I don't think a lawyer is who you should ask. This whole "just trying to prevent a false story" line is not in any way intended as a legal defense. This is purely a PR move designed to mollify the Republican base, which is getting a bit jittery about the possibility that Rover has been pooping on the White House carpet and stinking up the place. Instead, ask a Republican pollster if it is being effective.

of course it's not a valid legal exemption.

what's interesting to me about this line of defense is that it assumes that rove knew what cooper was going to write. and he knew that - how? it was supposedly just a very brief conversation at the end of a discussion of a wholly different topic (welfare reform).

The RNC's talking points don't hold water upon close inspection.

I think we should focus our rhetoric efforts, not on the legalistic investigation, but on the issue of credibility. And then we to press on with our own investigation.
 

We don't know what will result from Fitzgerald's investigation, nor do we know when he will present his findings. Why don't we ignore it for now, despite the decent chance that it will result in Republican disgrace?

What we know now is that the WH has lied to the press and to the public and they refuse to explain themselves. They've sent up their party-loyalists and dead-ender like Mehlman and Coleman, but how many of those in Congress are willing to stick out their neck for Rove? I suggest that we need a Conscience Caucus for the Rove/Plame scandal.

Is there a 'trying to prevent a bad or innaccurate story from being run' exception to the relevant statute in the Rove matter?

You jest, Josh.  I am no lawyer, but this is laughable. However, Republicans have used arguments like this, and folks with press bona fides have seemingly been persuaded.  If not entirely on board, they will use them for the "he-said, he-said" type of presentation in the media.

 howard has a good point. 

If Rove knew he knew more than Cooper  knew, how did he know it and why didn't he just keep his mouth shut? 

Jeez, Josh: of course there is! It's in the US Code, along with the 'it's OK to out a CIA agent if you think her husband is a jerk' exception, the one that explains why Ken Mehlman's entire defense from yesterday is spent attacking Joe Wilson. Also, the 'it's OK to out a CIA agent if you're just telling the truth' exception (though how you'd out an agent in any other way is a mystery.)
Sheesh. Don't you know anything?

As Adler pointed out, "What we know now is that the WH has lied to the press and to the public and they refuse to explain themselves."  This is key.  Ultimately, it's not the legal questions, but the PR we have to focus on.  The investigation may bear fruit but if this story gets synched to those developments the story may be out of the news cycle in a hurry.  McClellen, the official WH spokesman, denied Rove's involvement unequivocally multiple times, and he and the president promised action against those shown to be clearly involved.  Those denials are now undeniably false, and Rove was clearly involved.  Irrespective of the investigation, they are failing to address their false claims.  They are hiding behind the investigation to seek political cover.  It's not about Rove or the investigation, it's about lying about Rove's involvement and failing to address those lies.  We need to peel back their use of the investigation to shield themselves from the well deserved political heat that is warming their backsides. 

You asked ... "If his defense is "I didn't know she was covert", isn't the follow up "Well how did you know she was CIA?" Someone told Rove, and somewhere up the line someone knew they were revealing the name of a covert operative. Right? Am I missing something?"

The fact that Plame was CIA seems to come from a State Department memo originated by that department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR). Supposedly Colin Powell had this file with him on the Africa trip July 7-12, which took place immediately after Wilson's July 6 op ed piece challenged the accuracy of the Bush assertion that Iraq had been trying to restart its WMD program and the evidence for that assumption being Iraq's effort to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger.

Cooper talked with Rove on July 11, according to Cooper's testimony today, and that's when Rove told him that George Tenet was "gestating" a statement on the Niger matter. In fact, George Tenet did release a statement later on that same day, July 11, but that press release did not name Plame or Wilson, saying "In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA’s counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn."

However, since the conversation with Cooper obviously took place before Tenet made his "gestation" statement public, Rove already knew about Plame's status as CIA and as Joe Wilson's wife (Rove attends the same church as the Wilsons, so must have met them socially at the least).

This still doesn't answer the question about how Rove found out about the CIA status of Plame, or exactly what he found out about any undercover status. This takes us back to the State Department memo mentioned above. If this file was discussed on the Africa trip by Powell and Bush or others, possibly aboard Air Force One, this may explain Fitzgerald's supoena of communication records, to see if Rove was contacted and who called. Or, perhaps Rove was on board (can't find any reference to him, and Cooper says Rove was out the door on vacation on the day they talked, the 11th, so it looks like Rove stayed back in Washington).

Since Rove knew that Tenet was "gestating" a statement about the Niger yellowcake, and knew that it would clear Tenet and Cheney as being the ones who authorized the trip, which is the "false" information Rove supposedly was trying to keep Cooper from publishing, then it is safe to assume that Rove had conversations with Tenet or someone at CIA before talking to Cooper and got the story about Plame's CIA status from CIA, that is, if he didn't already know from the INR memo or some other source.

This may be where Miller comes in. Maybe she told Rove that Plame was undercover, and that's the piece that Fitzgerald needs to close the book on Rove's involvement.

that's all it is. the repugs have already said that thier strategy is to blow smoke until the supreme court vacancies overtake the rove story, but it doesn't much matter how the pr war plays out. it is up to fitzgerald and the grand jury to indict. if that happens bush will have to fire rove, dontcha think?

Why would it matter whether or not Plame recommended her husband to the CIA for the Niger assignment?

In other news, the Nigerien government  was today noted (in a French blog I read) as essentially, officially begging for food. Make your vacation plans now.

I suppose this was a resume boost for Joe Wilson, but how much of one I can't say. Gave him a chance to dust off a few contacts, be a little more of a playah. The GOP wants it the story to be "Valerie got Joe a podium from which to shout his anti-war message." Although whether Joe had an anti-war message, instead of a "No way Nigerien yellowcake can be the source of this threat" message is not clear. For them, it's enough that he reacted to being dragged through the mud by Bush and Rupert and Friends by working for Kerry.

Frankly, sometimes you have to go with the smear you've got, rather than the smear you'd prefer.

 

Still doesn't change what Rove did to compromise Plame as a CIA agent. Still doesn't explain why Bush hasn't fired him. Minor points in the Wilson story do not take away the magnitude of the national security and intelligence breach that Karl Rove and others on the White House staff committed ... and in wartime according to George W. Bush!

Yes! Or the old Watergate question:

Who did he blow and when did he blow them? 

Alex, it's a good question and requires recounting a bit of history to answer it.

You'll recall that not having found any WMD after three months in-country, it rather looked as if there hadn't been any WMD in Iraq before the invasion.  The question then became how this intelligence "screw up" had occured.

Two possible answers:  1) intelligence professionals aren't professional and they're not competent or 2) their informed, competent analyses had been rejected by political appointees for non-fact-based political or ideological reasons.

By July 2003 CIA career officers -- honestly or to protect their reputations -- were making noises accusing the Veep and DOD (especially, Feith) of pressuring them into having generated intelligence assessments which those officers had never really believed in.

Thus, there was a struggle going on between the neocon/PNAC political appointees and the career intelligence officers (Ex. Karen Kwiatkowski).  Joe Wilson's Op/Ed piece was designed to support the careerists and undermine the politicos.  Rove's point was that a cabal of CIA officers, among which were Wilson's wife, had orchestrated the Niger inquiry outside of regular channels (they used State and neither DCIA nor NSC knew about the trip).

For Rove, it was important that Wilson, a Kerry supporter, should not be seen as an impartial agent selected by Tenet or Cheney and thus, an agent whose credibility had been vouched for at the highest levels.  Rather, as Rove saw it Wilson's appointment should be seen as the logical outcome of the cabal's anti-Bush rogue operation.

  You're under a misapprehension -- officials in Niger had been approached by an Irianian delegation. The Post initially reported it incorrectly.

You wrote ... "I thought I heard Victoria Toensing claim on NPR that the law didn't cover leaks that were made quasi-accidently."

Since Rove apparently called/talked with several reporters about "Wilson's wife", after how many calls/talks does it cease to be accidental and become deliberate?

the only exceptions are when the agent's cover has already been blown or when the person is testifying before congress.

I hope not, but can Rove then use the defense that since the reporters (Miller and Cooper) knew that Plame was an agent that her cover was already blown?

FWIW:

I think there was a crime here, but I'm not convinced that Rove is the criminal.  Rove was probably no more guilty of a 'crime' than he has been on any number of occasions where he used smarmy innuendo to discredit his opponents.  I think Rove is a decoy and the criminal is probably John Bolton who is the ultimate source of the leak.  Bolton was in a position to know Plame and her role at the CIA.  The info may have been solicited from Bolton by someone else and fed to Rove through Judy.  Seems clear that Judy must be protecting someone other than Rove.

My guess is that the WH will continue the stonewall until the Grand Jury ends in about 4 months, at which time Rove will be more or less exonerated with the true culprit still a mystery and Fitzgerald will have his staff cut to nothing and he'll have to move into a janitor's closet to continue his investigation.  I think the reason that Rove is not pushing a more aggressive defense, e.g., "simply to state outright that Rove didn't know Plame was undercover," is that they want to run out the clock.  After the grand jurors go home for the last time, we'll find out that Rove never KNEW she was undercover.

In the meantime, they mount this PR campaign, which is already in process, to justify Rove's involvement whether it is criminal or not.  Since even many on the right feel that Rove's actions have been questionable, he needs some rehab work.  

Do not forget this cabal committee formed in August 2002 by Andrew Card, meeting weekly in the Situation Room. Among the regular participants were Karl Rove, the president's senior political adviser; communications strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio; and policy advisers led by Rice and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, along with I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff.

 Remember Andrew Card's famous line:

"From a marketing point of view,' said Andrew H. Card, Jr., the White House chief of staff on the rollout this week of the campaign for a war with Iraq, 'you don't introduce new products in August.'" -- New York Times, September 7, 2002."

The group was formed to promote the Iraq War, and especially to disseminate propaganda on Iraq's "nuclear weapons program." Their hard hitting campaign began in September 2002 and from then on it was Iraq, Iraq, Iraq every day all day.

Did the "White House Iraq Group" have access to secure documents?

Why would it matter whether or not Plame recommended her husband to the CIA for the Niger assignment?

Alex, it doesn't matter at all if Wilson's wife or his mother or his grandmother sent him to Niger.  What he reported after his visit was accurate.  He was right when he said that it was doubtful Saddam had purchased yellowcake from Niger.

The Republican defenders of Rove want you to focus on who sent Wilson, as a distraction from the fact that some person or persons in the administration outed Wilson's wife as a CIA agent.

I agree with Wingfoot. This is more of a political argument-- that somehow the intentional disclosure of the operative's identity for political reasons is more defensible than the intentional disclosure of the operative's identity for the purpose of destroying the operative's anonymity.

In terms of the statute, the statute requires the intention to disclose the operative's identity, the knowledge that the operative is a covert agent, and the knowledge that the government is taking affirmative steps to conceal her identity (i.e., that she works undercover). Notably, despite the fact that the statute imposes clear and substantial "intent" and "knowledge" requirements, there is no requirement that the defendant know that what he is doing is damaging the national security of the United States. Indeed, there is not even any requirement of actual damage, i.e., even if the defendant's actions do no harm at all, they can be illegal so long as the operative is covert and undercover and the defendant intentionally disclosed her identity knowing she was covert and undercover.

So it is clear that whether Rove's intention was to compromise Plame or to discredit Wilson has no relevance to whether he violated the statute; that depends on his intentionally disseminating the information and his knowing that Wilson's wife was an undercover operative.

Ellen's recounting of history is interesting and provides (I think) a mostly accurate picture of a certain storyline that spawned the "Valerie got her husband the job" claim.

I'm sure the Bush Administration would love to paint all criticism of themselves as mere blame-shifting. In this case, however, the storyline has more wishes than substance.

First, it wasn't just post-invasion that CIA and other intelligence people complained about pressure to cook their books. Allegations hit the mainstream press as early as fall 2002 (the aluminum tube discussions). And remember, after the 2003 SOTU, *everyone* was talking about whether Bush's "Africa" reference was merely another attempt to keep the Niger forgery story alive.

Second, with regard to Plame's "getting her husband the job", we're talking about spring of 2002. Therefore, this "cabal" that was "acting on their own initiative" would have been doing so a full year before the Iraq invasion, a full year before Iraqi WMD's turned up a no-show. Rather than a bunch of blame-shifting bureaucrats, reality looks a lot more like worried professionals trying to prevent what eventually did happen.

In July 2003, when this claim was first floated, it was Rove and his crew who were looking to shift the blame--a spectacularly successful effort, as evidenced by the "intelligence failures" congressional investigations in 2003-4.

The next time some Republican hack says ole Karl was just trying to prevent a false story from being published, the response ought to be incredulous laughter. Laughter in the face of such an obvious lie will be the most effective rhetoric.

Why the PR question about Rove may matter much more than the legal question.  Take a look at this number from a just-announced NBC/WSJ poll:

In the article posted on the MSNBC website, "Furthermore, only 41 percent give Bush good marks for being “honest and straightforward” ” 

This poll was taken before the Rove story broke according to the article.  The Bush image is tanking.   And image is all they have.  The big blue wizard's curtain of Oz is being pulled aside and there's no there there.

Sidebar 1:  what are the lowest poll #s other presidents have had on honesty?

Sidebar 2:  Bush is famous for his loyalty...arguably avenging Daddy led to invading Iraq [either that or lining oil/Texas cronies' pockets....].  When will it occur to the values right wing that he might hold them responsible for Daddy's loss to Clinton?  And what's his payback?  One clue, when he said at a black-tie NY fundraiser "Some people call you the elites, I call you my base..."  he wasn't talking to blue collar/evangelical types in Dixie....

I don't have the time to read all the comments, but did anyone address the actual question here?

In a way, yes, it is important what Rove thought he was doing when he revealed the information to Cooper/Novak, because it is indicative of his state of mind.

According to the statute linked to, the revelation of the identity must be 'intentional.'  

If it is the case that Rove was having a conversation with a reporter and it came up in the course of the conversation, it may not be intentional in the manner necessary for conviction.

So, if the government can't prove he did it intentionally, it can't prove it's case against him, and he should be acquitted, even if all the other elements are satisfied.

Dan W.,

Sorry, I was in my "White House Press Corps Stenographer" mode.  I reported what Toensing was claiming about the law, instead of reporting what the law actually says.

Until the U.S. Government actually officially verified that Plame was covert CIA, any government official that leaked this information to a third party that lacked the proper security clearance broke the law (according to my reading). 

So, if Rove was shopping the story around, telling folks like Mr. Hardball that she was fair game before confirmation came, that seems to be a separate illegal leak.

We might have to borrow Russert's white board to keep track of the separate incidents.

"Whether or not his wife got him the Niger trip didn't come up until AFTER Novak/Cooper published the leak."


Right, his wife came up after Wilson claimed that the VP sent him.  The fact that his wife was instrumental in his assignment would be of little concern other than nepotism at the CIA had Wilson stuck to the truth.

It's still of little concern except to the Republicans who want to divert attention away from the apparently treasonous conduct of Karl Rove and other White House staffers, and possibly even criminal activity by Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. The Plame leak is the story, not Joe Wilson. The lies that George W. Bush told the American people to convince us that we should invade Iraq to protect our national security are the issue. The White House has a cancer called Karl, and it is eating away at the presidency of George W. Bush. In time, it may even bring it down.

 If he heard it from Miller, and he was cleared to know it (but just didn't before she told him) then he broke the law.

Couldn't it be that he heard it from Miller, may or may not have been cleared, but what he heard was NOT that Plame was NOC, rather just a CIA official, analyst, whatever.  Whoever told Miller would have concealed from Miller that Plame was undercover, telling her only that Plame was CIA official, analyst, whatever.  It does seem that Rove would have had a duty to check with the CIA before throwing her name around.  But maybe not a legal responsibility to do so.

Sure there is a defense....It goes like this.I neither knew nor did I care what Ms Plame's job was  at the CIA.  All I focused on, all that INTENDED, WAS ....


Lame but if a jury doesn't conclude beyond reasonable doubt that he's full of horse hockey....he skates....


Prosecutors generally want more for an indictiment (Ken Starr exception that proves rule) and I suspect Fitzgerald may have it or be hoping to get it in the form of cinders from this very firestorm

If Karl Rove was simply and honestly assisting a reporter who called him concerning unrelated matters (helping said reporter get the Wilson/Plame story right... i.e. Cheney didn't send Wilson to Niger, Plame suggested Wilson for the trip), why wouldn't Scott McClellan (who had spoken directly with Rove regarding this matter) trotted out long ago and said EXACTLY that? (which is BTW not what Scott said in Rove's defense THEN)  Hello?

Here's my take on it. Two points:

1. After Wilson blew the lid off the Niger uranium story, the White House may have believed they were set up by somebody at the CIA who sent out this "liberal" Joe Wilson to purposely undermine them. In their eyes, it may have looked like the ultimate inside job with the wife playing a principle part in the scam.

2. Joe Wilson has disputed the White House claim that his wife arranged and authorized the trip. It is an argument the White House wants to perpetuate as a way to further discredit Wilson as a liar.

Larry Johnson, a CIA classmate of Plame's, posted a fine piece recently right here on TPMCafe.

Also, the fact that the CIA itself referred the case to Justice is a pretty good indication that Plame was an NOC operative and ergo a crime had possibly been committed. It might be useful to you to get a copy of that document, if possible.

In my post above I stated:  He was well qualified, perhaps even uniquely, and she recommended him.

According to Wilson, she did not even recommend him but only served as a conduit to get the message to him that the CIA wanted him to go to Niger.  It is a minor point and really more of a distraction, as Dan W rightly posts in this thread, but in case Abdul Abulbul Amir stops by, I did not want to be the cause of further confusion.  He seemed to have a surfeit of it.