home

Waas: Rove, Novak and Bush

Murray Waas has a new RoveGate article today at National Journal (free link). He adds another aspect: Did Rove intentionally mislead Bush and could that be a crime in itself?

In his own interview with prosecutors on June 24, 2004, Bush testified that Rove assured him he had not disclosed Plame as a CIA employee and had said nothing to the press to discredit Wilson, according to sources familiar with the president's interview. Bush said that Rove never mentioned the conversation with Cooper. James E. Sharp, Bush's private attorney, who was present at the president's interview with prosecutors, declined to comment for this story.

Sources close to the leak investigation being run by Special Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald say it was the discovery of one of Rove's White House e-mails-in which the senior Bush adviser referred to his July 2003 conversation with Cooper-that prompted Rove to contact prosecutors and to revise his account to include the Cooper conversation. ....Luskin also asserted that any misstatements that his client might have made to the president, the FBI, or other public officials, were not purposeful and were due to incomplete records and faulty memories.

I think a big question remains when and from whom did Rove and other White House officials learn about Plame? Rove reportedly told the grand jury he learned about it from a reporter but couldn't remember which one, a story that has had us all snickering for months.

With Judith Miller's notes from June, 2003 about to be turned over, it's time to revisit this post quoting a Time Magazine article on how those at the White House may have learned of Plame and which discusses the history and actions of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and Defense Policy Board with respect to Joseph Wilson's trip. I wrote then that there seemed to have been a clear plan among these Pentagon groups to discredit the CIA analysts and Joe Wilson because they didn't support the Pentagon's theory of WMDs and uranium and Niger in particular.

Judith Miller is known for her strong sources in Pentagon circles. Did she pass on to Libby info in June she learned from them? Is that how Rove knew?

It was also in June, 2003 that Post reporter Walter Pincus made his first inquiry to the White House. From the Time Magazine article:

The previously undisclosed fact gathering began in the first week of June 2003 at the CIA, when its public-affairs office received an inquiry about Wilson's trip to Africa from veteran Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus. That office then contacted Plame's unit, which had sent Wilson to Niger, but stopped short of drafting an internal report. The same week, Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman asked for and received a memo on the Wilson trip from Carl Ford, head of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Sources familiar with the memo, which disclosed Plame's relationship to Wilson, say Secretary of State Colin Powell read it in mid-June. Deputy Secretary Richard Armitage may have received a copy then too. (emphasis supplied)

When Pincus' article ran on June 12, the circle of senior officials who knew about the identity of Wilson's wife expanded. "After Pincus," a former intelligence officer says, "there was general discussion with the National Security Council and the White House and State Department and others" about Wilson's trip and its origins. A source familiar with the memo says neither Powell nor Armitage spoke to the White House about it until after July 6. John McLaughlin, then deputy head of the CIA, confirms that the White House asked about the Wilson trip, but can't remember exactly when. One thing he's sure of, says McLaughlin, who has been interviewed by prosecutors, is that "we looked into it and found the facts of it, and passed it on."

It's beginning to look like the operative time period for determining whether Libby and Rove have been truthful is June, 2003 - rather than the week before Novak's article ran in July.

Update: A new Reuters article about Miller and her newly found Libby notes from June, 2003.

< Saturday Rallies Against Border Vigilantes | Ferrer Fumbles on the Death Penalty >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Waas: Rove, Novak and Bush (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:47 PM EST
    I liked the final quote in the Waas article:
    And a lack of candor might also negate a claim of good faith or inadvertent error in providing misleading information to prosecutors.
    I think the prosecutors might be able to detect some small traces of 'lack of candor' among those they have been interviewing!

    Re: Waas: Rove, Novak and Bush (none / 0) (#2)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:47 PM EST
    Did Rove intentionally mislead Bush and could that be a crime in itself? Outside of not believing that at all, it does seem logical that lying to the President of the United States, especially 'intentionally' would have some sort of ramification. Logically, that is.

    Re: Waas: Rove, Novak and Bush (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:47 PM EST
    for me the salient part from today's Reuters article is this: "One source involved in the investigation said Miller's notes could help Fitzgerald show a long-running and orchestrated campaign to discredit Wilson, which could help form the basis for a conspiracy charge." it's all about conspiracy, the campaign to discredit Wilson. that's what the prosecutor is going for. as well as perjury charges against Rove, Libby and others.

    Re: Waas: Rove, Novak and Bush (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:47 PM EST
    This story is all about covering up Bush's involvement in leaking Plame's identity, and giving him "plausible deniablity." When someone asks the question, "what did the President know, and when did he know it," the Bush team is trying to set up the response -- Bush knew nothing, everyone lied to him.

    Re: Waas: Rove, Novak and Bush (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:47 PM EST
    When Waas states in his article that:
    Whether Rove knew of Plame's status at the time has been central to Fitzgerald's investigation. By law, a government official can be prosecuted only if he or she knew of a person's covert status and if "the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent."
    the law he is referring to the "Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982". But it appears now that Fitz may be using a wider net than has been reported widely in the media up until yesterday, to catch his fish: From the NYT By DAVID JOHNSTON Published: October 7, 2005:
    Mr. Fitzgerald has focused on whether there was a deliberate effort to retaliate against Mr. Wilson for his column and its criticism of the Bush administration's Iraq policy. Recently lawyers said that they believed the prosecutor may be applying new legal theories to bring charges in the case. One new approach appears to involve the possible use of Chapter 37 of the federal espionage and censorship law, which makes it a crime for anyone who "willfully communicates, delivers, transfers or causes to be communicated" to someone "not entitled to receive it" classified information relating the national defense matters. Under this broad statute, a government official or a private citizen who passed classified information to anyone else in or outside the government could potentially be charged with a felony, if they transferred the information to someone without a security clearance to receive it.
    I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't read the Espionage Act in great detail, but it seems to me that under chapter 37, there is no requirement that "a government official can be prosecuted only if he or she knew of a person's covert status", giving Fitgerald more latitude in his indictments.