Skip to comments.Jane Harman Backtracks on Rove Allegation --Bailing
Posted on 07/17/2005 11:59:17 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
In more evidence that the effort to blame Karl Rove for "outing an undercover CIA agent" was coming unraveled, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee retracted her claim on Sunday that she knew Rove obtained the agent's name from government sources.
Asked about a letter she sent the White House demanding that Rove's security clearance be suspended, Rep. Jane Harman first insisted she was certain that the top Bush's aide's source was someone in the administration.
"There's no other way that he would know [Plame's name]," Harman argued to "Fox News Sunday's" Brit Hume.
The California Democrat theorized that there was a "gossip pool in the White House emailing each other and chatting it up." She then charged that Rove was "marketing the facts" to reporters Matthew Cooper and Robert Novak.
Hume noted, however, that according to published reports on Friday, Rove "heard about the information from reporters" - and not Bush administration colleagues.
He challenged Harman: "How do you know that's not true?"
The top House Intelligence Committee Democrat began furiously backpedaling:
"Well, I can't know absolutely that it's not true," Harman confessed, before protesting, "But it's a circle - the reporters got it from somewhere."
Yes it fits because it would show a number of Democrats undermining the Security of the entire world not just America. With the London bombings still fresh in everyone's mind,these kind of tactics by well known dems would do more to harm the liberal agenda than anything that Rove or any other Pubbie could do. The average American does not like dirty tricks for partisan power grabs and especially if it means that they are not as safe as they should be as a result of what the Dems in and out of Government are doing. If I were in charge of Home Land Security, I would have every employee of every Agency ever having to do with our National Security sign a paper tomorrow indicating that they have not talked to any Reporter or Politician about any matter involving our National Security. If they refuse to sign,they would be terminated. If they sign and are found to be in contact with anyone specified they would be prosecuted to the fullest. If they want to be a whistle blower,they can resign and then talk to the proper authority. When you are giving these Federal jobs,you sign an agreement,and part of that agreement is never to do anything to undermine the Government of the USA. It is a very simple to follow these instructions,and I do not believe Plame did. With her foolish overactive mouth she should never be given any "secure" job.
Ah yes, the "Rove shouldn't have security clearance anymore" bill. That link is very good for info. It's really quite something to see every single RAT vote in lockstep on that. Lieberman, Ben Nelson..all of them.
Yeppers, every single dem is on record as voting for that piece of trash!
But, the Reps were smart they just voted enough in favor of Frist's competing bill to make a point, and then the rest voted no, because they didn't want it to pass...
All I know is, if I were a campaign staff member for anyone running against a dem this year, or next, I would have the film already stashed away!!!
It seems to me that if it was the Slimes coercing Miller into keeping quiet, that Miller might be tempted to tell them to go jump off a cliff and risk being fired over going to jail.
So that means Miller has a personal investment in keeping quiet and I think it's maybe more than just protecting a source.
Would Miller do jail for just Wilson or Plame themselves? Are either one THAT important to the RATS? Is it Miller herself that's screwed up royally in one or more ways? Does it lead to HIllary?
Mandy Grunwald...has she testified? Does anyone know if any of the Clinton mafia has testified? I am wondering what we do NOT know now. This smells like a Clinton pile of shit.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I want everyone here today to be clear on what we are talking about. You can call it politics; I call it government. I call it good government. We are talking about a matter of national security. At least one--there could be more--at least one senior White House official disclosed the identity of a CIA intelligence officer to a reporter or reporters, and then this administration proceeded to deny and deflect the truth after it was discovered it had been leaked. It put this agent's life in jeopardy. I repeat, it put this agent's life in jeopardy, plus people she had dealt with from other countries and here in America. It put our intelligence community at risk and, of course, jeopardized our national security.Click on: 109th Congress - Senate - July 14, 2005
Even the President's father, my friend, President George Bush, a former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, recognizes the seriousness of this offense. He said:
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.
Whoever did this, according to George Bush, the first Bush President, would be an insidious traitor.
But instead of dealing with the problem, this administration, this White House, and the majority in the Senate want to divert attention from this breach of national security. Unfortunately, it is a pattern we are all too familiar with from this White House. When they are on the ropes, they attack. If you do not believe me, you need look no further than yesterday's Washington Post, July 13, 2005, which detailed the Republican strategy for this affair:The emerging GOP strategy --devised by-- RNC chair [Ken Mehlman] and other Rove loyalists outside the White House--is to try to undermine those Democrats calling for Rove's ouster, play down Rove's role and wait for President Bush's forthcoming Supreme Court selections to drown out the controversy, according to several high-level Republicans.
This is what is known as a coverup. This is an abuse of power. This is a diversion from what we should be dealing with in the Senate.
No interest in coming clean and being honest with the American people. This afternoon, the majority is bringing this strategy to the Senate floor. Mehlman's strategy is being brought right here, but the American people can see right through this. This morning, the Wall Street Journal, not a bastion of liberality, had a poll which said only 41 percent of Americans believe the President is being honest and straightforward. That is from the Wall Street Journal this
[Page: S8269] GPO's PDF
morning, which confirms and underlines what I have said that this is a coverup. It is an abuse of power. It is diversionary.
It is time to quit playing partisan politics with our national security. It is time for the White House to come clean. It is time to address the pressing issues facing this country. This second-degree amendment--and I have been in the Congress more than two decades--is about as juvenile and as mudslinging as I have seen. We are here to protect the country. We are here with a bill that deals with homeland security. We are here to talk about issues such as leaking information about our CIA agents. Is that not part of our national security? I certainly hope so.
We have pressing issues facing this country. The reason the American people have lost faith in this administration is because we are not dealing with the problems they care about: 45 million Americans with no health insurance, millions of others underinsured; our educational system is wanting; K-12 have big problems; our public educational system is under attack. With college education today it is how much money one has as to where they can go to school and when they can go to school. It is how much money their parents have. Only half of American workers today have pensions, and more than half of those pensions are in distress.
People are worrying--just like those people who worked all of those valiant years at United Airlines--are they going to lose their pensions? Are they going to be cut? Are they going to be whacked?
This administration is obstructing progress. The American people deserve more. The Republicans should stop playing games, come clean, and work on issues to help this country.
What we have today, with this little second-degree amendment, is a diversion. It is an abuse of power, and it is a coverup.
Or, for PDF version ...
109th Congress - Page S8268 - July 14, 2005
109th Congress - Page S8269 - July 14, 2005
http://www.rcfp.org/shields_and_subpoenas.html#plame <- Here
Oh, here is another one, not linked from above ...
The below links relate to a brief filed on behalf of 36 news organizations. One of the authors of the brief is Victoria Toensing, who has posed the same points in editorial columns expressing the function of the statute that forbids disclosure of covert operatives.
The brief itself is a 1.5 Mb PDF file - fair warning.
March 23, 2005 brief filed by 36 News organizations <- Arguing "no crime committed"
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2005/03/journalists_ami.html <- Commentary
You are talented!!!
We can always count on you, Cboldt! Thank you very much!
I have missed you since the judical nominees have been voted on!!!
Hopefully you will bring your expertise to the Supreme Court threads!!!!
Rove's fault. No wait.
Bush's fault. No wait.
Rove's fault. No wait.
Bush's fault. No wait.
Rove's fault. No wait.
Bush's fault. No wait.
Rove's fault. No wait.
Bush's fault. No wait.
Now this is funny...communist democrats wanting an investigation of a conservative internet writer. LMAO!!
On Feb. 23, two House Democrats asked special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to subpoena reporter James Guckert in the Plame investigation. Guckert reported for conservative Web sites under the pseudonym "Jeff Gannon" and drew criticism for asking President Bush loaded and innacurate questions at press conferences. Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) believe that Guckert may have information useful to the grand jury investigation and may have been given access to a White House memo identifying Plame.
Yeah from a democrat operative.. DuuuH..
You need to post this on the Sunday Talk Show Thread also...alot of what is being discussed on this thread, is also being discussed there...
and you deserve to get credit for finding this and posting it!!!
I'm still looking for briefs from the special prosecutor and/or the DOJ. Meanwhile, a random collection of briefs, opinions, and leads ...
(also at http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/cialeak.pdf, http://jaffee-redmond.org/cases/miller.htm and other URLs)
SCOTUS Docket Sheet ...
Judith Miller, Petitioner
Docketed: May 11, 2005
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Case Nos.: (04-3138)
Decision Date: February 15, 2005
Rehearing Denied: April 19, 2005
~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May 9 2005 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 10, 2005)
May 18 2005 Brief amici curiae of American Society of Newspaper Editors, et al. filed. VIDED.
May 18 2005 Brief amici curiae of ABC, Inc., et al. filed. VIDED.
May 18 2005 Brief amicus curiae of Center for Individual Freedom filed. VIDED.
May 27 2005 Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed. VIDED.
May 27 2005 Brief amici curiae of Oklahoma, et al. filed. VIDED.
Jun 6 2005 Reply of petitioner Judith Miller filed. (Distributed)
Jun 7 2005 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 23, 2005.
Jun 27 2005 Petition DENIED. Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
I've been hanging around. Don't have much to add <g>.
I have reviewed the Texas decision where Gonzales and Owen took opposite sides of interpretation of the Texas parental notification statute (and think Owen got it right), but feel that getting wrapped up in speculation as to the nominee is not a good use of effort.
I hope to be around when the nomination makes its way through the condirmation process. Meanwhile, the Senate has stranded half a dozen Circuit Court nominations that were made in February - after having been made in the previous session of Congress.
Feel free to post it over there - no need for attribution on linking to a three day old Senate piece that we all just finished watching.
Could minor Ambassador Joe Wilson himself have been the source in blowing his own Wife's cover?
It is distinctly possible, (though it may be unlikely that Joe Wilson himself directly was NY Times Judith Miller's source), since Joe Wilson himself evidently routinely bragged openly to strangers about her CIA employment, prior to such "cover" being "blown" in the press.
Here's an example of Joe's apparently routine and open bragging about Valerie being a "CIA agent," which became known directly to me over a year ago:
He certainly bragged about it per a famous and highly reliable source's (named below) account of his own face-to-face encounter with Amb. Joe Wilson prior to Valerie Plame's "outing" as a CIA agent/employee.
Based upon a personal conversation (we were in a small group eating; it was NOT an "off the record") I had with eminent historian Victor Davis Hanson (we were at a luncheon table together during a trip to Europe), it appeared entirely possible that Joe Wilson himself was the (or one source, if not the original one) possible source in revealing his own wife's status as a CIA agent or employee.
Victor Davis Hanson (Wilson presumably knew Victor Davis Hanson wrote regularly for NRO (National Review Online), had done OpEds for the Wall street Journal, and other publications, and had his own Website with a widespread following) said he (VDH) & Joe Wilson were both in the same "Green Room" before a televised debate-discussion on Iraq, etc. and Joe first warned the TV make-up person not to get powder on his $14,000 Rolex watch, then he bragged to Victor about several things (possessions and trips to Aspen, etc.), like his expensive car (I think it was a Mercedes), and then bragged about his beautiful wife who, Joe Wilson said (braggingly) was a CIA operative.
I asked Victor Davis Hanson Why he didn't write up this account.(?) He replied that Joe Wilson would probably simply deny it, since only he (VDH) & Joe Wilson were in the Green Room together before the broadcast.
However, it is now easy to surmise that Joe Wilson is a crass, materialistic, self-promoting, vain, egotistical, bragaddocio-opportunist, so this account is perfectly consistent with Valerie Plame's TWO photo shoots in Vanity Fair. (Or was it Vogue? No, probably too crass for Vogue, n'est pas?)
Harman has usually (to me at least) seemed much more careful and balanced when she speaks. Today was a shocker. I was stunned momentarily. Then Brit brought her quietly down to earth.
God continue to bless Brit. I love it when he does the honors on Sunday a.m.!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.