Jump to content
Washington DC Message Boards

White House Leak To Destroy Joseph C. Wilson


Recommended Posts

Joseph C. Wilson IV, a retired diplomat, is one of the prominent figures in the U.S. government who have charged the Bush administration with using cooked intelligence to justify war in Iraq.


Wilson has figured prominently in a scandal after he accused the administration of attempting to discredit and intimidate him by deliberately leaking the identity of his wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA covert operative.


Robert D. Novak is an esteemed television personality as well, Novak appears on and serves as co-executive producer of CNN's political roundtable -- "Capital Gang." He is also an occasional co-host on CNN's "Crossfire" program and often appears as an interviewer on NBC's "Meet the Press."


It's been over fifteen months since two administration officials leaked the CIA identity of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife. The Justice Department is still investigating, but Bush has displayed little interest in resolving this whodunit.


These days it seems that the lead lawyer on the case, Pat Fitzgerald, has been targeting journalists more than the culprits. Bush has never said much publicly that would indicate he truly wants the leakers identified. (The leak--possibly a federal crime--derailed the career of Valerie Wilson, a covert CIA official working to counter the spread of WMDs, and undermined national security.)


Moreover, after the leak appeared in an article by conservative columnist Robert Novak, White House aides talked it up and tried to push the story further. The White House has never acknowledged or explained fully how administration aides attempted to use the leak, once it happened, to discredit or punish Wilson for having challenged the administration on its claim that Iraq had been shopping for uranium in Niger. Who was responsible for the leak? Which Bush aides tried to compound the harm done by the leak? What steps did Bush take to get to the bottom of all this?


The facts surrounding my trip remain the same. I traveled to Niger and found it unlikely that Iraq had attempted to purchase several hundred tons of yellowcake uranium. In his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush referred to Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium "from Africa." Between March 2003 and July 2003, the administration refused to acknowledge that it had known for more than a year that the claim on uranium sales from Niger had been discredited, until the day after my article in the New York Times. The next day the White House issued a statement that "the sixteen words did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union address." Those facts are amply supported in the Senate report.


Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.


There were a number of articles written about me personally. Then of course there were some leaks to prominent American journalists concerning my wife.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Barbara Ferguson

Rove recently was identified by several respected sources as the mysterious “senior administration official” who leaked the identity of an intelligence agent to the world in a fit of political pique.


One is Lawrence O’Donnell, MSNBC’s senior political analyst and panelist on “The McLaughlin Group” talk show.


Michael Isikoff, writing in the July 11 edition of Newsweek magazine, cites two lawyers involved in the case as reporting that emails surrendered by Time magazine to a grand jury probing the leak of a CIA agent’s identity show Rove was one of the sources.


White House officials have deflected calls for an independent inquiry but allegedly have urged their staff to cooperate with a justice department investigation.


This week, FBI agents will question Washington journalists and administration officials about claims that Rove and others in the White House deliberately blew the cover of Valerie Plame, a CIA expert on weapons of mass destruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is food for the fodder. A federal judge ordered New York Times reporter Judith Miller jailed Wednesday afternoon to force her to disclose a source to whom she had promised confidentiality. Federal District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan took the action at the prompting of Patrick Fitzgerald, the federal prosecutor who is investigating the leaking of the name of a CIA undercover operative by a high-level source in the Bush administration.


Keller, the Times executive editor, responded, “It’s chilling because it’s likely to serve future cover-ups of information that happens in the recesses of government and other powerful institutions. I think that anybody who believes that the government and other powerful institutions should be closely and aggressively watched should feel a chill up their spine today.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest human

I remember when the out going Clinton Administration in the White House posted

NSA web sites, Internal White House Phone Numbers, yet you never heard the democrats decry that.


What Carl Rove did was NOT illegal, what the democrats did "IS".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Dean

The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act of 1982 both apply.


Section 421. Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources


    a) Disclosure of information by persons having or having had

        access to classified information that identifies covert agent

      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 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or


    b ) Disclosure of information by persons who learn identity of

        covert agents as result of having access to classified


      Whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified

    information, learns the identify 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 or imprisoned

    not more than five years, or both.

    c) Disclosure of information by persons in course of pattern of

        activities intended to identify and expose covert agents

      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 or imprisoned not more than

    three years, or both.

    d) Imposition of consecutive sentences

      A term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be

    consecutive to any other sentence of imprisonment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James

What bothers me is that President Bush stated prevously that he would fire anyone that leaked information to the press. Now his new position is he would only fire his staff if they are convicted.


I never liked Bill Clinton and now I see him hanging out in the Bush camp. I am fed up with politicians.


Rove is a traitor to our country. Rove is a traitor to freedom!


Mr. President fire the SOB. Think about the Agency that bears your father's name.


That is all I have to say.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

In December 2003, Patrick Fitzgerald was named Special Counsel to investigate the alleged disclosure of the identity of who leaked information in the Plame case, but the present grand jury probe has expanded to include the wide-reaching crime allegations as new information surfaced.


Although the U.S. Attorney’s office in Chicago is staying silent, it is well known that Fitzgerald is digging deep into an assortment of serious improprieties among many Bush administration figures based, in part, on subpoenaed testimony provided by former Secretary of State Colin Powell.


According to federal whistleblower Tom Heneghen, Powell testified before the citizen grand jury that President Bush had taken the U.S. to war illegally based on lies, which is a capital crime involving treason under the U.S. Code.


“Regarding the Powell testimony, there is no comment,” said Randall Sanborn.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jesse Berney

For weeks, the White House has hidden behind excuses of "not commenting on an ongoing investigation" to avoid answering questions about the CIA leak scandal. But President Bush abandoned that strategy when he recently told Texas newspapers that Karl Rove has his full support.


"Karl's got my complete confidence. He's a valuable member of my team," Bush said in his strongest defense yet of Rove, the architect of his presidential campaigns.


Now that Bush is answering questions about the leak, maybe it's time he answer the most important one.


When the leak first became news, President Bush insisted that it was a serious matter and pledged to fire anyone who was involved in leaking an undercover CIA agent's identity.


But Bush could have taken care of the entire matter in a single day, simply by calling in senior administration officials and asking them whether they were involved. But he deliberately chose not to, even before a special prosecutor began the investigation.


So President Bush, since you've decided to comment on the leak case while the investigation is still proceeding, it's time for you to answer this question: Why did you do absolutely nothing when officials in your administration leaked the identity of an undercover CIA agent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DNC Research

It looks like history is repeating itself. Newsweek has reported that the White House is considering an old Bush friend as a replacement for the person overseeing Peter Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor investigating the Plame leak.


Associate Attorney General Robert McCallum is "likely" to be named as acting deputy A.G., a DOJ official who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter tells NEWSWEEK. But McCallum may be seen as having his own conflicts: he is an old friend of President Bush's and a member of his Skull and Bones class at Yale. One question: how much authority Comey's successor will have over Fitzgerald. When Comey appointed Fitzgerald in 2003, the deputy granted him extraordinary powers to act however he saw fit-but noted he still had the right to revoke Fitzgerald's authority.

It looks like the White House's policy is to put politics in front of national security, first in the Abramoff investigation and now in the Rove leak investigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Larisa

Here is something for you to chew on. Here is a transcripted copy copy of Republican talking points on Bush adviser Karl Rove's leaking the name of a CIA agent to a reporter.


Here is the cover letter.


July 12, 2005


This document contains message points and an extended briefing documenting the blatant partisan political attact on Karl Rove. Mr. Rove was attempting to advise a reporter about potential inaccuracies in a story that he was writing that later, were proved to be incorrect. The attacks by Democrats are clearly political in nature.


As always please feel free to contactr us if you have any questions.


Sincerely - Carolyn


Carolyn Weyforth

Director of Television

Republican National Committee




RNC Communications



  • Once Again, Democrats Are Engaging in Blatant Political Attacks
  • Karl ROve Discouraged A Reporter From Writing A False Story On A False Premise
  • The False Premise Was Joe Wilson's Allegation That The Vice President Sent HIm To Nigeria
  • The Senate Select Committee On Intelligence And The CIA Found Assessments Wilson Made in His Report Were Wrong.
  • Karl Rove Has Fully Complied With THis Investigation For More Than A Year And Has Permitted Any Reporter He Spoke With About Joe Wilson To Discuss Their Conversations.
  • Government Investigators Have Specifically Asked Every Witness In This Case, Including Karl Rove, Not To Discuss The Subject Matter Of the Investigation.
  • Joe Wilson Endorsed, Advised and Donated To John Kerry's Campaign For President

Read more at:



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jesse Lee

Congressman John Conyers wrote to the Department of Justice asking for an internal investigation into why the White House was given twelve hours after being notified of the investigation before they were told not to destroy any documents. He was joined by every Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, and not a single Republican. Congressman Henry Waxman issued a fact sheet showing that Rove by all appearances was in violation of his security clearance agreement, but the Republican in charge of his committee - which has jurisdiction to hold hearings on anything they please (most recently baseball) - refused to lift a finger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Just Give Us The Truth

Q Scott, some White House advisors expressed surprise that the President didn't -- did not give a warm endorsement to Karl Rove when he was asked about him at the Cabinet meeting. They had expected that he would speak up. Can you explain why the President didn't give a -- express confidence?


MR. McCLELLAN: Sure. He wasn't asked about his support or confidence for Karl. As I indicated yesterday, every person who works here at the White House, including Karl Rove, has the confidence of the President. This was not a question that came up in the Cabinet Room.


Q Well, the President has never been restrained at staying right in the lines of a question, as you know. (Laughter.) He kind of -- he says whatever he wants. And if he had wanted to express confidence in Karl Rove, he could have. Why didn't he?


MR. McCLELLAN: He expressed it yesterday through me, and I just expressed it again.


Q Well, why doesn't he?


MR. McCLELLAN: He was not asked that specific question, Terry. You know that very well. The questions he were asked -- he was asked about were relating to an ongoing investigation.


Q But, Scott, he defended Al Gonzales without even being asked --


MR. McCLELLAN: I'll come to you in a second. I'll come to you in a second. Go ahead.


Q Yes, he defended Al Gonzales without ever being asked. (Laughter.) Ed brings up a good point. Didn't he?


MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think he was asked about the Attorney General.


Q Scott, you know what, to make a general observation here, in a previous administration, if a press secretary had given the sort of answers you've just given in referring to the fact that everybody who works here enjoys the confidence of the President, Republicans would have hammered them as having a kind of legalistic and sleazy defense. I mean, the reality is that you're parsing words, and you've been doing it for a few days now. So does the President think Karl Rove did something wrong, or doesn't he?


MR. McCLELLAN: No, David, I'm not at all. I told you and the President told you earlier today that we don't want to prejudge the outcome of an ongoing investigation. And I think we've been round and round on this for two days now.


Q Even if it wasn't a crime? You know, there are those who believe that even if Karl Rove was trying to debunk bogus information, as Ken Mehlman suggested yesterday -- perhaps speaking on behalf of the White House -- that when you're dealing with a covert operative, that a senior official of the government should be darn well sure that that person is not undercover, is not covert, before speaking about them in any way, shape, or form. Does the President agree with that or not?


MR. McCLELLAN: Again, we've been round and round on this for a couple of days now. I don't have anything to add to what I've said the previous two days.


Q That's a different question, and it's not round and round --


MR. McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier.


Q It has nothing to do with the investigation, Scott, and you know it.


MR. McCLELLAN: You heard from the President earlier today, and the President said he's not --


Q That's a dodge to my question. It has nothing to do with the investigation. Is it appropriate for a senior official to speak about a covert agent in any way, shape, or form without first finding out whether that person is working as a covert officer.


MR. McCLELLAN: Well, first of all, you're wrong. This is all relating to questions about an ongoing investigation, and I've been through this.


Q If I wanted to ask you about an ongoing investigation, I would ask you about the statute, and I'm not doing that.


MR. McCLELLAN: I think we've exhausted discussion on this the last couple of days.


Q You haven't even scratched the surface.


Q It hasn't started.


MR. McCLELLAN: I look forward to talking about it once the investigation is complete, as the President does, as well. And you heard from the President earlier today.


Q Can I ask for clarification on what the President said at Sea Island on June 10th of last year, when he was saying that he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved in the leak of classified information? What were the parameters for those consequences? Was it --


MR. McCLELLAN: I appreciate your question.


Q Was it a knowing leak with the intent of doing damage? I'm just wondering when he talked about that, what those parameters were?


MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I've nothing to add on this discussion, and if we have any other topics you want to discuss, I'll be glad to do that.


Go ahead, David.


Q Scott, when the President asked that question at Sea -- was asked that question at Sea Island, and, in fact, when you made your statement that Karl had had nothing to do with this, was there an ongoing investigation at that time?


MR. McCLELLAN: Again, we've been through this for two days now, and I've already responded to those questions.


Go ahead, April.


Q I'm going to give you another --


Q I'm sorry, I wasn't here yesterday, so could you refresh my memory? Was there an ongoing investigation --


MR. McCLELLAN: The briefings are available online.


Q -- at the time that you answered previous questions on this issue?


MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I responded to those questions the past couple of days. Go ahead.


Q The answer is, yes.


Q I'm going to go to another question, somewhat on the same subject, but a different vein. Let's talk about the Wilson family. Is there any regret from this White House about the effects of this leak on this family?


MR. McCLELLAN: We can continue to go round and round on all these --


Q No, no, no, no. This has nothing to do with the investigation. This is about the leak and the effects on this family. I mean, granted there are partisan politics being played, but let's talk about the leak that came from the White House that affected a family.


MR. McCLELLAN: And let me just say again that anything relating to an ongoing investigation, I'm not going to get into discussing. I've said that the past couple of days.


Q This is not -- this is about -- this is a personal -- this is not about the -- I mean about the investigation. This is about the personal business of this family, an American family, a taxpaying family, a family that works for the government of the United States. And the executive branch -- someone in the executive branch let this family down in some kind of way, shape, or form. Is there any regret from the White House that this family was affected by the leak?


MR. McCLELLAN: It doesn't change what I just said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Guest Jonathan

Isn't it ironic that Bush Sr. wrote Wilson whom he had appointed to various ambassadorial posts to congratulate him for his service and sympathize with him over the outing of his wife. The old man was head of the CIA in the 1970s and knows the consequences of blowing the identities of covert operatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I think is interest is how jailed journalist Judith Miller has been getting regular, high-profile visitors since she was put in custody for not revealing a source of the Valerie Wilson leak.


The United States` ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, has visited Miller, as well as NBC`s Tom Brokaw and former senator and presidential candidate Bob Dole and 96 others between July and Labor Day, The Washington Post reports.


Miller, a reporter for the New York Times, was ordered to the Alexandria Detention Center July 6 for not cooperating with special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Baxter in Logan

I think Judith Miller broadcasts of inflated and deceptive information—information that benefits her government sources— should be sentenced to treason with Mr. Rove.


But, unfortunetely the truth is Judith will go down and Karl will walk away clean. He is brilliant at this game.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mike Kline

I thought it was Lewis “Scooter” Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, who met with New York Times reporter Judith Miller on July 8, 2003, and discussed CIA operative Valerie Plame????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Republicans on three separate congressional committees this week derailed three formal "resolutions of inquiry" by Democrats that would have required the Bush administration to turn over sensitive information and records relating to the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame.


H. Res. 418


Official Title: Requesting the President to transmit to the House of Representatives not later than 14 days after the date of the adoption of this resolution documents in the possession of the President relating to the disclosure of the identity and employment of Ms. Valerie Plame



Rep. Rush Holt [D-NJ]



Rep. Gary Ackerman [D-NY]

Rep. Shelley Berkley [D-NV]

Rep. John Conyers [D-MI]

Rep. Joseph Crowley [D-NY]

Rep. Peter DeFazio [D-OR]

Rep. William Delahunt [D-MA]

Rep. Michael Doyle [D-PA]

Rep. Raul Grijalva [D-AZ]

Rep. Maurice Hinchey [D-NY]

Rep. Jay Inslee [D-WA]

Rep. Dennis Kucinich [D-OH]

Rep. Barbara Lee [D-CA]

Rep. Doris Matsui [D-CA]

Rep. James McDermott [D-WA]

Rep. James McGovern [D-MA]

Rep. Frank Pallone [D-NJ]

Rep. Adam Smith [D-WA]

Rep. John Tierney [D-MA]

Rep. Mark Udall [D-CO]

Rep. Peter Visclosky [D-IN]


Had the resolutions of inquiry been adopted, they would have led to the first independent congressional inquiries of the Plame affair, and perhaps even the public testimony of senior Bush administration aides such as Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff, and I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, about their personal roles.


Votes on all three House committees this week were along strictly partisan lines. The House Select Committee on Intelligence voted 11-9 on Thursday to adversely report H. Res. 418, which would have opened a formal inquiry by Congress of the Plame affair. The House International Relations Committee voted 26-21 against the same resolution one day earlier. And the House Judiciary Committee voted 15-11 on Wednesday as well against launching an inquiry.


Here is a house summary of what took place


On July 14, 2003, syndicated columnist Robert Novak wrote a column questioning why Ambassador Joseph Wilson had been tasked with gathering information for the Bush Administration. Novak wrote, `Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me his wife suggested sending Wilson to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him.' 1


[Footnote] Novak refused to identify his sources, but added additional detail about how he had learned of Plame's employment in an October 1, 2003, column:


[Footnote 1: Robert Novak, `The Mission to Niger,' Chicago Sun-Times, 14 July 2003, Editorial section, p. 31.]


During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: `Oh, you know about it.' 2




[Footnote 2: Robert Novak, `Columnist Wasn't Pawn for Leak,' Chicago Sun-Times, 1 October 2003, Editorial section, p. 49.]


According to press reports, the CIA referred the matter to the Department of Justice after Novak's July 14, 2003, column based on the possibility that the revelation of Plame's employment status with the Central Intelligence Agency constituted a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 U.S.C. 421). This Act makes it a crime to intentionally disclose the identity of a covert agent by persons with access to classified


information and foreknowledge that the government sought to protect the identity of that covert agent.


According to press reports, the Department of Justice began an investigation in September 2003, which the White House spokesman confirmed on October 1, 2003. By that time, the Justice Department had contacted the White House and asked it to preserve and maintain documents under its control. On October 3, 2003, a White House spokesperson indicated that the Justice Department had asked the White House to produce certain, more specific materials as part of the investigation, including the kinds of materials that are the subject of H. Res. 499.


On December 30, 2003, the Attorney General recused himself from the investigation to avoid an appearance of a conflict of interest. Prior to his recusal, the Attorney General, in discussions with Deputy Attorney General James Comey, concluded that it was appropriate to appoint an investigator from outside the Justice Department's normal chain of command in order to oversee the investigation. That decision fell to Deputy Attorney General Comey, who appointed U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, Patrick Fitzgerald, to investigate the matter and act as a special counsel. Comey simultaneously delegated all necessary authorities to Fitzgerald to continue the investigation. As a sitting U.S. Attorney, Fitzgerald's investigatory authority exceeds that of a normal `special counsel.' He does not have to secure approval from the Attorney General in making his prosecutorial decisions and has all the investigatory tools normally available to a U.S. Attorney at his disposal, including the authority to interview witnesses, subpoena documents and testimony, and convene a grand jury. A recent news article has stated, `Boxloads of documents have been forwarded to the FBI team, including White House phone logs and e-mails. More documents are being produced, as the contents of individual items sometimes lead agents to request additional materials. * * *' 3


[Footnote] According to press reports, Fitzgerald has since convened a Grand Jury to consider evidence in the investigation. In general, federal grand juries have sweeping investigative authorities to subpoena witnesses and documents identical to those identified in H. Res 499.


[Footnote 3: Curt Anderson, `Rove, McClellan among Officials Interviewed in CIA Leak Probe,' Associated Press Newswires, 23 October 2003.]


Justice Department officials have discussed the process associated with the investigation on the record, but have refused to discuss any details of the investigation itself in order to preserve the integrity of a possible criminal prosecution. Deputy Attorney General Comey told the media, `I can't tell you about the details of any criminal investigation because our goal is to make sure that anyone we're pursuing doesn't know what we're doing, and also, anyone who might not be charged with a crime is not unfairly smeared.' 4




[Footnote 4: U.S. Deputy Attorney General James Comey and Assistant Attorney General Christopher Wray, Department of Justice Press Conference, Washington, D.C., 30 December 2003.]


In light of the ongoing criminal investigation, the committee concluded that transmittal of the materials identified in H. Res. 499 would undermine the investigation and possible criminal prosecution of any suspects believed to have committed a crime in the Plame matter. Therefore, the committee ordered the resolution to be reported adversely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jennifer Scott Bogart

What bothers me is while Karl Rove was being questioned over the leak by the FBI, Attorney General John Ashcroft was being personally briefed about the investigation. U.S. Representative John Conyers described this at the time as a "stunning ethical breach that cries out for an immediate investigation. Why in the world is John Ashcroft not beign prosecuted?


I am beginning to think Bush is worse than Richard Nixon. What would Ronald Reagan say these embarassments to the Republican Party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This weekend Karl Rove was asked about the CIA leak case, which he was part of, the Bush Adviser tried to play dumb and be funny at the same time:


"Judy Miller is in jail for reasons I don't really understand...Joe Wilson and I attend the same church but Joe goes to the wacky mass."


For a man who is so brilliant, why the dumb statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Patrick J. Fitzgerald (born 1961) is the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. On December 31, 2003, he made national headlines when he was appointed to continue the investigation into the Plame affair CIA leak. Fitzgerald was named by Deputy Attorney General James Comey after then Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself from the case due to potential conflicts of interest.



Everett McKinley Dirksen Building

219 South Dearborn Street

Chicago, Illinois 60604

(312) 435-5698



(312) 435-5670


Randy Sanborn is the official spokesperson for Patrick Fitzgerald at the US Attorney's office in the Dirksen Federal Courthouse.


Dirksen Federal Building

219 S. Dearborn Street

Chicago, IL 60604


United State Attorney's Office, Northern District of Illinois



Randall Samborn

Assistant US Attorney, Public Information Officer

Phone: (312) 353-5318

Fax: (312) 353-1842

Cell/Pager: (312) 613-6700


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

New York Times reporter Judith Miller left a federal courthouse Friday after testifiying before a grand jury about her sources in the investigation into the White House role in the leak of a CIA operative's identity.


"Believe me, I did not want to be in jail. But I would have stayed even longer," Miller said, escorted by her lawyers and New York Times Publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., adding that she was looking forward to seeing her dog and spending time with her family.


"I served 85 days in jail because of my belief in the importance of upholding the confidential relationship that journalists have with their sources," Miller told reporters outside the federal courthouse.


Miller left an Alexandria, Va., detention center Thursday evening once her source, identified by the Times as I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, had released her from a promise of confidentiality. Miller was jailed in July for civil contempt of court when she refused to testify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Maurice Hinchey

Mr. Fitzgerald’s investigation holds grave implications for the safety of our C.I.A. operatives, the freedom of our press, and the accountability of our current executive branch leadership. The laws that high-level members of the Bush Administration may very well have violated are of a very serious nature on their own. However, when you take into account that these laws may have been broken in order to commence a major war, it becomes clear that action must be taken to punish those who misled the Congress and the American people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John McCrae

The truth is Rove is not the leak. He may have talked with one of those

reporters, but he gave up no names of any CIA agents. I believe Karl

Rove knows better than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...