There is also the matter of Rove having given false information. From all indications, he lied to the grand jury about having any conversation with
any reporters concerning this matter. Period. We are looking at a possible perjury case being built if they choose.
Certainly, he denied ANY involvement in the situation until after the information had been disclosed by two other sources. I believe the notes of one
of the reporters were given over, and Novak seems to have admitted it to the grand jury in order to cut a deal. In my own mind, I'm simply not able
to understand Rove "forgetting" that he had talked with both men for 2 years!. That doesn't prove that he outed her intentionally, but it does
show a willingness to not be upfront.
As for legalities, the code I have read does seem to deal with situations wherein a person high in the CIA itself, acts as a spy and gives
information to other countries. The restrictions and limitations on those who it deals with seem to be in place to protect those who through contact
may have learned information that they should not have and then passed it on without ever realizing the significance. For example, someone's child
overhears something and talks to a friend so on. Rove is also cleared of liability for giving the information because this code is for thos who
"have clearance" fort this information. It's meant to deal with upper leve inner CIA leaks.
However, (as to Valaris's designation)if you will read (ii) below.
(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or
(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism
components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or
she would NOT have had to live outside of the united states if she was "acting as an agent of, or informant to.." I have no idea if she was or not
, of course.
The comment about the documents marked secret being "a mistake" may be true, I would like to get a link that shows me where this has been claimed by
anyone in the CIA. But look, in order for this to matter the description written in a code of law to specify a covert agent, which was written by
someone outside the actual CIA, (and not,by the way, for the purpose of actually PROVING someone was covert, cause who could imagine that).....that
this description has more authority over this designation than does the CIA. What, is someone sitting in a room keeping track to make sure that
noone should accidently not be used outside of the country for 5 years unless they are woking with the FBI cause then damn, they can't be considered
Regardless, whoever read the "documents marked as "secret" would have thought they were correct. I can't imagine a situation where a person
would have read that and thought, "OH, no, I happen to know exactly what constitutes a person who is an agent, this piddly little "secret"
designation is invalid, the CIA telling me she is an agent is not a way to determine this and I will ignore it and I know that this is a mistake.
What's more, it's a mistake that I am validated in completely ignoring, these guys should ask ME who to mark as secret and not secret for I'm
clearly the one to determine just that."
A person within the CIA is designated secret by that agency until that agency chooses to stop doing so, not when others outside choose, based on
whatever information they have.( How can we even think we would be able to determine such a thing? If she was active or not, we shouldn't be ABLE to
tell! !!! But, as a note of interest, we are talking about a woman who was involved with the issue of WMD proliferation! I almost can't imagine
that she would NOT have been active at a time like this). Regardless, the reality is that we should not be able to find out if someone is an agent.
It SHOULD look as if they are not. Right!??! I see only two ways of this being indicated and they are MEANT to apply to a small group of people:
1. those actually involved within the department (CIA)
2. those with clearance for information they need due to their position. (government + military) - and if a fact is marked secret, these people are
not in a position to judge the veracity of that- how could they?
and finally, we now have a third way;
3. The CIA comes forward and SAYS that this person is an agent. (..which is the exact opposite of everything it is designed to do.)
#2 should be the only way a person within the government or the US should be informed of this. I hope with all my heart that the CIA would be able
to hide the activities of such a person from the likes of me. So how would I be able to judge. Because her husband wrote something in a book? Hmm?
To be honest, and I have not read the book, if it really does tell so much about her activities even though it is not about her, I would find that to
be a little odd. I do read memoir's but they don't usually cover the location of the other individuals in the author's life to the point that I
would end the book thinking that I knew where the other person had been everyday for the last five years. Is the book a daily diary, starting each
chapter with "I opened my eyes to to see my wife.." and ending with ""and then closed my eyes, to sleep next to my wife who has not been out of
the country today, either..."
...that's kinda a funny thought ,huh?
I apoligize. Something in the book may very well indicate that she has not done so. I have not read it.
Finally, regarding the code, the definition for "covert agent" is really just defining the term for the purposes of the enforcment of this code.
This is very common in legal documents. Clarifying, as it were, who was covered under this law. I don't think that it can be used as a complete
definition of who a covert agent is. So if it can be shown in a court of law that she matches the description here it simply means theat Rove might
have broken this law and if not then he is not liable "under this law". It says NOTHING else about his actions. But I ask you, is this a situation
we want to occur often. Is it good for us that Mrs. Wilson has been clearly marked as having at least at somepoint been an undercover agent, so that
every person associated with her outside of America is now being looked at by their government as having been involved with an agent. People who are
deciding, perhaps, whether to divulge information or make contact now, what should they think? That if they do, 8 years later they everyone might
Lastly, as to the def of "covert agent" exactly how clear a picture would the CIA be wanting to draw of who was an agent and who was not? A very
specific one that covered all situations and could be easily applied by those outside the CIA, well, wouldn't that be a little "non-covert".
Regardless, I am not going to judge this situation by the law. Legality is not morality. It seems to me that :
1.Rove has not been at all upfront or even honest about any of this. If I had given information out because I didn't know it was secret, I would
have admitted to it. Why not? The law concerning the matter seems to allow for that very thing. If he didn't know it was wrong why would he choose
to act in this manner?
2. I never heard one thing about Valarie not really being an agent until AFTER Rove's attorney formally admitted to there having been a discussion
between Rove and the reporters involved. I guess it's easier to argue all this in the media though. In a court of law it would probably make any
lawyer feel weird to argue with the CIA about someone's designation as, well, they should freak'n know, right? And, they can prove that they
indicated this to those with the correct clearance by marking them "secret".
3. Rove has been Bush's right hand man since the Texas campaign. I don't expect anything like perfection in anyone. I am troubled by the lack of
judgement in others this would seem to indicate. And if he did know, well, that one worries me, too.
(I'm sorry this is so long! Just looked up and realized...sheesh!)