On Rove and Plame: A Reminder

Posted by BooMan | Jun 22, 2006 | 8 |

I know we all know this but it bears repeating. Here’s a little segment from the September 29, 2003 NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.

JIM LEHRER: …White House officials denied today that political chief Karl Rove approved leaking an intelligence agent’s name. The agent’s husband is former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Last summer, he criticized the president’s claims that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Africa. Days later, it came out his wife worked for the CIA. Yesterday, the “Washington Post” reported top White House aides leaked the name, possibly violating the law. Wilson said it was retaliation, and he said Rove at least condoned it. Today a White House spokesman denied it, but reporters peppered him with questions.

SCOTT McCLELLAN: I’ve said that it’s not true. I have spoken with Karl Rove. I’m not going to get into conversations that the president has with advisors or staff or anything of that nature. That’s not my practice.

REPORTER: The president has a factual basis for knowing…

SCOTT McCLELLAN: I said it publicly. I said that…

REPORTER: I’m not asking what you said. The president has a factual basis.

SCOTT McCLELLAN: He’s aware of what I’ve said that there is simply no truth to that suggestion.

JIM LEHRER: The spokesman said anyone who did leak classified information would be fired, and he said the justice department should pursue the matter.

Then let’s not forget this from a October 8, 2003 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article:

Bush told reporters in a question-and-answer session during a Cabinet meeting that he did not know “if we’re going to find out” the identity of the administration officials who Novak said told him about Plame’s identity.

“I have no idea whether we’ll find out who the leaker is,” Bush added, noting that “this is a large administration, and there’s a lot of senior officials.”

Here’s a little dispatch from Mike Allen from aboard Air Force One on January 5, 2004.

McClellan said Bush has directed his aides to “cooperate fully in this investigation.” Citing an ongoing investigation, however, he would not say whether the president thinks that extends to signing the forms.

“That’s asking a specific question about matters that should be directed to the career officials at the Department of Justice,” McClellan said. “The president has always said that leaking classified information is a serious matter, and certainly no one wants to get to the bottom of this more than he does.”

And then there is this:

White House spokesman Scott McClellan denied that anyone in the White House had been authorized to leak Plame’s undercover status, saying, “That is not the way this White House operates.”

Asked if he were ruling out administration involvement, McClellan said: “I’m saying no one was certainly given any authority to do anything of that nature . . .”

And this:

After spending the first part of the week dodging reporters’s questions, the President regarded the disclosure as “a very serious matter” and has vowed to fire anybody responsible. “If the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of,” Bush said.

So, my question is, “how has Karl Rove been taken care of?” Is there no price to pay for this very serious matter? Why does Karl Rove still have a job?

About The Author

BooMan

Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.

8 Comments

Captain Future on June 22, 2006 at 7:38 pm

These are all good points, but I fear the concentration on whether Rove was going to be indicted has obscured this. Now the major media has gone with the Luskin line that Rove is off the hook, which to them means innocent of any wrongdoing connecting with this. So it’s end of story, as far as they are concerned, and anything more is just Democrat whining.

That’s why some sort of civil suit by the Wilsons may be the only opportunity to get attention to the case that Booman lays out. Short of hearings in a Democratic Congress.
Real History Lisa on June 22, 2006 at 8:00 pm

From the Libby Indictment:

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.

Rove? Cheney? Why hasn’t Official A been indicted yet, or has he?

Btw – Rove was severely reprimanded by his own party for leaking things to the press earlier in his career. Novak was a favored source…
mythmother on June 22, 2006 at 8:11 pm

For me the failure of Fitzgerald’s investigation to set justice in motion to nail Karl Rove is the final proof that democracy is dead in America.
- Carl W on June 22, 2006 at 8:33 pm
  
  The investigation may not be over. There are many loose ends that haven’t yet been explained.
  - mythmother on June 23, 2006 at 3:46 am
    
    Thanks. I will hold out a slender thread of hope!
BooMan on June 22, 2006 at 8:17 pm

Meet the Press
July 17, 2005

MR. RUSSERT: Let me go through the public pronouncements from the White House. Here’s President Bush on September 30, 2003, about the leak.

(Videotape, September 30, 2003):

PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: “That person will be taken care of.” A week after that, Scott McClellan talked to the White House press corps and the American people. David Gregory of NBC News asked him the following question.

(Videotape, October 7, 2003):

MR. DAVID GREGORY: You have said that you personally went to Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Elliott Abrams to ask them if they were the leakers. Is that what happened? Whey did you do that? And can you describe the conversations you had with them? What was the question you asked them?

MR. SCOTT McCLELLAN (White House Press Secretary): Yeah. They’re good individuals. They are important members of our White House team, and that’s why I spoke with them so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt with–of that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it’s accurate before I report back to you, and that’s exactly what I did.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: “They were not involved.” Is that comment still operative?

MR. MEHLMAN: Well, Tim, I know Scott McClellan very well. Scott’s a smart guy. He’s an honest guy. He’s a very effective spokesman. And he’d love to be on this show this morning commenting. But in contradiction to what he said, attack, attack, attack is not how we’re responding to this investigation. This White House is responding by cooperate, cooperate, cooperate. And what Scott understands and all of us understand as attorneys is that the last thing a prosecutor wants to see are people out talking about the facts of his case. And so Scott is now not commenting. But the fact is–what the facts this week show is what Scott said is accurate. The facts show that Karl Rove was not the source of Bob Novak, that there was another source that, in fact, leaked the information to him, and that Karl Rove at the time didn’t know her name, didn’t know she was undercover and didn’t provide that information to him.

So that’s why John’s comments–and I’m disappointed to hear him say it this morning–are so outrageous, that Karl Rove shouldn’t be working in the White House. The information exonerates and vindicates, it does not implicate, and what we should all do is take a breath, not rush to judgment and certainly not try to make political gain of an investigation that we should have confidence in the investigator for.

MR. PODESTA: Tim…

MR. RUSSERT: Whoa, hold on, hold on. Why did Scott McClellan feel comfortable in commenting on the investigation back in 2003 when it was going on?

MR. MEHLMAN: Well, Tim, it…

MR. RUSSERT: He said to the American people that Libby, Rove, Abrams were not involved. And we now know that, according to published reports and Mr. Rove’s attorney, that Mr. Rove confirmed the Novak account and was the source for Matt Cooper, as Matt Cooper testified before the grand jury and explained this morning on MEET THE PRESS. Is that not being involved?

MR. MEHLMAN: Tim, as you know, investigations have different phases. In the very early part of an investigation, when there’s less–when there are fewer witnesses testifying, and less activity is one point. Clearly now, I think, that Scott’s right. And I give tremendous credit to this president, and to this White House, who is saying, “We don’t care about the short-term political heat we may feel. We care about justice being done,” which is why they’re not commenting. I assure you, Scott would love to be up at the podium, responding to these questions, as opposed to allowing people to smear him without the White House answering. But that will be the wrong thing to do because this White House is committed to cooperating and complying, not attacking.

MR. RUSSERT: But he said they were not involved. Is that accurate?

MR. MEHLMAN: Well, according to the information that’s come out this week–and, again, we’re here speculating–but the information that’s come out this week, that we all agree on, says they were not involved in a leak.

MR. PODESTA: Oh, well, I think that’s absurd, and I think the American public see that. The question at the time that Mr. McClellan was answering was: Was Karl Rove one of the two sources for Mr. Novak? Now, we know that he was. His own lawyers admitted that. And at least he does it off the record on background, but it’s clear that Mr. Luskin’s out there briefing The New York Times and others, that says that Mr. Rove was the second source. So the one thing–you don’t have to be a genius to know that when Karl Rove sent Scott McClellan to the podium to say he wasn’t involved, he was not telling the truth. And, I think, at this point, as he sits there as deputy chief of staff in charge of coordinating the Homeland Security Council the National Security Council, he’s not serving the president, he’s not serving the country. And I think that if he had an ounce of character, he’d do the right thing and resign.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me refer you both to a Washington Post editorial on Friday. “A federal prosecutor is conducting a criminal probe that has, among other things, unearthed an e-mail from Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper revealing that Mr. Rove told him about Ms. Plame’s role in her husband’s trip. This gives the lie to White House denials that Mr. Rove was involved in the leak. Mr. Rove and White House spokesman Scott McClellan can fairly be accused, at the very least, of responding to questions about the affair with the sort of misleading legalisms and evasions that Republicans once rightly condemned President Bill Clinton for employing.” Do you agree?

MR. MEHLMAN: Tim, I disagree with that, and I also note that that same article pointed out that what Karl Rove said to Matt Cooper was appropriate, and the reason was it was right to raise questions about Joe Wilson. You mentioned that a minute ago, and Mr. Podesta responded by kind of blowing off the point you made. But let’s remember this. Joe Wilson misled the public about who sent him to Niger. Second, he misled the public about what he found. He misled the public about who revealed his materials and what he saw when he was over there. He misled the public about the documents that he didn’t review, which he said he did review. He explained all of these mistakes by saying, “I sometimes take a little literary flair.” He then appeared in a big photo spread in Vanity Fair magazine. And so these are a lot of examples of a source that really turned out to be misleading and inaccurate on issue after issue after issue. He even said he’s wondering who’s going to play him in the movie. Maybe he’s somehow confused his screenplay with reality.

MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Mehlman, if this happened in the Clinton White House, John Podesta or Leon Panetta or someone was accused of doing this, what would the Republican National Committee be saying today about the Clinton White House?

MR. MEHLMAN: Well, Tim, one thing I know we wouldn’t be doing. We wouldn’t be calling for somebody who has been cooperating fully, somebody who is, in fact, been exonerated by information that’s came out this week, we wouldn’t be calling for him to lose his job. We wouldn’t be saying he doesn’t have an ounce of character, which I was disappointed to hear, particularly from someone who had worked in the last White House, given how the response there was done to the special prosecutor. The fact is, we’re all rushing to judgment. Karl Rove is a good man, he is an honest man. He works every single day for this country, and the notion that people are trying to rush to judgment to smear him for political gain is outrageous and it’s wrong.

MR. RUSSERT: You would not be pouncing on a Democratic White House for leaking the identity of a CIA agent?

MR. MEHLMAN: It is unthinkable for me to imagine that a leading member of the Republican Senate leadership, like Charles Schumer, would hold a press conference with the equivalent of a Joe Wilson, a major press conference, where they repeated allegations that have been proved wrong. I can’t imagine they would do that. I can’t imagine that Bob Dole and Republican leaders would go on the floor of the Senate to call 100 percent of Republicans, to revoke somebody’s security clearance, who’s cooperating fully with the investigation, and who evidence has been vindicating toward. I can’t imagine that would happen.

MR. RUSSERT: Mr. Podesta.

MR. PODESTA: I think my Republican friend slept through the 1990s, but, I must say, I come back to this, the–Mr. Rove has created a tremendous credibility problem for this White House, for this president, for this country on a matter of utmost national security, whether we can trust him to tell the truth about serious issues involving this war that has now claimed 1,763 Americans. And I think that the one thing that is unassailable at the end of this week is that Mr. Rove did not tell the truth in 2003, and I think given that, he’s hurting the president by staying there and I think he has a duty to the president–and, quite frankly, the president said he would fire leakers, not lawbreakers. And I–you know, I think if he’s a man of his word, he’ll take that seriously.

MR. RUSSERT: When you were at the Clinton White House, you all remember President Clinton’s testimony under oath, where he and his lawyer, Mr. Bennett, saying there is no sex of any kind, and President Clinton saying, “Well, it depends what `is’ is.” Are those the kind of legal evasions that you’re now accusing the Bush White House of?

MR. PODESTA: Well, I think that, you know, the president paid a tremendous price. But I think that at the end of the day, this isn’t about President Clinton. This is about the Bush White House, this is about the war in Iraq, this is about the fact that whether it’s Dick Clarke or General Shinseki or Max Cleland or Joe Wilson, the modus operandi is if you criticize this White House, if you suggest there’s another point of view, you’re attacked, you’re smeared, and that’s what happened. It got them in trouble two years ago. It’s not going to get them out of trouble today. They ought to cut it out.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a lesson from what happened in the Clinton White House that you think should be applied to the Bush White House?

MR. PODESTA: Well, I think the lesson is that you ought to be straightforward with the American public.

MR. RUSSERT: And avoid the legalisms?

MR. PODESTA: Yeah.
Chamonix1 on June 22, 2006 at 9:56 pm

Bush knew and thought the press would protect him, Cheney, Rove and Libby. Remember 9-11 changed everything. He thought they were wrapped around his finger. Also remember back then the Justice Dept was going to handle the investigation.
——————————————————
Transcript from WH Website President Meets with Cabinet, Discusses National and Economic Security-Oct 7th, 2003.

Dana.

Q Mr. President, beyond the actual leak of classified information, there are reports that someone in the administration was trying to — after it was already out — actively spread the story, even calling Ambassador Wilson’s wife “fair game.” Are you asking your staff if anyone did that? And would it be wrong or even a fire-able offense if that happened?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the investigators will ask our staff about what people did or did not do. This is a town of — where a lot of people leak. And I’ve constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information. And I want to know, I want to know the truth. I want to see to it that the truth prevail. And I hope we can get this investigation done in a thorough way, as quickly as possible.

But the Justice Department will conduct this investigation. The professionals in the Justice Department will be involved in ferreting out the truth. These are citizens who will — were here before this administration arrived and will be here after this administration leaves. And they’ll come to the bottom of this, and we’ll find out the truth. And that will be — that’s a good thing for this administration.

Randy.

Q Mr. President, how confident are you the investigation will find the leaker in the CIA case? And what do you make of Sharon’s comment that Israel will strike its enemies at any place, any time?

THE PRESIDENT: This is the dual question. (Laughter.) I’m trying to figure out if I want to answer either of them, since you violated a major rule. (Laughter.) At least it’s not a cell phone. (Laughter.)

Randy, you tell me, how many sources have you had that’s leaked information that you’ve exposed or have been exposed? Probably none. I mean this town is a — is a town full of people who like to leak information. And I don’t know if we’re going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there’s a lot of senior officials. I don’t have any idea. I’d like to. I want to know the truth. That’s why I’ve instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators — full disclosure, everything we know the investigators will find out.

(and check this out)

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. But we’ll find out.

Link to WH Website and Transcript
keepinon on June 22, 2006 at 10:30 pm

Excellent question Booman. This cynic could think of a couple of possibilities, like positions on various boards of directors for Fortune 500 Cos. Perhaps a membership at the right club, if Karl is into that sort of thing. Maybe just a simple account in a Swiss bank? Perhaps all/none of the above. Maybe we should do a poll?

On Rove and Plame: A Reminder

About The Author

BooMan

8 Comments

Recent Posts

Recent Comments