Eric Holder Assigns U.S. Attorneys to Investigate Leaks

By Jeralyn, Section Misconduct
Posted on Fri Jun 08, 2012 at 07:25:07 PM EST
Tags: Obama, national security leaks (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Here is the statement of Attorney General Eric Holder today announcing he has named two U.S. Attorneys to investigate the recent alleged leaks of classified information:

“Today, I assigned U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Ronald C. Machen Jr. and U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland Rod J. Rosenstein to lead criminal investigations into recent instances of possible unauthorized disclosures of classified information.

The Washington Post reports: [More...]

Holder said the investigations will be conducted separately from the probes launched in recent days by the FBI into the possible disclosure of classified information to reporters. Prosecutors from the Justice Department’s National Security Division will be involved in both investigations, a law enforcement source said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

President Obama today disputed that the leaks came from the White House (video of press conference here):

The notion that my White House would purposely release classified national security information is offensive. It’s wrong,” Obama said at a morning news conference. The president added that there were “mechanisms in place” to “root out folks who have leaked.”

“They will suffer consequences,” he said. “When this information, or reports, whether true or false, surface on the front page of newspapers, that makes the job of folks on the front lines tougher and it makes my job tougher, which is why since I’ve been in office, my attitude has been zero tolerance for these kinds of leaks and speculation.”

The alleged leaks being complained of pertain to national security matters:

... including a New York Times article chronicling Obama’s approval of a “kill list” of suspected terrorists targeted with drone attacks, reports in the Times and The Washington Post regarding U.S. involvement in cyberattacks on Iran’s nuclear program and details in a new book by Newsweek special correspondent Daniel Klaidman about the administration’s deliberations on the detention of suspected terrorists.

< The 2012 Election and the Supreme Court | George Zimmerman's Credibility >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Eric Holder Assigns U.S. Attorneys to Investigate Leaks | 56 comments (56 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I can't even believe Obama could (5.00 / 5) (#1)
by Anne on Fri Jun 08, 2012 at 08:14:58 PM EST

stand up and make those remarks with a straight face.

Which makes me pretty sure that whatever it is that Holder is doing won't end up pointing any fingers at the administration.

If you've been keeping up with Glenn Greenwald's coverage of this, I have to think you'd be feeling the same way.

The media accounts disclosing the Obama-glorifying national security leaks repeatedly attribute them to Obama officials: the NYT "kill list" article was based on interviews with "three dozen of his current and former advisers [who] described Mr. Obama's evolution since taking on the role"; the NYT`s Iran cyber-warfare article cited, among others, "American officials," including "a senior administration official"; the same White House that insists in court that it cannot confirm the existence of the CIA's drone program this week once again anonymously boasted of its latest drone kill in Pakistan; and we know that key White House officials met with and passed sensitive information to Hollywood filmmakers about the bin Laden raid.
[snip]
And if these leaks weren't authorized by the White House, then it's highly, highly coincidental -- an extraordinary stroke of serial good luck for the White House -- that these leaks over and over again have the same effect: depicting Obama in the best possible political light, as a strong, bold, unflinching Commander-in-Chief. It's just so very lucky for the White House that these leaks continuously disclose actions by Obama that make people like Andrew Sullivan gush over his Warrior Greatness and claim he'd merit elevation to Mount Rushmore if done by Bush. Given all that, it is, I suppose, theoretically possible that the leaks are not coming from the White House, but it's very, very unlikely.
But let's assume for the sake of argument that Carney is actually telling the truth this time. That would mean that all of these leaks are unauthorized: which is another way of saying that they are illegal. Doesn't that mean that the DOJ should immediately commence a criminal investigation to uncover the identity of and punish the "three dozen" current and former Obama advisers who furnished details about Obama's "kill list," and the "senior administration official" who hailed Obama's role in the cyber-attacks on Iran, and all the other officials who have planted with newspapers highly flattering accounts of the President's classified role in Killing America's Enemies and Keeping Us Safe?

If this turns out to be anything more than kabuki, I will be very surprised.

And here's (none / 0) (#2)
by Anne on Fri Jun 08, 2012 at 08:34:16 PM EST

Jack Goldsmith on the credibility of Obama's remarks today.


Here's (none / 0) (#15)
by lentinel on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 05:26:24 AM EST

Peter Sellers expressing what I feel about those remarks.

Strangelove


: I love Peter Sellers... (none / 0) (#20)
by desertswine on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 12:14:08 PM EST

but I had to watch an anti Martin Heinrich ad from I think America Future Fund before that Dr. Stranglove clip. There's no escape.

I'm sure that's (5.00 / 6) (#5)
by Makarov on Fri Jun 08, 2012 at 09:44:30 PM EST

two more USA's than have been assigned to investigate MF Global misplacing $1.6B of customer funds.

And two more than assigned to investigate massive mortgage and foreclosure fraud, which is ongoing.

Yup (none / 0) (#33)
by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 07:05:40 PM EST

We were thinking about refinancing our house. We have a very good fixed rate, plus I've done that old trick of paying 10% extra each month which turns a 30 year mortgage into a 15 year mortgage. What my fixed rate of interest is isn't of great importance because I'm not barely making a mortgage payment, I have extra every month to pay down the principal and we do.

But we did think about refi and made an appointment to speak with a company that comes to your home. Then Josh's doctor contacted us about his surgery date and it conflicted so I canceled the appointment until further notice. They have sold my name, we are a "lead" now. My cell phone rings off the hook, the house phone rings off the hook, at least twice a day I tell someone trying to refi our mortgage to just please go away. I want nothing to do with them. Mortgages are hot hot hot business again and that can only mean one thing when you are hunting me like a pack of wolves again.....mortgage backed securities and all the B.S. "securitized debt" being sold on Wall Street is back bigger and better than ever in the middle of the worst global recession since the Great Depression. Who knows what they would be roping me into. I think I'll stick with what I have, God only knows what they'd be scamming us into at this point. I would have to hire an attorney to oversee what they were selling us into and make certain that none of the fine print was going to somehow destroy us unwittingly at this point to even be able to sleep at night.


: If you have had that 30 for a while (none / 0) (#50)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 09:58:19 AM EST

,you may refi to a 10 or 15 year at a lower rate and about the same monthly payment.
We had 22 years left on a 30 at 5.25% and refied to a 15 at 3.125% and the monthly as nearly the same.

I'm going to post a couple of political diaries (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by jeffinalabama on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:52:48 AM EST

Concerning these leaks, DOJ, Bork as an advisor, the two candidates over the next few weeks.

I'm posting this here, because if you read about Holder's investigations, you may have info or have seen info I haven't seen.
My contact information is in my profile. Please don't spam attack me... I'm still getting over one.

I'd like to post the first within the next week... I'm feeling almost human, and will be until July 5, God (by whatever name, Yahweh, Allah, Asdzą́ą́ Nádleehé, Zeus, Wotan, Mahimata, Ahura Mazda, and any others left off with no offense meant) willing.

I'm looking at some recent info, actions, etc. So I'll try my hand at analysis, and make some tentative statements and conclusions, and then write about what I may do this year.

I have to look at Romney and Obama as candidates and actors, combined with their choices.

I'd like to ask for input beforehand from everyone here, especially those with whom I have had serious disagreements, to wit ABG, about the positives of your candidate, and links to articles like the Greenwood one...I don't mind if they are old links, or old gripes. My email addy is in my info. I won't quote anyone who emails my unless they state positively I can do so-- a statement such as "Feel free to quote me," or "You have permission to quote me."

With the latest information, the leaks from someone, and the appointment of Bork as the judicial advisor, I have some thoughts, but I want to gather information. I want to write some diaries on these areas.

Again, this is not about whether one likes my posts or not. This concerns analysis of information, which I've don throughout my career, military, academic, poker playing, and farming.

I hope, Jeralyn, you don't mind me asking for information and links through this thread. I'm not at my peak abilities, so some legwork and links would be appreciated. My deadline for these diaries is July 5... major things happening afterwards that will again sideline me.

Any help, from people I have offended to people who tend to agree-- will be appreciated, and the karmic rewards will be there, as well as my diaries. Now, to post this as a diary, also!

Jeff... glad you're feeling better (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 01:22:32 PM EST

Any chance of you making it up to Tunica??


Thanks, Jim, (none / 0) (#24)
by jeffinalabama on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 01:41:41 PM EST

but not before August. Go back for surgery July 5, then more radiation afterwards, I don't yet know how many treatments.

I'm hoping no chemo this time.


Sorry to hear that (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 02:49:13 PM EST

or maybe it's good news in that it's a treatment for the disease.

So maybe August!?

In the meantime, wish me luck! I've won a seat in a Satellite that if I win I'll be in the main World Series of Poker event. Entrance fee plus expenses.

Year before last I finished second in the same satellite event. Nice pay day but I've always wanted to be in the main bang!

Take care!


This is your year, buddy. (none / 0) (#28)
by jeffinalabama on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 04:08:58 PM EST

You'll make it. It's a long slog, but us oldsters have some tricks left!

I'll ask for a stake after you win, lol... standard rates-- 50 percent of my winnings. I guess I can go to Tunica for a while :)


: Ya got it! Only I'll drop it to 20% (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 04:30:49 PM EST

You can use the other to provision the pirate ship!

Jeff, I am sending (5.00 / 3) (#27)
by Zorba on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 03:29:52 PM EST

all the positive thoughts, karmic energy, prayers, and everything else I have to muster your way. Be well, my friend. You are in my thoughts and prayers.


Όπα (none / 0) (#29)
by jeffinalabama on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 04:11:13 PM EST

Σας ευχαριστούμε Ζορμπά. Αισθάνομαι ... Δεν ξέρω αν είναι σίγουροι η λέξη. Νομίζω ότι θα ήταν μοιρολατρικό πιο σωστό. Συγνώμη για τα λάθη γραμματικής εκ των προτέρων.


Sigh, the subject line should read: (none / 0) (#30)
by jeffinalabama on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 04:11:55 PM EST

Όπα!


: There does seem to be (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by Zorba on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 04:46:03 PM EST

a problem with the foreign alphabets on this site!
Try not to be so fatalistic, though, jeff. I do think that it's important for healing, to be as mentally positive as you can be. You have a son who loves you, and many people who care about you. Use the positive vibes from all the people who love you, as much as possible. Take care- we are thinking about you, always.

Why do I keep thinking the agents (none / 0) (#3)
by scribe on Fri Jun 08, 2012 at 09:10:55 PM EST

will show up on Darryl Issa's doorstep?

Is it hope? Or is it fate?

Matters not. IOKIYAR.

I don't believe Obama (none / 0) (#6)
by Mr Tuxedo on Fri Jun 08, 2012 at 09:50:46 PM EST

so I don't think anything will turn up on Darryl Issa's doorstep.

Still, it will be amusing to watch the OUTRAGE from Republicans who were apologists in the matter of leaking Valerie Plame's identity.

IOKIYAR, indeed.


Republican outrage (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by diogenes on Fri Jun 08, 2012 at 10:39:48 PM EST

Actually, Republicans were outraged by the perjury trap game played against Scooter Libby when Novak and others made it clear that the unprosecuted Richard Armitage was the leaker.


Actually....Plame was not a Secret Agent (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jun 08, 2012 at 11:04:46 PM EST

In fact, her being classified -- that is, that her work was a government secret -- did not in itself meet the standard required for prosecution of the leaker (former deputy secretary of state Armitage) under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. That statute limits prosecution to exposers of covert intelligence activities overseas, whose revelation would undermine U.S. intelligence. That is why Fitzgerald did not move against Armitage.
Some questions I was asked in television and radio interviews after the verdict implied that I had revealed Armitage's name to Fitzgerald.
Actually, in my first interview with Fitzgerald after he was named special prosecutor, he indicated that he knew Armitage was my leaker. I assumed that was the product of detective work by the FBI. In fact, Armitage had turned himself in to the Justice Department three months before Fitzgerald entered the case, without notifying the White House or releasing me from my requirement of confidentiality.

The question that remains is why Fitzgerald continued his witch hunt after he knew who told the world that Plame worked for the CIA. And he knew the first day he was on the job.

Politics?? Well, if you think that Edwards was prosecuted because of politics then you have to include the whole Plame affair.

Of course these leaks make Plame look like weak tea indeed. It will be interesting to watch and see who gets named.


witch hunt.. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by jondee on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 12:02:29 AM EST

it's always the same people who say "witch hunt" who also talked about the "overzelous" investigation of Tom Delay..and the "politically motivated" Iran Contra and Watergate investigations.

Word-for-word fumbling, as*-covering spin from the Heritage Foundation playbook..


Straw woman (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Mr Tuxedo on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 02:14:33 AM EST

No one said Valerie Plame was a "secret agent." But she was covert. And the outing of Valerie Plame put people's lives at risk. It was all the worse because it was done for petty, vindictive reasons.


No, she was not covert. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:57:56 AM EST

Read why Fitzgerald did not prosecute Armitage.

That statute limits prosecution to exposers of covert intelligence activities overseas, whose revelation would undermine U.S. intelligence. That is why Fitzgerald did not move against Armitage.

As to Armitage's motives, I do not know and neither do you. But would you care to comment on Plame's husband's motives?

Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely told WorldNetDaily that Wilson mentioned Plame's status as a CIA employee over the course of at least three, possibly five, conversations in 2002 in the Fox News Channel's "green room" in Washington, D.C., as they waited to appear on air as analysts.
Vallely and Wilson both were contracted by Fox News to discuss the war on terror as the U.S. faced off with Iraq in the run-up to the spring 2003 invasion.
Vallely says, according to his recollection, Wilson mentioned his wife's job in the spring of 2002 - more than a year before Robert Novak's July 14, 2003, column identified her, citing senior administration officials, as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction"
"He was rather open about his wife working at the CIA," said Vallely, who retired in 1991 as the Army's deputy commanding general in the Pacific.
Vallely made his claim in an interview Thursday night on the ABC radio network's John Batchelor show.
Vallely told WND that, in his opinion, it became clear over the course of several conversations that Wilson had his own agenda, as the ambassador's analysis of the war and its surrounding politics strayed from reality.
"He was a total self promoter," Vallely said. "I don't know if it was out of insecurity, to make him feel important, but he's created so much turmoil, he needs to be investigated and put under oath."

Yes, she was covert (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by Yman on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:23:51 PM EST

An unclassified summary of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame's employment history at the spy agency, disclosed for the first time today in a court filing by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, indicates that Plame was "covert" when her name became public in July 2003.

Link.

Not all covert agents were covered by that statute, Jim, but she was a 'covert" agent.

Gotta hate those inconvenient "fact" things, huh?


Check the sentencing memorandum (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by Yman on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:34:37 PM EST

"[a]t the time of the leaks, Ms. Wilson in fact qualified as a 'covert agent' within the meaning of the IIPA"

Try again, Jim.


Lives at risk? (none / 0) (#47)
by lousy1 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 11:42:27 PM EST

Who was put at risk? If that is true why wasn't Armatige prosecuted?


Reading comprehension (none / 0) (#49)
by Yman on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:26:18 AM EST

Where did I say there were "lives put at risk" by revealing her identity?

Frankly, I don't know enough about it to determine if lives were "put at risk", but it wouldn't surprise me. Of course, the CIA isn't going to publicize the results of any damage assessment.


Perhaps your ego has blinded you (none / 0) (#51)
by lousy1 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 02:47:27 PM EST

If you looked you should have notice comment #13 by Mr Tuxedo.

No one said Valerie Plame was a "secret agent." But she was covert. And the outing of Valerie Plame put people's lives at risk. It was all the worse because it was done for petty, vindictive reasons.

You are not the only commentator at this sight. If I might helpfully suggest - read the thread before insulting others it may improve your creditability


I can see quite clearly, but ... (none / 0) (#52)
by Yman on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 03:16:55 PM EST

... perhaps your haste blinded you to the fact that it was not my comment, but "Mr. Tuxedo" who made the statement about lives being put at risk. My response was to Jim, where I pointed out that Ms. Plame was, in fact, a "covert agent" within the meaning of the IIPA. You then questioned me about what lives/who was put at risk, a point I hadn't made. Seems a bit strange to question someone about a point they never made.

If, OTOH, you intended to ask Mr. Tuxedo about his point, you may want to click on "reply to this" under his comment, as opposed to my comment.

It may improve your credibility.


If you look carefully (none / 0) (#53)
by lousy1 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 03:50:03 PM EST

you will see that my comment cast not posted in reply to yours


: You are wrong - once again (none / 0) (#55)
by Yman on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 03:59:16 PM EST

No need to "look carefully" - it is quite simple.
Here is your comment. If you click on "parent", you will see it was my comment you replied to.

Richard Armitage (none / 0) (#16)
by lousy1 on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 09:57:48 AM EST

who admitted to being the source of the story was not charged. There is no reason to disbelive his statement that he was only aware of Plame's role as a administrator in the CIA

His reasons were neither petty or vindictive.

I always amazes me that conspiracy buffs postulate that the evil operatives of Rove decided to punish Valarie Plame via such a ineffectual method outing her so as to have her reassigned.

With a word,they could have had her reassigned to the Nome Alaska office,her future proficiency reviews tarnished or any other of a variety of retaliations that a boss can impose on a subordinate


Armitage not "the" source (none / 0) (#44)
by Yman on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:44:24 PM EST

Armitage was just one of the sources for Plame's outing. You may have heard of one of the other sources - Lewis "Scooter" Libby?

Plenty of reasons to doubt his story.


Bob Novak and Bob Woodard and the NY Times (none / 0) (#46)
by lousy1 on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 11:42:00 PM EST

as well as Armitage himself identified Armitage as the source of Novak's 'outing' article. Novak vetted this information with social friends of Plame.

from a non partisan reference

On November 15, 2005, journalist Bob Woodward of The Washington Post revealed that "a government official with no axe to grind" leaked to him the identity of outed CIA officer Valerie Plame in mid-June 2003. According to an April 2006 Vanity Fair article (published March 14, 2006), former Washington Post executive editor Ben Bradlee said in an interview "that Armitage is the likely source is a fair assumption," though Bradlee later told the Post that he "[did] not recall making that precise statement" in the interview.[13]
On March 2, 2006, bloggers discovered that "Richard Armitage" fit the spacing on a redacted court document, suggesting he was a source for the Plame leak.[14]
On August 21, 2006, the Associated Press published a story that revealed Armitage met with Bob Woodward in mid-June 2003. The information came from official State Department calendars, provided to The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act.[15]
In the September 4, 2006 issue of Newsweek magazine, in an article titled "The Man Who Said Too Much", journalist Michael Isikoff, quoting a "source directly familiar with the conversation who asked not to be identified because of legal sensitivities", reported that Armitage was the "primary" source for Robert Novak's piece outing Plame. Armitage allegedly mentioned Ms. Wilson's CIA role to Novak in a July 8, 2003 interview after learning about her status from a State Department memo which made no reference to her undercover status.[16] Isikoff also reported that Armitage had also told Bob Woodward of Plame's identity in June 2003, and that special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald investigated Armitage's role "aggressively", but did not charge Armitage with a crime because he "found no evidence that Armitage knew of Plame's covert CIA status when he talked to Novak and Woodward".
Novak, in an August 27, 2006 appearance on Meet the Press, stated that although he still would not release the name of his source, he felt it was long overdue that the source reveal himself.[17] Armitage has also reportedly been a cooperative and key witness in the investigation.[18] According to The Washington Note, Armitage has testified before the grand jury three times.[19]
On August 29, 2006 Neil A. Lewis of The New York Times reported that Armitage was the "initial and primary source" for columnist Robert Novak's July 14, 2003 article, which named Valerie Plame as a CIA "operative" and which triggered the CIA leak investigation.[20]
On August 30, 2006, CNN reported that Armitage had been confirmed "by sources" as leaking Ms. Wilson's CIA role in a "casual conversation" with Robert Novak.[21]The New York Times, quoting people "familiar with his actions", reported that Armitage was unaware of Ms. Wilson's undercover status when he spoke to Novak.[22]
The Times claims that White House counsel Alberto Gonzales was informed that Armitage was involved on October 2, 2003, but asked not to be told details. Patrick Fitzgerald began his grand jury investigation three months later knowing Armitage was a leaker (as did Attorney General John Ashcroft before turning over the investigation).
On March 6, 2007 a jury convicted Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Chief of Staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, of "obstruction of justice, giving false statements to the FBI and perjuring himself, charges embodied in four of the five counts of the indictment".[23]
On July 2, 2007, President Bush issued a Grant of Executive Clemency that commuted the prison terms imposed on Lewis Libby.[24]
On September 7, 2006, Armitage admitted to being the source in the CIA leak.[25] Armitage claims that Fitzgerald had originally asked him not to discuss publicly his role in the matter, but that on September 5 Armitage asked Fitzgerald if he could reveal his role to the public, and Fitzgerald consented.[25]
In a review of Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, by Michael Isikoff and David Corn, which hit book stores in early September 2006, Novak wrote: "I don't know precisely how Isikoff flushed out Armitage [as Novak's original source], but Hubris clearly points to two sources: Washington lobbyist Kenneth Duberstein, Armitage's political adviser, and William Taft IV, who was the State Department legal adviser when Armitage was deputy secretary."[26]


Nice cut-and-paste (none / 0) (#48)
by Yman on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 08:15:22 AM EST

The only problem is - as I previously stated - there wasn't just one leak re: Plame's identity. While Armitage was the primary source for Novak's article, her identity was simultaneously being leaked by other administration officials prior to the publishing of Novak's article.

From Novak himself:

Discussing two waivers of confidentiality presented to him by the Special prosecutor, Novak disclosed that one of his sources for Plame's identity was Rove: "One was by my principal source in the Valerie Wilson column, a source whose name has not yet been revealed. The other was by presidential adviser Karl Rove, whom I interpret as confirming my primary source's information. In other words, the special prosecutor knew the names of my sources." He later confirmed that the other source was Armitage.

Moreover, while Novak was the first to publish an article revealing Plame's identity, he wasn't the only reporter being contacted by administration officials and revealing Plame's identity prior to the publishing of his column on July 14, 2003.

As noted by Fitzgerald:

[I]t is undisputed but of no moment that it was known early in the investigation that two other persons (Richard Armitage and Karl Rove) in addition to Mr. Libby had disclosed Ms. [Plame] Wilson's identity to reporters, and that Messrs. Armitage and Rove were the sources for columnist Robert Novak's July 14, 2003 column, which first publicly disclosed Ms. Wilson's CIA affiliation. The investigation was never limited to disclosure of Ms. Wilson's CIA affiliation to Mr. Novak; rather, from the outset the investigation sought to determine who disclosed information about Ms. Wilson to various reporters, including -- but not limited to -- Mr. Novak.

Those other sources for several reporters include (as previously noted) Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Ari Fleischer.

Matthew Cooper (Time Magazine) -

During his appearance at Libby's trial, Cooper recounted how he first learned about Valerie Wilson on July 11, 2003, from Karl Rove.

Walter Pincus (Washington Post) -

reported that he was told in confidence by an unnamed Bush administration official on July 12, 2003, two days before Novak's column appeared. On February 12, 2007, Pincus testified during Libby's trial that he learned Wilson's wife worked at the CIA from Ari Fleischer.

Judith Miller (NY Times) -

In her testimony at Libby's trial, Miller reiterated that she learned of Plame from Libby on June 23, 2003, during an interview at the Old Executive Office Building, and on July 8, 2003, during a breakfast meeting at the St. Regis Hotel in Washington D.C.

So, rather than a single leak to a single reporter, it turns out that there were several sources for several leaks to several reporters, all prior to the publishing of Novak's column. After many, many years of working as a covert agent for the CIA, Valerie Plame suddenly becomes a hot topic of discussion among several administration officials with several major reporters.

Weird, huh?


Without going into all the detail (none / 0) (#54)
by lousy1 on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 03:55:03 PM EST

of properly characterizing Rove's and Libby's conversations with the press-
'
Dispite Fitzgerald public, self serving assertions why did he refuse to bring charges against anyone except the unfortunately disorganized Libby

: You'd have to ask Fitzgerald (none / 0) (#56)
by Yman on Mon Jun 11, 2012 at 04:25:52 PM EST

Fitzgerald would be the best one to ask, since it was his decision, but I'm guessing you wouldn't accept his explanation. There are many reasons a prosecutor might elect to not charge a particular suspect, although Fitzgerald explained his decision in a press conference after the announcement of the guilty verdict. Moreover, Libby wasn't charged because he was "disorganized". He was charged and convicted because he obstructed justice, perjured himself (two counts) and made false statements.
Happy to "properly characterize" them for you.
BTW = Much as you try to diminish Fitzgerald's statements, the statements establishing that Plame's identity was simultaneously being leaked to the several members of the press by several, senior members of the administration (Libby, Rove, Armitage and Fleischer) were provided by the reporters themselves.
Probably just a coincidence.
Heh.

lousy1 and jim (none / 0) (#19)
by Mr Tuxedo on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:59:29 AM EST

Thanks anyway for the links, but I already know what Rush Limbaugh thinks about the Valerie Plame leak.


You're welcome, Mr Tuxedo (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 01:20:26 PM EST

and thanks for showing us that irrespective of what Limbaugh may think you aren't interested in facts.


: Actual "facts" would be great (none / 0) (#42)
by Yman on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 09:24:55 PM EST

The stuff you posted?
Not so much.

Great (none / 0) (#36)
by lousy1 on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 10:55:34 PM EST

I was not aware of or concerned with Rush's take on the Plame issue.

I somehow doubt that you are a faithful listener either.

Perhaps you can respond to the facts raise or present a creditable rebuttal ?


DiFi is (none / 0) (#9)
by BTAL on Fri Jun 08, 2012 at 10:47:35 PM EST

a republican? Her "avalanche" of leaks statement puts her squarely in the outraged category.


: I am outraged (none / 0) (#12)
by Mr Tuxedo on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 12:14:54 AM EST

and I am not a Republican. But there's outrage and there's OUTRAGE.

Kabuki n/t (none / 0) (#4)
by Mr Tuxedo on Fri Jun 08, 2012 at 09:40:28 PM EST

None of the (none / 0) (#7)
by BTAL on Fri Jun 08, 2012 at 10:28:55 PM EST

flowchart results end with good news for the Administration.

A) The variety of topics/areas of responsibility for the actual events (CIA & Military) means either there are multiple leakers in multiple agencies (what are the odds there?). Otherwise it has to be from a location where all these operational details come together.

B) The lowest common denominator is the National Security Advisor's office - which resides in the WH. Donilon's loose lips immediately after the bin Ladin raid immediately puts a spotlight on him. To have a NSA go rogue will completely negate if not backfire on any supposed political gain from the leaks. If the leaks weren't rogue actions then will the individual/individual's keep their mouths shut and take one (very serious criminal charges) for the team/Obama?

It's (none / 0) (#14)
by lentinel on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 05:20:40 AM EST

"HIS" White House don't you know.

This guy is so far to the right, he is downright scary.

We are being encouraged to vote for this guy with his kill list and threats to initiate "consequences" to people who, unlike him, want the people of this country to know what is actually going on.

And, he throws in the usual claptrap about he's doing it to protect the troops. Right.

These authoritarians always justify their actions by saying it either protects the troops or protects the children. Then they go about using the troops as political cannon fodder, treating them like so much waste when they come home looking for a place to live or for medical attention.

It defies common sense that the (none / 0) (#23)
by Slado on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 01:34:57 PM EST

Leaker isn't in the Whithouse and the WH doesn't know who it is. The articles directly quote and reflect the goings on inside top secret meetings where only a few people other than Obama are in the room.

They know who the leaker is and are either embarrassed that they can't control their inner circle or are guilty of using leaks for political gain.

They should throw that person under the bus or this is only going to get worse.

I agree. (none / 0) (#26)
by lousy1 on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 03:18:37 PM EST

Its puzzling that no one has taken a fall yet.

However its hard to throw some one under the bus if they have a firm grip on your privates.


I think your assessment of the situation (none / 0) (#34)
by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 07:08:33 PM EST

seems to be the most feasible.


The simplest explanation is (none / 0) (#37)
by Slado on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:51:52 AM EST

Usually the correct one


: Yes (none / 0) (#38)
by Zorba on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 12:16:03 PM EST

Occam's Razor.

How very Nixon-esque (none / 0) (#35)
by BTAL on Sat Jun 09, 2012 at 07:47:52 PM EST

for Holder to appoint two subordinates to investigate his boss. That makes for easy career choices to be made.

Then add a couple spices to the recipe and what really could go wrong?

A) One was a significant campaign contributor in 2008 to both the Dem party and Obama. Then was appointed as an ASA.

B) The other was one of 3 ASAs retained from the Bush administration - 3 of 93.

This is starting to smell even before the sell by date.

Interesting that this thread (none / 0) (#39)
by BTAL on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:28:41 PM EST

has only gotten 38 comments.

The previous administration would have lite up the boards.

This administration - crickets.

Here's the question, what truly has more impact on the daily life in the US, SCOTUS or DOJ? Yet, the local pitch is to vote because of possible SCOTUS appointments yet let this DOJ run amok.

: 38 comments is not crickets (none / 0) (#45)
by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 10:47:05 PM EST

And we have a CIC taking moral responsibility vs. denying culpability, mumbling about bad apples....war is ugly....we're going to rein those bad people preforming the tasks they are ordered to preform in. Makes a difference when you really have the person in charge to argue with, and some are making those arguments very very well. When you have a leader that refuses to be responsible for anything though it does inflame people when horrible things happen. It makes them kind of crazy too because there are things being done in their names that they despise and there is no one to talk to or yell at about it.

I'm in the Glenn Greenwald camp (none / 0) (#40)
by pgupta on Sun Jun 10, 2012 at 08:40:01 PM EST

I'm firmly in the Glenn Greenwald camp. It stands to reason that the White House is leaking some of this stuff. But I doubt if anything will come out of it. Even Bush's White House which was leaking classified information for political gain never got nailed for leaks. The only conviction there was for Scooter Libby's perjury.

And talking of Libby, it was shameful for Liz Cheney to sit there on Fox and bash the Obama administration. After all it was her own dad (and the only reason Liz is where she is today is because of her dad's influence) who instructed Libby to leak classified information.