Bombshell from Newsweek: Rove & the White House had heads up on Novak column...

[originalpckelly]

because a lobbyist well-known and oft used as a source by Novak was given a copy of Novak's article before it was published. The lobbyist then went on to give the article TO KARL ROVE!

Karl Rove and the White House knew a covert agent was about to be outed and did nothing about it!

It's in this Newsweek article posted by fellow DUer "Rose Siding" in the Editorials & Other Articles forum.

Here is the key excerpt:
"Asked by one of Libby's lawyers if he had talked about Plame with anybody else before outing her in his column, Novak said he'd discussed her with a lobbyist named Richard Hohlt. Who, the lawyer pressed, is Hohlt? "He's a very good source of mine" whom I talk to "every day," Novak replied. Indeed, Hohlt is such a good source that after Novak finished his column naming Plame, he testified, he did something most journalists rarely do: he gave the lobbyist an advance copy of his column. What Novak didn't tell the jury is what the lobbyist then did with it: Hohlt confirmed to NEWSWEEK that he faxed the forthcoming column to their mutual friend Karl Rove (one of Novak's sources for the Plame leak), thereby giving the White House a heads up on the bombshell to come."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17202408/site/newsweek/page/2/

[yellerpup]

1. This is shocking information.

Why do I feel numb? K&R :kick:

[originalpckelly]

3. I have a feeling that this is going to be big.

I wonder why Fitz didn't indict? If they knew a covert agent was about to be outed and didn't do anything about it, doesn't that at the very least imply they were OK with the content of the article?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

17. If the Shrub and Darth Cheney had the power to declassify, I think that they declasiffied her

status before outing her.

[WinkyDink]

88. The president cannot simply REVEAL a COVERT operation!

This was NOT a completed mission, whether or not VP was back in the US.

And just Bush/Cheney's SAYING they could---or Gonzo's---doesn't make it LEGAL.

[exlrrp]

30. Why didn't Fitzgerald subpoena Cheney?

This is looking like a contaiinment effort by Fitzgerald. He obviously had a lot more targets--there was clearly a conspiracy reaching into Cheney's office to out Plame.
So why didn't Fitzgerald subpoena Cheney at the trial? he obviously has much personal knowledge of the whole matter, it originated from him.
Fitzgerald's whole investigation has been containment, damage control for Bushco. Even if Libby is convicted (about a 50-50 shot right now) there won't be any more accountability for Cheney/Rove/et al. Its over with Libby, thats plain. A 2d tier player with all those culpable leaders. Glad I didn't rename my holidays for Fitzgerald.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

35. Wasn't the defense going to call Cheney, as a way to provide cover for Libby?

If Fitzgerald subpoenaed Cheney, what would be the basis? It was Libby's lying about his discussions with various reporters that resulted in the obstruction of justice charge.

I'm really interested. Thanks in advance. :hi: MKJ

[EVDebs]

63. "Cover" all along has been for the CIA's illegal domestic ops

So...the fix was in from the start. Like Operation CHAOS, Operation Mockingbird's use of illegal suppression of dissent inside the US utilized planted "journalists": just look at the defense list of Walter Pincus (admitted to CIA work in the past) to Bob Woodward (admitted military intel in past and probably a current asset).

Protecting those operations in the domestic front keeps the war machine running.

[goforit]

46. Yes I do agree. Fitzgerald still has alot of explaining to do.

[EVDebs]

64. Google up the info mentioned in post #63 nt

[sofa king]

53. I've been thinking about this....

In recent months I've been pretty hard on the prosecution in this case because it looks to me like Fitzgerald very intentionally let all the big fish swim--particularly Karl Rove, who was free to steal the 2004 election as a result.

However, recently I've been thinking about the major press conference Patrick Fitzgerald gave when he indicted Scooter Libby. Specifically, he said:

When you do a criminal case, if you find a violation, it doesn't really, in the end, matter what statute you use if you vindicate the interest.

If Mr. Libby is proven to have done what we've alleged -- convicting him of obstruction of justice, perjury and false statements -- very serious felonies -- will vindicate the interest of the public in making sure he's held accountable.

It's not as if you say, "Well, this person was convicted but under the wrong statute."

So far, the Bush Administration has achieved everything it has desired in this case. Interminable extension and delay, a single defendant charged with a mere "technicality" (as the Republican talking point goes), and the freedom of the other perpetrators to go on to commit far more damaging crimes which also will never be prosecuted.

But as I think more of it, I realize that Fitzgerald was merely tilting at windmills the whole time. Consider the recent Kentucky case in which the guilty-as-hell Republican executive branch was pardoned en masse by its corrupt governor. Consider that little provision in the Patriot Act which allows the Justice Department to fire its attorneys in the middle of embarrassing cases and replace them with party hacks, as happened recently in the Dusty Foggo case.

You think Bush wouldn't do that? I think the only reason he hasn't already is because he can't be bothered to pardon his people twice--because the day after they're pardoned they'll continue right on breaking the law.

Which brings us back to Fitzgerald's cryptic statement about "vindicat(ing) the interest" of the public.

By going easy on the Bush Administration, Patrick Fitzgerald has aided the short-term interests of the Bush Administration, no question about that. But by making it easy for them, Fitzgerald has also managed to soothe the Bush Administration into keeping its more powerful tools in the box--pardoning the accused, firing the prosecutor himself, and the far darker and more sinister tools many of us suspect this Administration of using.

In the meantime, the political climate has (finally) changed to the point where revelations in this case might have some actual ramifications. Prior to this year, there was no chance that the most corrupt Congress in our nation's history would impeach the most corrupt President in our nation's history. Similarly, early conviction would have simply led to early pardons, early firings, or perhaps an untimely plane crash or two before such a thing could happen.

But now we have an ongoing case which is being publicly discussed, which is revealing the inner workings of this secretive old-boys club. It's going to piss people off, and at the same time it's amassing a case in the court of public opinion against all of the criminals in this specific case, and more.

The "vindication" of which Fitzgerald spoke might be the opportunity for America to learn the details of this case and become outraged, and then hopefully demand the political expedient of impeachment, which has a far better chance of succeeding than the legal path of indicting members of this most criminal regime and expecting them to resign in shame they don't have.

Even if that doesn't work, the 2006 election showed that if the people are outraged enough, the exit polls can still diverge from the results enough to declare the election invalid in a third world country and still produce a reasonably honest result. This case is going to be an issue in the '08 elections now, no matter what happens, and that's going to make stealing that election all the more difficult for the Republicans.

It's an ugly, winding, sometimes barely visible path to justice, but if it works I suppose it may beat impaling oneself on the palisade of the Republican keep. And it can just as easily be just another deception on the path to Hell, which is where we're currently skipping in Little Red Riding Hood's handbasket.

I suppose we'll see if it works.

[cui bono]

66. The trial wasn't about the leak. It was about perjury and obstruction of justice.

[leveymg]

72. I think Cheney's going to resign instead, and that's the deal.

We will see soon.

[orleans]

127. cheney resign? hahaha.....THAT i'd like to see! n/t

[lovuian]

123. As I said Fitzgerald has been given a job to investigate

it appears he seems to be getting surprises along the way

and alas this information shows up after the Defense Rests

the timing is quite interesting

Cheney slips through Rove slips through and Ari gets immunity

What a trial is it one that Fitz will be proud of

History watches

The question is who is in the secret indictment and was libby really a scapegoat

[FredStembottom]

67. I dunno if I believe in "big" anymore........

At least as it concerns this amorphous, jelly-like entity known as Plamegate.

I may be wrong. And hope to be.

[Kablooie]

71. I think this is going to be small.

Fitz's involvement is over.
Everyone knows Cheney and his cohorts were behind the whole thing.
Of course they knew about the article, they had commisioned it.

And unfortunately no one except people here care.

It's old, dead news.

If it had come out a year or so ago, it might have effected things
but it's too late now.

[Morgana LaFey]

79. yeah, damned anticlimactic, AFAIC

No one on teevee seems to give a damn (other than Olbermann, and he gives it too little play for my tastes), so the populace isn't goint to get very exercised about it.

Ergo, end of the discussion.

I PRAY that I am wrong; I fear that I am not.

[eridani]

103. I have a feeling it is going to be buried on p. 18. n/t

[C_U_L8R]

2. Lets see those faxes

this is OUR government.. those papers belong to us..
and those assholes work for us...

haven't they done enough to get fired ?

[Parisle]

4. Agreed,............. wow,.....

--- I didn't see this one coming, either. So,....... Bush has been lying the entire time, eh?

[originalpckelly]

5. Yes, indeed, they weren't surprised that she was outed...

because they had been orchestrating it, but this moment where they got the article was the last moment they had to stop it if they were really not interested in outing a covert agent.

I wonder if the standards of the law prevent prosecution through this twisted method of outing?

[Joanie Baloney]

10. Standards of law???

We don't need no steenkin' standards of law!!

Law?? We don't need no steenkin' law neither!

Nothing will change. We, the concerned folks at DU will be shocked (shocked, I tell you!) and the rest of the country will yawn and wait for more breaking blonde news. All blondes...all the time.

Nothing to see here people. Move along.


:( so sad

[originalpckelly]

13. I wish they had crafted the law in such way as to include malicious outing...

such a this. Of course, who would think an administration would out a covert agent for political purposes? That's pretty fucking cruel. No one normal does that kind of thing.

[yellerpup]

23. Doesn't this prove they willfully committed treason?

Isn't there some sort of punishment for treason? Like a firing squad, maybe? Could that be the reason it hasn't been done before? Just asking... :eyes:

[librechik]

26. yes, but nobody who CAN do anything about it will

for fear they will do it back to us someday? I guess...We must be evil too.

[yellerpup]

31. When I suggested a firing squad for treason

I meant after a trial, after they are found guilty of treason. I usually am on the side of reconciliation and forgiveness but now I can only think of how to stop the slaughter. Maybe I AM evil for even thinking of such a remedy.

[librechik]

74. As Americans we are all washed in the blood of innocents, now

thanks W!

:sarcasm:

we must re-estabish the rule of law and common human sense, or no one will ever take us serously as a democracy again. What a pickle!

[yellerpup]

97. He's made everything we stand for a joke.

We can't let him get away with it.

[Morgana LaFey]

80. If they declassified her status, it's NOTHING

technically, speaking.

I think it's treason and an outrage. But who cares what I think??

[yellerpup]

81. They are unfit to lead if they declassified her so that they could

commit a treasonous crime. DU cares what you think Morgana, otherwise we wouldn't be here.

[Morgana LaFey]

87. Well, thank you

Damn! I appreciate that at least ONE person here cares what I think. :hug:

But there's no one in this administration that cares -- that's what was my point.

And I agree with you a thousandfold that they should be impeached unto HELL, and that eternity there isn't near long enough. But we'll see what happens. I'm just not that confident in the will or spine or even comprehension of OUR elected leaders in Washington.

Thanks again.

[yellerpup]

102. Maybe when the last election results sink in to our reps

they'll have more spine, guts, whatever they need to shut this stupid war down. It's been looking more positive lately in that Congress is no longer completely cowed or overwhelmed, we just can't afford to let things develop at the usual glacial pace. Hell yeah, I care. Thank you! :hug:

[ArmchairMeme]

43. Dumb Blondes

She was such a dumb blonde that her lawyer didn't update her will when the one heir to her estate DIED.

[tavalon]

118. Do I sense a little ironic tone here?

;)

Yeah, if anyone in this administation is moving their mouth, they are lying. It's axiomatic.

[Rose Siding]

6. The WH had 3 days notice-

WHY no conspiracy charges???

snip>
On July 11, 2003, three days before the column was published, Novak gave him a preview copy. (Unknown to Hohlt, Rove had already confirmed to Novak that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.) That same day, Hohlt e-mailed details about the column to Rove, and later faxed him the entire unpublished article. (Rove's lawyer confirms this account.) "I was just trying to be helpful," Hohlt says. His role as a go-between later earned him a visit from the FBI, but it stayed secret until now.

[pretzel4gore]

7. too bad rove never sent a hitman....

novak needed '5 in the noggin' imho!....but i guess sending a killa would defeat the entire exercise's premise: rove etc wanted the agent outed (to punish her husband)....iow novak was a rove agent

[Skink]

8. tune in next week for As the Aspens Turn.

[malaise]

9. Yipeee

Thesse goons make scum look good.
I'm loving it. Butter anyone!!!
:popcorn: :popcorn: :rofl:

[stop the bleeding]

11. related thread here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x238359

[deminks]

12. Lots of questions about KKKarl this week.

KKKarl and Novakula. Who'd o' thunk it?



the button says "I'm a source, not a target"

[Tin Man]

14. How is this a surprise? The WH *leaked* to Novak in the first place, with the intention he write it!

For me, this story is just the "dot over the i". The "i" in impeachment, I suppose - but it's not a surprise by any means.

[originalpckelly]

16. Well, it's a moment where they could have stopped it from happening...

and it shows that this was an intentional leak beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Tin Man]

18. Well, that's true.

But I was pretty sure it was an intentional campaign after 3 top officials leaked to 6 reporters, and Cheney's own notes commanded that it be done.

[robinlynne]

62. and it is now publicly documented.

[goclark]

114. Where has the ugly Novak been anyway? It sure is nice

not seeing him with his ugly evil friends 24/7.

[WiseButAngrySara]

15. Liars! God I wish this nightmare was over. KNR! ....n/t

[Dinger]

19. This SHOULD Be All We Need To Clear Out The WH,

but will it????

[originalpckelly]

21. You know, this may not be a broken law, but it is a gross abuse of power.

And remember high crimes and misdemeanors are not tied to the criminal code, i.e. something doesn't have to be technically illegal to be an abuse of power and constitute grounds for impeachment.

[Vidar]

33. Should. Now back to the real US.

[Jackpine Radical]

20. Can anyone be made to care? Does anyone in Congress

give a shit?

Or will this story die stillborn on the pages of Newsweek like so many others?

For sure you won't see much of it on the network news.

[mwb970]

84. I imagine Tweety & Keith will have something on it Monday. /nt

[many a good man]

22. No law broken unless

Rover knew she was undercover. Nobody conveniently told him that one little detail until after it hit the newsstands.

[teach1st]

25. Hard to prove he knew Plame was undercover, but...

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/DNC_begins_Rove_campaign_What_did_Rove_know_and_when_did_he_know_0711.html

In August 2004, Rove Claimed He Did Not Know Who Plame Was. In August of 2004, facing questions of his role in the Plame leak scandal, Rove denied his involvement, saying that he did not even know who Plame was at the time of the leak. "Well, I'll repeat what I said to ABC News when this whole thing broke some number of months ago. I didn't know her name and didn't leak her name."

How many times did Rove say he didn't know who Plame was, and to whom?

[cui bono]

68. But he also said he didn't leak her name which was a lie, so does it matter?

[fooj]

93. Rover KNEW she was covert.

You can take that one to the bank.

[Cocoa]

24. can someone spell out the meaning of this please

this story has become so convoluted I can't make sense of these things without some help.

[deminks]

27. Was Mr. Hohlt buying/selling information?

Here is why I ask:

1. Mr. Hohlt used to work for Sen Lugar according to the Newsweek article.

2. He then became a lobbyist for:

(snip)
He now represents A-list clients like Bristol Myers, Chevron, JPMorgan Chase and the Nuclear Energy Association. At the same time, he raises buckets of cash for the Republican Party: he was designated a "Super Ranger," a fund-raiser who raked in more than $500,000 for President Bush's re-election.

3. Why is Novakula talking to him daily and give him a copy of a column before it is published?

(snip)
The club (the Off the Record Club), participants say, helps the White House with damage control—they prodded GOP pols to back the president's post-Katrina cleanup—and thinks up ways to get the party's message across to the press.

This looks like Newsweek doing damage control, IMHO.

[many a good man]

28. Screams for Congressional investigation

Rove definitely lied to the public (and presumably to the prez) but it's unclear whether he lied to Fitz. Fitz may not be able to prosecute him over this but it does paint a picture of conspiracy and cover-up. The conspiracy clearly includes officials from WH, OVP, press, and now K Street. It demands further inquiry.

[Dems Will Win]

32. It's quite simple: this fax is the reason Rove flipped and turned State's Evidence Against Bush

Months Ago.

Why was Rove never indicted? Even though Fitz knew this?

Because Rove triumphantly gave the fax to Bush no doubt. Fitz didn't indict him in return for immunity on perjury and Obstruction.

What this fax bombshell means is that Fitz is going right for Bush.

It also explains why Bush lawyered up in June 2004. This is a direct violation of the IIPA which specifically mentions "intentionally discloses". Since the pundit reason why Fitz wouldn't indict on the IIPA was that he couldn't prove intent, this fax now shows CLEAR INTENT WITHOUT PROPER DECLASSIFICATION OF A NAME:

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.


DEFENSES AND EXCEPTIONS
SEC. 602. <50 U.S.C. 422> (a) It is a defense to a prosecution under section 601 that before the commission of the offense with which the defendant is charged, the United States had publicly acknowledged or revealed the intelligence relationship to the United States of the individual the disclosure of whose intelligence relationship to the United States is the basis for the prosecution.

(b)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), no person other than a person committing an offense under section 601 shall be subject to prosecution under such section by virtue of section 2 or 4 of title 18, United States Code, or shall be subject to prosecution for conspiracy to commit an offense under such section.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply (A) in the case of a person who acted 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, or (B) in the case of a person who has authorized access to classified information.

(c) It shall not be an offense under section 601 to transmit information described in such section directly to either congressional intelligence committee.

(d) It shall not be an offense under section 601 for an individual to disclose information that solely identifies himself as a covert agent.

In short, if Bush and/or Cheney decided to declassify a name or report, they would have to notify the CIA first as well as NOTIFY THE AGENT BEING DECLASSIFIED SO THEY COULD PROTECT THEMSELVES.

As this was not done, and there is a Damage Assessment that details the number of people killed as a result of Brewster Jennings being outed as well, it would appear that Fitz has built a strong case against Bush AND Cheney.

MERRY FITZMAS!

[Cocoa]

36. not simple enough for me

how does an act done by Novak (his giving the fax) prove anything about Bush's breaking the law?

[Dems Will Win]

40. The fax of Novak's column to Rove proves Rove intentionally disclosed

the name of someone who was a CIA agent. Since Rove no doubt showed the fax triumphantly to Bush as proof they had given the shaft to Wilson, the President knew.

As Fitz had the goods already on Rove's perjury, which is clear, he got Rove to "flip" and gave him secret immunity, like Fleischer got.

Since Fitz didn't even bother with Rove in the Libby case it means he is saving all this up for a case against Bush. And don't forget that Bush lawyered up and no doubt took the Fifth when confronted by Fitz with this in June 2004.

I expect a Special Prosecutor report naming Bush and Cheney as unindicted co-conspirators in violation of the IIP Act now. Maybe fairly soon, by the summer!

[snappyturtle]

44. I certainly hope you're right! I think Fitzgerald is very

methodical but the way the nation's going I don't hold out any real hope. Can you imagine how wonder it would be to wake up some morning in the future and pleasantly come into morning consciousness realizing Bush and Cheney were gone?

[Cocoa]

48. you have quite an imagination

I was hoping for a reality-based explanation however.

[Dems Will Win]

52. You have to use your imagination when there are secret Grand Jury

proceeedings and secret testimony and secret immunities being given years ago.

That's the reality of Grand Juries.

Pretty clear now though, that there is evidence of intent, which Fitz probably had from several different witnesses, including Rove and Ari.

[Garbo 2004]

110. While Hohlt's role is news, that Rove spoke to Novak & knew Novak was going to publish is not.

Rove told the grand jury he'd spoken to Novak. Both he and Novak testified to that. Rove and Novak concurred that Rove wasn't Novak's first source and that Rove had only confirmed that he'd heard what Novak had already been told by a first source. (As far as we know the claim that Armitage was Novak's first source is based only on Novak's testimony.) Rove also testified to the Grand Jury that Rove had met with Libby on July 11 and told Libby that he'd spoken with Novak & Novak was going to publish a column leaking Wilson's wife CIA employment.

But more significantly to your point, Rove told FBI investigators as early as October 2003 that he'd spoken with Novak prior to publication of the "Plame" column and that he was one of Novak's sources. This was not something pried out of Rove by Fitzgerald (who wasn't involved in the investigation until December 20, 2003). Rove was already on the record in October 2003 as being one of Novak's sources. According to Murray Waas' sources, in the Fall of 2003 investigators were concerned that Novak and Rove had on Sept 29 collaborated on a cover story that they would tell investigators: that Rove merely "confirmed" that he'd also heard that Plame was CIA: http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0525nj1.htm Which is what Novak and Rove both later testified to the Grand Jury.

Rove reportedly was really on the hook with Fitzgerald regarding his testimony about his conversation with Matt Cooper of Time Mag, a conversation he apparently did not disclose to FBI investigators in Fall 2003 or in his Grand Jury testimony. Even Luskin wound up providing Fitz info in a deposition, that's how much his client was on the hook regarding Cooper. Waas again: http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0428nj1.htm

Lastly, Fitzgerald will not issue a report on the investigation. He doesn't have the authority to issue a report. Grand jury investigation and testimony remain secret except insofar portions are publicly released in the course of an indictment and prosecution such as in the Libby trial. Fitzgerald is not an Independent Counsel such as Ken Starr who could and did issue a report. The Indepedent Counsel law expired in 1999.

[Jim Sagle]

130. Rove's knowledge is old news, w's is not.

[Garbo 2004]

136. And how do we know any more regarding W's knowledge from what Hohlt did? He faxed it to Rove. Did

article say Rove gave the fax to Bush? No, it doesn't. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. We don't know from the article one way or the other.

[Dems Will Win]

137. Clearly the likelihood is that Rove did give the fax to Bush or tell him about it

If Fitz asked him about it. Rove could either tell the truth about Bush and save himself from being indicted, or he could avoid prison by being flipped.

Since Rove was about to be indicted, and the evidence was there from Cooper that he was guilty of perjury, and then Rove was NOT indicted, it means to me that Rove flipped.

Now both he and Bush are stalling until hopefully after the next election, when Bush can then pardon the lot of them and leave office without being impeached.

[Garbo 2004]

140. Or Rove may not have told Bush to maintain plausible deniability. Insulating Bush.

One way or the other it's speculation. One thing is certain, Rove didn't go into the Oval Office to show/tell Bush anything on July 11, 2003.

[opihimoimoi]

37. This will result in some hugh migrane headaches for them GOPers and the Bushie guys

sleeping pills ain't gonna work.....

[GliderGuider]

50. "Enough" sleeping pills would do the trick...

It's stunning that such a weight of evidence could build up without collapsing the whole Potemkin edifice of this administration.

[Peace Patriot]

60. Interesting notion, "Dems Will Win"--that Fitzgerald is going after Bush, not just

Cheney. Presumably, you mean that Rove, when he received the fax, would have taken it to Bush, and there would be several ways to establish that--Rove himself (who is probably still covering for Bush), some other aide or secretary, or a paper trail (was the fax in a Bush briefing book? are there notes of any meeting about it?). That's the "dot" that has to be connected. Was Bush shown the fax or told about it? If so, he had an obligation to act to protect Plame and Brewster-Jennings, and did nothing, a grave crime of omission.

With Cheney, the case for conspiracy to out Plame and BJ seems quite compelling--and Fitzgerald has been pointing at him from the beginning (in the original Libby indictment docs for perjury/obstruction). Much more has come out at Libby's trial. Cheney/Libby knew she was a covert agent (Cheney told Libby); they knew what her job was (WMD counter-proliferation); they knew it was vitally important to national security, and that outing her and her Brewster-Jennings network would put peoples' lives in danger; and they went on a positive campaign to out her (and BJ) concerning which Libby told one whopper of a lie to the FBI and GJ (that newsman Tim Russert told him of Plame's status). This lie was part of a disinformation campaign to "seed" knowledge of her status in various places, so that it would bounce back at them, and they could later claim that "everybody knew."

One question remains--how actively was Bush involved in outing Plame/BJ, in giving that order? Was it more than a crime of omission (bad enough as that is)? Did he have any idea what was going on in his government? We can write our own inner scenarios of how this went--Cheney feeding tidbits to Bush, to keep him stoked (how he does love meanspirited behavior and bloody revenge!), or Bush being too stupid to be apprised of major dirty initiatives like this (--might blow it), or Bush putting on a stupid act but actually masterminding the thing, or co-masterminding it. (My pick for ultimate mastermind is Rumsfeld, by the way--much more here than meets the eye; nefarious scheme to PLANT nukes in Iraq, as followup to the Niger/Iran nuke forgeries--and the plan got foiled--with Cheney/Libby having to deal with political/legal fallout of that failure). But we don't know that much about Bush's role.

There were a couple little hints in the Libby trial. A Cheney memo that had the word "Pres." crossed off, implying that Bush put Libby on the mission to out Plame. And Libby was informed, at one point, of Bush's interest in the matter (--framed as "concern" about Joe Wilson's op-ed). Also, it's interesting what that Cheney memo was about--Scott McClellan had said at a press conference that he'd talked to Rove, and Rove didn't do it (out Plame)--as if this exonerated Rove (so hilarious!). Cheney wanted McClellan to also "exonerate" Libby. So, it is already clear, way back in winter '03/'04, that Libby/Rove were trying leave each other holding the bag.

I think this is how it went: The whole Niger/Iraq nuke plot originated in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans. The prep was the Niger/Iraq nuke forgeries; the payoff was to be a "find" of nukes in Iraq, by the US troops who were "hunting" for WMDs after the invasion (accompanied by NYT WMD propagandist Judith Miller). But someone foiled them (detected, prevented the illicit nuke movement), and they suspected Plame/BJ (the CIA counter-proliferation network). Cheney was in charge of the political end of this plot--of constantly repeating the WMD allegation, and getting the nuke allegation in particular put back in Bush's speeches (even after it had been debunked by several agencies). Rumsfeld was in charge of the operational end of it. Part of the scheme was to ENTICE the CIA into a known "no nukes in Iraq" position, with the "crude" (easily detectable) Niger forgeries (--leading to the Wilson article), then to discredit the CIA, when the planted nukes were "found." When the scheme failed, they went into a panic, not just because they were left with no justification for the war, but mainly out of fear at the scheme's exposure.

In July 2003, they had charges of exaggerated pre-war intel coming from at least TWO insider directions--Wilson (and I think they knew who he was married to all along), and yet more of a wild card, David Kelly in England. They could not be sure who knew what, or how far knowledge of their dirty scheme had gotten. They perhaps were not even sure who had foiled their scheme. First, they outed Plame (7/14/03). Then David Kelly was killed (7/17) and his office and computers were searched. Then they took a shotgun approach to the Brewster-Jennings network, and outed EVERYBODY (7/22). Thence to the coverup--or to the onion-like layers of coverup that we are now looking at.

Rove did it (outed Plame) for political reasons. Nope. Rove was just a political operative for the deeper coverup. Cheney did it for political reasons--the layer that is now visible in the Libby trial. Nope. That's not true either. They had no reason to fear a war profiteering corporate newsstream that they had near total control over in 2003. Their lapdog press easily switched from WMDs to "Iraqi freedom" as the "justification" for the war. So why do this shotgun outing of the entire BJ network (so over the top as to "punishing" Joe Wilson anyway)? Because, a) someone in the BJ network foiled their dirty scheme in Iraq, and b) would possibly also foil their dirty scheme for Iran. It was an OPERATIONAL need, not a political one.

So, back to Libby/Rove, and the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld triad. Libby and Rove were tasked with outing Plame and BJ from different directions, to create confusion (--the "everybody knew" seeding). Libby was taking orders from Cheney (who was doing the political end for Rumsfeld). And Rove was taking orders from...? Probably Bush--although some Rove behavior indicates that MAYBE Rove had made the mistake of taking orders from Cheney (and/or believed assurances from Cheney or from someone acting for Cheney, that Plame was "fair game"--that what he was doing was not a crime, or would be decriminalized). (--and when Rove saw his mistake, he immediately took steps to start throwing it back on Libby).

So that "dot" between the lobbyist's fax (faxing Novak's column to Rove before it was published) and Bush (and his direct culpability) is an important one. It COULD be that all this behavior--Rove vs. Libby--is just another layer of coverup, aimed at protecting Bush and the Iran goal. Libby falling on his sword. Rove happily helping Libby to fall on his sword (to avoid prosecution himself for originally lying). And the "Aspens" (Republican bigwigs) trying to get Cheney to fall on his sword, if need be, to protect the PNAC plan to become Lords of the Earth and control all the earth's remaining oil on a dying planet--a plan that necessitates Bush remaining in power. Cheney's ego has gotten in the way of the bigger scheme. (Could this be why he shot that "Aspen" in the hunting "accident" on the Armstrong ranch?)

If "Dems Will Win" is right, Fitzgerald is not buying it--that the conspiracy stops with Cheney. At the least, Bush KNEW. Fitzgerald may not have penetrated to the Rumsfeld layer--that is, to WHY Plame and Brewster-Jennings were outed (I mean, why really)--his stated goal (why?). But he has penetrated the complex web of deceit that was designed to make everybody and nobody responsible for these outings. His not indicting all of these outers of Plame/B-J COULD BE read as some kind of "Aspen" conspiracy in which Fitzgerald is involved. But I don't think so. And I'd go 99.9% against that idea. Possible. Not at all probable. What is probable, though, is that what Fitzgerald is up to, behind all this, is preparing a GJ report that names all sorts of "unindicted co-conspirators," including Bush and Cheney (and maybe Rumsfeld*), and lets Congress take it from there. In other words, he may have judged that none of the many people involved should be prosecuted for what is, essentially, treason--and is, at the least, a serious felony--if they were following orders of their "commander in chief" (or who they thought was "commander in chief"--Cheney).

-------

*(It's notable that Rumsfeld is the one who is gone--without any change in the Iraq war policy. Why, then, was he ousted? Was it a cosmetic change, a sop to the new Congress? If so, its effect was short-lived. Bush came right back at them with a "surge." Or is he the one who is going to be named as chief mastermind? There was no other entity within the Bush Junta than the OSP with more interest in getting rid of the honest professionals at the CIA who saw their job a preventing war, not manufacturing it. The OSP's sole purpose was to manufacture war. The OSP is also the one with all the operational connections to the Niger/Iraq nuke forgeries. Cheney/Bush spouted the lie. But who fed the forgeries TO them? And if the plan was to PLANT the nukes in Iraq--which I think is a good guess--who would be overseeing that operation? who would have cooked it up? who would have decided that it was doable? and who would be gone if it failed--and if it was about to all come out in public?)

[troubleinwinter]

76. Mighty interesting post.

I have never bought the "political revenge against Wilson" bit, but rather that it was ALL about Plame/Brewster Jennings.

But why "unindicted co-conspirators"? Why not simply indict them? Or are VP & POTUS prevented from indictment while in office?

[Dems Will Win]

111. You can't indict a sitting VP or POTUS you must impeach first

[Garbo 2004]

117. Actually a sitting VP can be indicted. Agnew was about to be indicted & cut a plea deal, then

resigned. Agnew had learned that as VP he was not immune from indictment and prosecution.

[Peace Patriot]

132. Why not indict them all? Because they were all taking orders from "commander

in chief" Bush, or the operative "commanders in chief" Cheney and Rumsfeld--and Fitzgerald--in typical Fitzgerald fashion--is working (or has worked) himself up the chain of command. He really stressed this in his one press conference on this matter--that he wanted to know not just who but why,--that it was/is a grave matter of national security--and that Libby had "thrown dust in the umpire's eyes" as to who and why. If the "why" is that it was a sort of political accident--say, Rove being too Rovian, and, in a fit of pique, inadvertently outing a CIA agent--that's one thing. But if it is a conspiracy at the command level, that is something much more serious.

And clearly, we are well past the "political accident" theory. This was no accident. And many top Bushites were involved. Libby tried to mount a defense that it was a "time of war" and he was concerned with many serious matters--and forgot his conversation with Russert--but in truth he made up that conversation, as part of the "seeding" narrative (that "everybody knew"). Well, still, this might be what's on Fitzgerald's mind--that all of these people were operating "in time of war" and were taking orders. That could explain why he focused singularly on Libby, the Cheney "gatekeeper." The other reason is that Libby lied and deliberately obstructed him. Rove lied, too--but I think it's pretty clear that Rove changed his testimony, under threat of indictment. As long as he thinks people are telling the truth, he doesn't indict them. Why? Is it a plot in which Fitzgerald is involved, to let all of these people off the hook for the outings? Or is it because he needed certain testimony to unravel the conspiracy and get at the command elements, and because they were taking orders from the upper level perps "in time of war"? I think the latter is much more plausible--and that we will likely see a GJ report with "unindicted co-conspirators." He made a deal with some of them, to get their testimony. Others he may think are not that guilty, if THEY thought that Plame's status had somehow been declassified, or that, in obeying an order to out her, that they were doing their duty. It would be the COMMANDERS of the operation who were most guilty, and getting at who they were was his own most important duty and priority.

This case is way, way beyond anything we have ever seen in our government. This is not Spiro Agnew--who was corrupt. Nor Bill Clinton--who was merely having affairs. Or even Nixon, who was illegally spying on the Democrats and helping to cover up burglaries. This is TREASON--or at the very least, conspiracy to endanger the lives of many covert agents/contacts and friends of the U.S. (and the world) who were tracking WMDs and trying to prevent their proliferation. It is clearly a very serious felony on this end--outing Plame (the head of the network)--far more serious than political dirty trickery. And it could have caused murders abroad. Plame herself may still be in danger, and may not be able to travel abroad.

Fitzgerald's handling of the case has been pristine. No publicity. No grand-standing. No unprovable accusations. No trivial crap like they pulled on Clinton. No "star chamber" proceedings. He has been as tight-lipped as a prosecutor could be. And the way he has handled it so far may be a measure of its gravity--as well as characteristic of Fitzgerald. Some are impatient and say he is covering up a major crime, and letting people go free. As I said above, that's possible, but very improbable. His actions much more resemble the actions of a serious bulldog of a prosecutor on the trail of solving a complex and very serious crime. Further, he is dealing with extremely dangerous and powerful political figures, who have asserted extraordinary extra-legal powers in every sphere--from torture to firing federal prosecutors and generals they don't like to "signing statements" putting them above the law (to outing CIA agents). Fitzgerald has special status, and special and very broad powers--but how well will his protections hold up, if he names Bush, Cheney and/or Rumsfeld as part of this conspiracy? He has to proceed very carefully--and if he is going to name Bush and/or Cheney, he may figure that the matter must be resolved in Congress (--has to be resolved politically).

One scenario--which occurred to me with Rumsfeld's ouster--is that Fitzgerald may name Bush and Cheney, who then turn around and blame Rumsfeld, who is officially gone, even if he still has a desk--and may thus try to hang onto their offices (by tooth and claw, so to speak--or even by pre-arrangement with Rumsfeld). Remember that the goal of the entire plot, ultimately, may have been to plant evidence not just on Iraq, but on the grand prize, Iran, and to invade or bomb Iran. And, in fact, they are already doing this--producing phony "evidence" and making all sorts of wild charges against Iran. They may be doing it out of desperation, at this point ("wagging the dog"), or out of sheer evil-doer momentum. The original PNAC goal, of invading and taking over Mideast oil fields--like dominoes, one after the other--is proving to be very difficult to accomplish. If they bomb Iran and do serious damage to it, what then? We don't have the troops to hold onto Iran. Are they going to keep the US fleet off their coast and terrorize them with missiles for the next couple of decades? What of Russia and China? Are they going to sit idly by and watch a major oil source, and trade partner, destroyed? I do think that this is what Libby thinks he is falling on his sword to protect--the Iran takeover (concerning which all the "aspens" are "turning together"--back on the same page again, the "grand scheme" back on track, after the failure of the Iraq WMD-planting scheme). Will Rumsfeld fall on his sword, too--for the sake of taking over Iran? It's all madness, of course, But not to them. They have only two years to finish the "grand scheme," with impeachment possibly interfering with it.

[creeksneakers2]

95. Rumsfeld is still there

Rumsfeld has an office in the Pentagon and goes to work there every day.

[orleans]

128. i know. bush said something the other day that sounded exactly like

rumsfuck talking. i thought that if it wasn't obvious fuckhead was still consorting with rumsfuck it's obvious as hell now.

[halobeam]

98. What an excellent post.

[caledesi]

99. PP - You and DWW ought to get together. Great minds! nt

[Beetwasher]

107. Fantastic Analysis!

I've been thinking much along the same lines, what we're seeing is merely the surface ripples of a much deeper game. :thumbsup:

[Dems Will Win]

116. Thanks for the post PP

You're beginning to get my drift, if the fax was sent to Rove, Bush got it and did nothing.

We know, btw, that Ari was on Air Force One with Bush where the INR memo was being passed around. July 7, 2003.

Ari has immunity and could be ready to testify Bush knew all on the memo and maybe even encouraged the staff to talk to reporters and get Wilson.

Also John Dean noted in June 2004 it is very unusual for a President to lawyer up and that Fitz has something serious on Bush...

[caledesi]

96. DWW - Great thinking.....works for me

Hope that Waxman and Conyers get the "memo"....LOL!

[WiseButAngrySara]

29. Bush quotes re: Outing of Plame...

“There’s just too many leaks, and if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.”

"I don’t know if we’re going to find out the senior administration official. I don’t have any idea." President George W. Bush, 10/7/03

“I want to know the truth. … 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.”

“I’d like to know if somebody in my White House did leak sensitive information.”
White House Briefing, 10/10/03] "I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information.

If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." "The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration.

"If anyone in my administration was involved in the outing of a CIA agent, that person will be fired."

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

[stop the bleeding]

54. yep these quotes are pretty critical

I wonder if anyone on in congress would be interested in these quotes. But then again he had lied to the people in the past and everyone was more concerned about run away brides or whatever the non-news was for that week.


good job btw, people need to be reminded of this kind of stuff

[WiseButAngrySara]

56. Thanks! How many people remember Clinton's little white

lie about Leminsky? How ridiculous the comparison!

[stop the bleeding]

57. So I wonder how many legs this story

will grow as we go from Monday, Tuesday etc....

Keith Olberman would serve himself well to do a segment on these quotes, and I can almost bet Jon Stewart will.

[WiseButAngrySara]

59. Oh let's hope so! Never did I imagine that laughter would be

such a remedy for evil and tragedy...

[Botany]

85. thanx

saved me from looking them up.

Lying sacks of crap.


Bush, "It is my job to keep you safe from terrorists
and people who see evil and murder as a way to stop democracy."
Rough Quote.

[WiseButAngrySara]

112. "Lying sacks of crap" You nailed it perfectly! ....n/t

[orleans]

129. when fuckhead said "the person will be taken care of"

guess he was thinking more in terms of a medal of freedom.

[usregimechange]

34. K & R!

[SalmonChantedEvening]

38. And by doing nothing, they gave it their blessing.

Cry Treason!!

[Cass]

39. Damnit, this is so frustrating. I wonder if the lapdog press will cover this shocking

revelation. There needs to be a Congressional investigation of this case; these slimeballs can't just get away with outing a covert agent and an entire CIA front company for political reasons. This sucks.

[tavalon]

119. I save you some wondering energy

No, the press will not cover this. Different day, same ol' shit.

[Cass]

139. Sad what the press has become, isn't it? nt

[Vinnie From Indy]

41. How is this a bombshell if it was introduced as part of Libby's defense?

This evidence was brought out by the DEFENSE! It wasn't a surprise and it was certainly part of a larger defense strategy. Defense attorneys, especially at the pay grade of Libby's, do not introduce lines of questioning willy nilly.

[Grandrose]

42. Yeah...but Brittany shaved her head!!!

Nobody seems to care, not even Fitzgerald(big disappointment) that a
treasonous conspiracy was committed.
Hope the Plame civil law suit benefit from this.
Where is the outrage???? :grr:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

69. Not many people know that Rove shaved his head!

Not that many know who Rove is. More people know Britney.
:cry:

[troubleinwinter]

77. People DO care. Did you not read

this thread? Have you read the 'Plame threads' over the last few years? You think there is no outrage?!

MSM hasn't covered it enough for many to understand it, but the day will come. Oh, the day will come. It came for Nixon. People cared when they finally understood the facts.

[Grandrose]

94. Hope springs eternal!

Yes, I have read those threads and totally agree with you.
From your keyboard to a higher power!:hi:

[goforit]

45. An absolute premeditated conspiracy by all in WH.

[Canuckistanian]

47. But why whould Hohlt send it to Rove? Proof-reading?

Maybe to make sure the column didn't give TOO many clues about the leak.

[Dems Will Win]

51. It was congratulatory among politcial zealots...

They were ecstatic their plan worked!

[originalpckelly]

61. Hohlt didn't know that Karl Rove was one of Novak's sources.

[creeksneakers2]

100. Hohlt and Rove had a relationship

Hohlt probably wanted credit for what Novak wrote.

[flyarm]

49. do remember *hes statmentsafter Valerie was outed..that he would not tolerate

anyone in his white house outing a cia agent..and if any one in his white house did so they would be fired..

gee seems his onw firing is due any day wouldn't you say????????

he knew he was part and parcel of the outing and his mo is ..if they hold off the story long enough..when the truth is known..people yawn! and they can control the media sound bites and the stories of the day!! ie: anna nichol anyone?

*also said at the time ..it is almost impossible to find a leaker...( not in those words..but in his meaning)

fly

[stop the bleeding]

55. quotes posted by WBAS in post#29 n/t

[mod mom]

58. I hope Fitz will make use of this!

[JNelson6563]

65. There it is!

:toast: :popcorn:

K&R!! :kick:

[Kablooie]

70. Oh heck. What's the big deal?

We know they wanted the story out.

We know that most of America doesn't care one way or the other.

We know the press lets things like this slide.



So file it in the huge big nothings file.

[The Count]

73. Knowing that it was karl leaking it to Novak in the first place, I'm not exactly

shocked that he checked up on the progress of HIS orders...
If we talk about direct proof, I thought we already had proof about who leaked from testimony in the Libby case.

[Vinca]

75. It's a catch-22. Shrub can declassify anything, so even if he told

Rove and Rove blabbed it all over town, nothing will happen. Dear Leader is the ultimate leaker.

[troubleinwinter]

78. No, he cannot declassify an NOC without certain procedures, which were not followed.

It is WHY the CIA called for the investigation.

[Vinca]

86. I stand corrected . . . happily. nt

[originalpckelly]

90. That's true, but to do that would be an impeachable abuse of power.

[Botany]

82. The news should be when the bush admin tells the truth.

"If anyone in my administration was involved in the outing of a CIA agent,
that person will be fired." George W bush Oct 2003 ..... After he hired a
criminal defense attorney in July of 2003 about the Plame outing.

[Major Hogwash]

83. There's got to be a 2nd trial, Cheney and Rove were co-conspirators to out Plame.

This is the "smoking gun" that connects all of them together.

And from Novak himself, "the douchebag of liberty".
Who would've thunk it.

[Garbo 2004]

121. It would be a "smoking gun" perhaps if we didn't already know that Rove was a Novak source

for the July 14, 2003 column. Rove told the Feds in October 2003 that he was one of Novak's sources, and he and Novak both testified to that before the grand jury.

I'm just curious what part of this article do people think is a revelation and a "smoking gun" in regards to Rove, considering that it's been known for years that he was a source for Novak's July 14, 2003 column.

The only news in Novak's trial testimony is that Hohlt was a DC power structure information conduit and in this case was a feedback loop to the Administration. But it's not a revelation in regards to what Rove knew at the time.

[originalpckelly]

125. It shows intent, because the way Rove played his role is that he merely "confirmed"...

information Novak had from talking to Dick Armitage, and Dick Armitage didn't tell Novak because he was out to get Plame, it was an accident.

Now we know that it wasn't merely confirmation, but a concerted effort.

This new information is the last moment they had to pull the story or tell Novak he shouldn't publish the article. They didn't do that.

[Major Hogwash]

126. That's how it appears to me, as well.

I don't think any one knew that it was a fact that Rove was Novak's source until 2 weeks ago.
I think we learned that it actually was a fact when Novak testified.

There was a lot of speculation about who Novak's sources were, and Joe Wilson even wrote a book a year later in which he postulated that it was either Rove, Libby, or Cheney that were sources for Novak.

Rove's involvement as a source for Novak was revealed during the course of the Libby trial 2 weeks ago. It came to light from the testimony of Robert D. Novak, not from Rove's grand jury testimony, which has still been kept secret to this day.

To my way of thinking, this not only shows intent to obstruct an investigation, it also clearly demonstrates the motive they had to commit that obstruction, and that there was a concerted effort, a conspiracy, to obstruct justice among more than one White House official.

[Garbo 2004]

134. Novak published an article July 2006 disclosing that Rove was a source,

confirming previously publshed reports: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15988

A July 2005 extremely detailed NYT article regarding the info Rove provided investigators cites an anon source "officially briefed on the matter" which one could assume was Rove's attorney Luskin, especially since the source cited Fitzgerald's request not to discuss the matter as the reason for not agreeing to be identified in the article. Luskin was chatty with the press on both an attributed and unattributed basis and usually would put something out in an attempt to somewhat innoculate Rove when something else bad was going down, in this instance, the revelation in July 2005 that Rove had leaked to Matt Cooper. Rove hadn't disclosed his conversation with Matt Cooper to investigators or the grand jury. On the other hand, Rove had disclosed his conversation with Novak to the FBI and the grand jury. 2005 NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/politics/15rove.html?ex=1279080000&en=8b89b1ab01900c23&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[Garbo 2004]

131. We already knew Rove had intent: he leaked to Matt Cooper on the morning of July 11. We already

knew that there was a concerted effort to get the info into the media. Libby and Rove were doing a tag team, leaking and "confirming" leaks. Rove leaked to Cooper and Libby confirmed. Supposedly Armitage first leaked to Novak and then Rove confirmed with almost word for word what Libby later said to Cooper. Libby had leaked to Judy Miller weeks before and again on July 8. Libby had told Ari, WH Press Secretary, on July 7. Clearly the intent was to get the "Wilson's wife" story into the media.

According to the book "Hubris," while Novak was leaving phone messages for Rove on July 8, he spoke to Adam Levine, a WH press aide. He asked Levine what he thought about the Wilson thing. Levine replied, "I'm not working on that. You've got to talk to Scooter or Karl."

[grasswire]

89. Hohlt appears to be a long-time stealth fixer for the Bushes

...with ties to the S&L industry. tobacco, etc.

[wryter2000]

91. Will this finally, finally, finally be it?

I keep waiting for the masses to sit up and say :wtf:. Is anything going to rouse them out of their stupor?

This just in: Anna Nicole Smith is still dead.

[Bobbie Jo]

92. Exactly...

How may freakin Perry Mason moments is it going to take? :shrug:

[frogcycle]

104. thatt is SOOO last week

Britney shaved her head

[Olney Blue]

101. A whole lotta faxin' goin' on.

[Quixote1818]

105. They had the obligation to stop the story to prevent blowing the cover of Brewster Jennings.

We also lost our ability to track some WMD's in Iran. This is outright, blatant treason!

[me b zola]

106. What about Novak's 2nd article? The one that outs Brewster Jennings?

Was there also a fax to the WH to let them know that BJ was about to be outed?

This leads me to believe that there was communication from the WH or OVP following the first article that told Novak that he needed to go a bit further, that outing Plame was not enough.

Congress must investigate, and they must not stop @ the outing of Plame, but the outing of Plame's cover company and the counterproliferation work that they were doing. It is imperative that this be investigated.

[Gman]

108. Last week's news that the MSM is just now noticing because

Brittany's new hairdo has finished the news cycle and there's not much else.

This should have been the lead story and Pg. 1 headline on every news show and newspaper last week. It sure would have been in 1974.

[happydreams]

109. Hate to burst this bubble...

and hope there are other bubbles here that won't burst, but Rove can simply say he didn't realize the implications of the situation at the time he recieved Hohlt's copy. He only had a few days to read the article and may not have even gotten too it, blah, blah.

[Lint Head]

113. Rove is Goebbels

This is a dictatorship run by fascists. This means nothing unless someone is will to risk his reputation and life to prosecute the criminals in the White House now.


:dem:

[Garbo 2004]

115. How is this a "bombshell" that Rove knew? Of course he knew. But you miss the real significance

of Novak's revelation.

What isn't news: Rove is one of the leakers, was a source for Novak's column & knew it was to be published. He didn't have to be told this by anyone else. He was Novak's buddy and source. "Bombshell?" Please.

What perhaps qualifies more as a "bombshell" is a peek into how the DC power structure works: Novak's revelation about his buddy Hohlt highlights the symbiotic incestuous relationships between the media, politicians and lobbyists and their roles in trading information, access and favors amongst themselves. They all use each other as "cut outs" and conduits to serve their various purposes. THAT's the story.

(edited for spelling)

[The Count]

120. BINGO! And I have yet to understand why the lobbyist talked...

[Garbo 2004]

122. Probably talked to put the most innocent spin on his involvement, now that it's public.

"Just trying to be helpful."

[originalpckelly]

124. No, it's a bombshell because it wasn't merely a passive role of confirmation...

of what Armitage said, but an active role of implicitly approving of what the article said. If Rove and the White House didn't intend for her job to be released, that was the last point to do it.

They didn't and it pushes the proof up there past reasonable suspicion, to beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Garbo 2004]

133. Are you forgetting Libby's leaks to Judy Miller and Rove's leak to Cooper?

Neither were "passive" leaks. (Which is why no doubt, Rove "forgot" to mention his chat with Cooper to the FBI and the grand jury, although he willingly disclosed his conversation with Novak.) These guys weren't chatting up the press and getting Ari on board to keep it out of the press.

[GliderGuider]

135. What about that "Sealed vs. Sealed" indictment still hanging out there?

We all thought it was for Rove, but I now wonder if that piece of life-altering paper might not have Cheney's name on it? It would make sense if Karl has been cooperating

Ah, most delicious daydream!

[suegeo]

138. Fitzgerald: a made guy before or after?

So was Fitzgerald a made guy before the crime family decided to expose the Brew-Jenn anti- (or so we're told) WMD program? Or did that come later?

"Justice" my fanny.

[DallasNE]

141. This Is A Bombshell

This means that somebody in the Whitehouse had an opportunity to threaten Novak on national security grounds. Of course this didn't happen because the Whitehouse was madly attempting to get anybody to run with the story so the response inside the Whitehouse was undoubtedly unbridaled jubliation. It also helps make clear why Libby only one witness from the Whitehouse to testify; his subordinate.