and Rove, who thought they were engaging in business as usual ("Destroy all who oppose us"), Plame's CIA-agent status rendered their tactics off-limits. They just didn't have the wisdom to know what ground should not be tread.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: zendari
What crime has Rove committed in misusing his security clearance?

Doh! Could it be disclosing the identity of a covert CIA operative? :roll:

And before you open your mouth to change feet, if you try to say her identity wasn't classified, you're going to have to argue that point with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. His indictment of Libby explicitly states:

INDICTMENT

COUNT ONE (Obstruction of Justice)

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:

1. At times material to this indictment:
.
.
f. Joseph Wilson was married to Valerie Plame Wilson ("Valerie Wilson"). At all relevant times from January 1, 2002 through July 2003, Valerie Wilson was employed by the CIA, and her employment status was classified.

And before you embarrass yourself by trying to claim others knew about her work, the same paragraph in the indictment continues:

Prior to July 14, 2003, Valerie Wilson's affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community.

Rove has already admitted he did it. The only question is whether Fitzgerald as enough evidence to charge him with a criminal offenses he will be charged with a criminal offense. In any case, Rove has already proven he can't be trusted with classified information.

 

[Pabster]

One problem, Harvey. The indictment doesn't charge ANYONE for disclosing Plame's identity. The charges are completely unrelated to the scope of the original investigation.

 

[r0tt3n1]

Originally posted by: Pabster
One problem, Harvey. The indictment doesn't charge ANYONE for disclosing Plame's identity. The charges are completely unrelated to the scope of the original investigation.

Uhhh, maybe because Libby is likely to have lied to the Federal Prosecutor? Therefor no charges can be made concerning the outing yet because the prosecutor cant get truthful information about the situation? hmmmmmm

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Pabster
One problem, Harvey. The indictment doesn't charge ANYONE for disclosing Plame's identity. The charges are completely unrelated to the scope of the original investigation.

That's not a problem with respect to the subject of this thread.

Mishandling of classified information (which includes leaving safes unlocked, leaving classified documents unprotected, bringing classified work home, revealing classified information to uncleared persons, etc.) is NOT generally criminal. A prosecutor must be able to show criminal intent in order to prove that a crime was committed.

But mishandling of classified material DEFINITELY is grounds for having one's clearance revoked. And that's what this thread is all about.

And with respect to whether a crime was committed: Fitzgerald wrote in Libby's indictment and stated during the press conference that the obstruction of justice and perjury committed by Libby blocked Fitzgerald's ability to determine whether the crime originally being investigated (revealing the identity of an intelligence agent) had been committed. Prosecutor's DO exhibit disgression, and Fitzgerald could well have chosen not to charge Libby for anything if he (Fitzgerald) strongly believed that there was no underlying crime. But in Libby's case, the signal from Fitzgerald - loud and clear - was that the actual indictments were in lieu of the indictments that might have been made had Libby's perjury and obstruction of justice not occurred. The same may or may not be true for Rove. We'll see.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: r0tt3n1
Uhhh, maybe because Libby is likely to have lied to the Federal Prosecutor? Therefor no charges can be made concerning the outing yet because the prosecutor cant get truthful information about the situation? hmmmmmm

Ah, right, all his 'information' was from Libby

Talk about grasping at straws!

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

exactly, Fitzgerald had dust kicked up in his face, so he couldn't make a fair call about the real charge (outing of a CIA op.). this DOES NOT MEAN NO WRONGDOING OCCURED.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster
One problem, Harvey. The indictment doesn't charge ANYONE for disclosing Plame's identity. The charges are completely unrelated to the scope of the original investigation.

Unrelated??? :roll:

One problem with your small minded and mistaken analysis, Pabster. In his announcement of the indictment, Fitzgerald explicitly stated that Libby's lies and obfuscation were the reason he has not YET been able to determine whether, in leaking her name, anyone violated any specific statue.

Cheney Aide Libby Is Indicted
Rove Spared But Remains Under Scrutiny

By Jim VandeHei and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, October 29, 2005; Page A01

Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, did not charge anyone with the crime he originally set out to investigate nearly two years ago: whether officials illegally disclosed Plame's identity to the news media to discredit her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a harsh critic of the administration's Iraq war policy.

Fitzgerald indicated that he considered it, but that Libby's alleged lies made it difficult to prove the root crime of intentionally unmasking a CIA agent.

You and the rest of the Bushwhacko parrots seem far more interested in distracting attention from, act and minimizing the importance of the act than getting at any underlying truth about the leak or about the lies behind the war, itself. :|

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Harvey
You and the rest of the Bushwhacko parrots seem far more interested in distracting attention from, act and minimizing the importance of the act than getting at any underlying truth about the leak or about the lies behind the war, itself. :|

And you and a select group of others have some rabid fascination with spreading FUD and trying to brainwash people in to believing that Libby was indicted for the outing of a CIA operative, WHICH HE WAS NOT, no matter how you try to spin it.

But facts and evidence are not your strong points.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Harvey
You and the rest of the Bushwhacko parrots seem far more interested in distracting attention from, act and minimizing the importance of the act than getting at any underlying truth about the leak or about the lies behind the war, itself. :|

And you and a select group of others have some rabid fascination with spreading FUD and trying to brainwash people in to believing that Libby was indicted for the outing of a CIA operative, WHICH HE WAS NOT, no matter how you try to spin it.

But facts and evidence are not your strong points.

< Awk > .... Pabster want a cracker? :laugh:

I'm not spinning anything.

• Libby and Rove outed Valerie Plame Wilson's identity. There is no question about this. They have admitted doing so.
  
• Valerie Wilson's identity as a CIA covert was classified. The indictment clearly states that this was confirmed during their two year investigation.
  
• The indictment charges Libby with FIVE FELONIES, all of which involve LYING about his involvement in outing her, and (excuse me for repeating myself), Fitzgerald explicitly stated that Libby's lies and obfuscation were the reason he has not YET been able to determine whether, in leaking her name, anyone violated any specific statue.

That's not spin. That's fact. :|

Now, try to spin that! I challenge you to come up with ANY competent links to any FACTS supporting your lame squawking.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Harvey
I'm not spinning anything.

• Libby and Rove outed Valerie Plame Wilson's identity. There is no question about this. They have admitted doing so.

• 
  
  Links? Evidence? Proof?
  
  

  [*]Valerie Wilson's identity as a CIA covert was classified. The indictment clearly states that this was confirmed during their two year investigation.

  
  And that has absolutely nothing to do with the indictment against Libby.
  
  

  [*]The indictment charges Libby with FIVE FELONIES, all of which involve LYING about his involvement in outing her, and (excuse me for repeating myself), Fitzgerald explicitly stated that Libby's lies and obfuscation were the reason he has not YET been able to determine whether, in leaking her name, anyone violated any specific statue.

That's not spin. That's fact. :|

That's 100% spin. The indictment is for perjury and obstruction of justice with relation to facts presented to the Grand Jury. Your spin about "all of which involve lying about his involvement in outing her" is just that -- spin -- and duly noted.

Now, try to spin that! I challenge you to come up with ANY competent links to any FACTS supporting your lame squawking.

I'll be waiting for your evidence.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster
I'll be waiting for your evidence.

Pabster -- I've included links and quotes with most of my posts that directly prove the points I've made and disprove your prattling rants. You're welcome to review all of them. You may learn something, but I doubt it. :roll:

OTOH, I've repeatedly asked you to provide links to support your views, and all you've EVER done is repeat your own pathetic lies and ask for the same links I already posted. What you haven't EVER done is actually post a link of your own.

As I've said, before, until you can do that, YOU'RE ALL MOUTH AND NO BALLS! :laugh:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Pabster -- I've included links and quotes with most of my posts that directly prove the points I've made and disprove your prattling rants. You're welcome to review all of them. You may learn something, but I doubt it. :roll:

You've posted the same tired old Washington Post stories as always. You still maintain that Libby and Rove have "admitted" to the outing of a CIA operative, which IS NOT TRUE and the mere fact that you keep parroting such nonsense shows your agenda.

OTOH, I've repeatedly asked you to provide links to support your views, and all you've EVER done is repeat your own pathetic lies and ask for the same links I already posted. What you haven't EVER done is actually post a link of your own.

I've provided a link to the indictment, which you have supposedly read. Care to highlight where Rove and Libby admit to the outing of a CIA operative?

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Harvey

[*]The indictment charges Libby with FIVE FELONIES, all of which involve LYING about his involvement in outing her, and (excuse me for repeating myself), Fitzgerald explicitly stated that Libby's lies and obfuscation were the reason he has not YET been able to determine whether, in leaking her name, anyone violated any specific statue.[/list]That's not spin. That's fact. :|

That's 100% spin. The indictment is for perjury and obstruction of justice with relation to facts presented to the Grand Jury. Your spin about "all of which involve lying about his involvement in outing her" is just that -- spin -- and duly noted.

Pabster,
Since you don't seem to agree with the Link Harvey already provided, (Full Text of Libby Indictment) can you please summarize for us what facts Libby was presenting to the Grand Jury that led to the indictment?
Are you protesting to Harvey's characterization of lying about "involvement in outing her" because you think she was not "outed"?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster
I've provided a link to the indictment, which you have supposedly read. Care to highlight where Rove and Libby admit to the outing of a CIA operative?

How many lies can you tell in one post? :|

I checked every one of your posts in this thread. The only place you included a link to the indictment was where you quoted MY post including MY link to it.

So now, you've shown us you're both a liar, and you're reading challenged. I doubt you'll comprehend the words, but here's the answer to your question:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Holding a Criminal Term

Grand Jury Sworn in on October 31, 2003

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. I. LEWIS LIBBY, also known as "SCOOTER LIBBY"

Criminal No.

GRAND JURY ORIGINAL

Count 1: Obstruction of Justice (18 U.S.C. Section 1503)

Counts 2-3: False Statements (18 U.S.C. Section 1001(a)(2))

Counts 4-5: Perjury (18 U.S.C. Section 1623)

INDICTMENT
.
.
14. On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. During this meeting LIBBY was critical of the CIA, and disparaged what he termed "selective leaking" by the CIA concerning intelligence matters. In discussing the CIA's handling of Wilson's trip to Niger, LIBBY informed her that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.
.
.
17. On or about the morning of July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. When the conversation turned to the subject of Joseph Wilson, LIBBY asked that the information LIBBY provided on the topic of Wilson be attributed to a "former Hill staffer" rather than to a "senior administration official," as had been the understanding with respect to other information that LIBBY provided to Miller during this meeting. LIBBY thereafter discussed with Miller Wilson's trip and criticized the CIA reporting concerning Wilson's trip. During this discussion, LIBBY advised Miller of his belief that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.
.
.
21. On or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White House ("Official A") who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson's wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson's trip. LIBBY was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson's wife.

The Seattle Times reports:

The Libby indictment also indicates that Rove spoke with syndicated columnist Robert Novak before his July 14, 2003, column cited two unnamed administration officials linking Plame to her husband's trip, the first time Plame's name made it into print. The indictment says that on July 10 or 11, 2003, "Official A" -- later identified by sources as Rove -- told Libby that he had spoken with Novak. "Libby was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson's wife," the indictment says.

Still need further proof? Try this from the Washington Post:

Cooper, after receiving permission from sources, testified before the grand jury and later said publicly that Rove and Libby had talked to him about Plame. But other reporters were contacted by other White House officials about Plame during the crucial week in July 2003 after Wilson's views became public, according to government officials and people involved in the case.

Your turn, but if you can't provide any links or other substantial documentation to support your lies, YOU'RE STILL ALL MOUTH AND NO BALLS! :laugh:

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Pabster = right-wing parrot

it doesn't matter what you say, or how many times you prove him wrong. he will never admit he is wrong, and will only throw back the same right-wing talking points at you. he is not interested in a civil debate, he only wants to stir up controversy.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
Pabster,
Since you don't seem to agree with the Link Harvey already provided, (Full Text of Libby Indictment) can you please summarize for us what facts Libby was presenting to the Grand Jury that led to the indictment?
Are you protesting to Harvey's characterization of lying about "involvement in outing her" because you think she was not "outed"?

No, I don't believe she was "outed".

Harvey is distorting the facts to suit his political agenda, as so many libbies do here on a regular basis.

The indictment and the accusations within are just that - accusations. Many here would like to believe Libby is guilty upon arrival, somehow forgetting the old "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" premise that our legal system thrives on. There is no admission from Libby (or Rove) that they "outed" Valerie Flame, period. The discussions (such as those with Miller) were general, as her name was not used. Saying "I believe his (Wilson's) wife works for the CIA" is not "outing" her.

 

[musicc]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Pabster = right-wing parrot

it doesn't matter what you say, or how many times you prove him wrong. he will never admit he is wrong, and will only throw back the same right-wing talking points at you. he is not interested in a civil debate, he only wants to stir up controversy.

Sound like a true attention hord

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Harvey
INDICTMENT

14. On or about June 23, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. During this meeting LIBBY was critical of the CIA, and disparaged what he termed "selective leaking" by the CIA concerning intelligence matters. In discussing the CIA's handling of Wilson's trip to Niger, LIBBY informed her that Wilson's wife might work at a bureau of the CIA.

What does that prove? She isn't even mentioned by name.

17. On or about the morning of July 8, 2003, LIBBY met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller. When the conversation turned to the subject of Joseph Wilson, LIBBY asked that the information LIBBY provided on the topic of Wilson be attributed to a "former Hill staffer" rather than to a "senior administration official," as had been the understanding with respect to other information that LIBBY provided to Miller during this meeting. LIBBY thereafter discussed with Miller Wilson's trip and criticized the CIA reporting concerning Wilson's trip. During this discussion, LIBBY advised Miller of his belief that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

Same as above. What does this prove?

21. On or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White House ("Official A") who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson's wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson's trip. LIBBY was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson's wife.

Are you grasping at straws, Harvey? So Libby was advised by "Official A" that a story was being written. This proves what, exactly?

The Libby indictment also indicates that Rove spoke with syndicated columnist Robert Novak before his July 14, 2003, column cited two unnamed administration officials linking Plame to her husband's trip, the first time Plame's name made it into print. The indictment says that on July 10 or 11, 2003, "Official A" -- later identified by sources as Rove -- told Libby that he had spoken with Novak. "Libby was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson's wife," the indictment says.

Where is the crime here? The fact that Rove spoke with Novak prior to the publication of the disputed column hardly infers a direct correlation between their discussion and Novak's column.

Cooper, after receiving permission from sources, testified before the grand jury and later said publicly that Rove and Libby had talked to him about Plame. But other reporters were contacted by other White House officials about Plame during the crucial week in July 2003 after Wilson's views became public, according to government officials and people involved in the case.

So it is Cooper's word against Rove and/or Libby. Where are the two in question admitting to the outing of a CIA operative, as you claim?

Try sticking to facts, Harvey. Not spin, inference, speculation, and wishes.

Your turn, but if you can't provide any links or other substantial documentation to support your lies, YOU'RE STILL ALL MOUTH AND NO BALLS! :laugh:

I don't need to provide anything. I've refuted your ridiculous claims with your own "evidence" which contradicts the claims you make. You are trying to draw lines between things where none exist, as usual.

Until you provide some evidence showing where Rove and Libby admitted to the outing of Plame (as you have claimed over and over again), YOU'RE ALL MOUTH AND NO BALLS, and nothing more than a left-wing parrot.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Pabster = right-wing parrot

it doesn't matter what you say, or how many times you prove him wrong. he will never admit he is wrong, and will only throw back the same right-wing talking points at you. he is not interested in a civil debate, he only wants to stir up controversy.

Sudheer = left-wing troll

Got anything to add on the topic being discussed, or did you just stop by to "stir up controversy"?

 

[BBond]

Hey Pabsy,

Rove losing his clearance doesn't have to involve criminal activity. What part of the OP are you having a problem understanding?

An intelligence analyst temporarily lost his top-secret security clearance because he faxed his resume using a commercial machine.

An employee of the Defense Department had her clearance suspended for months because a jilted boyfriend called to say she might not be reliable.

An Army officer who spoke publicly about intelligence failures before the Sept. 11 attacks had his clearance revoked over questions about $67 in personal charges to a military cellphone.

But in the White House, where Karl Rove is under federal investigation for his role in the exposure of a covert CIA officer, the longtime advisor to President Bush continues to enjoy full access to government secrets.

That is drawing the attention of intelligence experts and prominent conservatives as a debate brews over whether Rove should retain his top-secret clearance and remain in his post as White House deputy chief of staff ? even as Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald mulls over whether to charge him with a crime in connection with the operative's exposure.

"The agencies can move without hesitating when they even suspect a breach of the rules has occurred, much less an actual breach of information," said Mark Zaid, a Washington attorney who has represented more than three dozen intelligence officers in security clearance cases, including those cited above.

Should I post the part about the regulations and training this traitor received again or will you just continue ingoring them too?

 

[maluckey]

This would probably be true for most cleared people. But the news article seems to be saying that the White House has ultimate authority to grant or revoke Rove's clearance.

Not entirely. Clearances are given by OPM for Department of State, and taken away by either termination of the person, or by OPM either downgrading or revoking his clearance. His boss could fire him, in which case his clearance would be revoked, or OPM could revoke or downgrade it for cause or change of jobs.

BBond.....As far as the so-called reasons for losing a clearance.....Who told them?? This is pure hearsay. Disgruntled idiot claims it was for nothing to make former boss look bad. Sound familiar?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Sudheer = left-wing troll

Got anything to add on the topic being discussed, or did you just stop by to "stir up controversy"?

Do you? :laugh: