Where in the Newsweek article does it say Rove outed Plame?

I can't seem to find it. Please someone let me know where it is.

Is this it here:

"it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip."

Because that isn't much. If she was already out, say, Novak knew already, that bit is not "outing" and Rove didn't do anything illegal.

Here's the Newsweek article. What am I missing? Why do I hear so many people say "Newsweek says Rove outed Plame?"

•  Well

  Its not a smoking gun, you're right.  However, obviously what evidence the prosecuter has is probably more substantial than what Newsweek got their hands on.

  At the very least, Rove most likely lied about "learning about Plame from the Novak column"

  by FleetAdmiralJ on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 12:38:12 PM PDT

•  You're right

  This is not a smoking gun. As Rove's lawyer says, this is still not inconsistent with what Rove is alleged to have already said. Except for, as FleetAdmiral points out, when Karl started peddling the story (before rather than after Novak's column).

  I, for one, think Rove was not the first to tell. I suspect he was the second, following either Cheney or Libby who said something to Novak earlier in the week.

  by emptywheel on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 12:42:20 PM PDT

  •  You are right

    If the second source first called Novak and Novak confirmed it with Rove, then technically Rove didn't "tell".  Will that be a valid defense?

    by hairspray on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 12:58:24 PM PDT

•  If you're referring to the 1st diary

  He makes the point quite clearly in the update that it'ws not conclusive. But it is very ompelling that 3 days before the story Rove mentioned her to Cooper.

  What's the problem?

  by Earl on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 12:49:45 PM PDT

  •  correction

    Front Page diary

    by Earl on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 12:50:51 PM PDT

  •  it's the clock, not the calendar

    that's going to be important. Rove called Cooper at 11:07 AM. At what hour were the preliminary copies of Novak's articles circulated, 3 days before the publication date? Someone out there in KOS land should know how to answer that.

    by Neuro Doc on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 01:27:06 PM PDT

    •  its a security clearance oath

      forget the calenders and clocks

      there is no time waiver in the security clearance oath

      Karl Rove swore he wouldn't talk about our Nation's secrets, PERIOD

      unless he has a valid reason to be discussing America's secrets with reporters, he has no defense here

      he didn't swear an oath not to talk about top secret information until ten minutes after it was published in a newspaper

      that's another exemption that doesn't exist

      what part of "I swear I will not reveal America's secrets" do you people fail to understand ???

      by knowthings on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 04:58:47 PM PDT

•  re

  a) no one otther than the white house and wingnuts have said "she's was already out"

  b) he prob. gave himself clearance to even see her job / description. during that clearence he would have found out.

  c) The agency is not McDonalds. He knew what she did.Let's not be naive.(or wingnuttery)

  by cookiesandmilk on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 12:50:52 PM PDT

•  The article is cautious

  Not enough information has been released in this article to make an accurate call.  The article is not a revelation, its a news story of interest and that is all.

  However, the article does contain implications to keep you reading.

  The part of Rove talking to Cooper is interesting, especially in the meme that Wilson was going unofficially, which seems a bit confused.

  My interest is in Judith Miller.  What is Miller hiding that is so dark that Fitzgerald has to keep her locked up?

  I don't think Cooper had much of anything.  Novak and Miller did.  Novak has squealed apparently and Miller is looking like the fall gal.

  This is an interesting "chess game."  

  by boilerman10 on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 01:11:02 PM PDT

  •  miller is a pawn

    either willing or duped

    she isn't even a piece here

    methinks this guy has got George's queen in his sights

    Fitz is setting georgie boy up for check mate folks

    there are pawns and pieces, pawns are not pieces my friend

    by knowthings on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 04:50:57 PM PDT

•  Composite smoking gun

  This is not a single bullet smoking gun, but a composite.

  1. Rove apparently told grand jury that he spoke to Cooper after Novak's column.  Email published in the Newsweek puts the conversation three days before Novak's column.  This is a clear case of purgery.

  2. By talking about an undercover agent and identifying her (saying "Wilson's wife" uniquely identifies her) and Rove's whole idea of talking to reporters may be part of a conspiracy. If Fitz has a conspiracy case against WH officials, Rove may be part of it.

  3. As others have noted, Espionage Act of 1917 is still on the books, not superceded by the outing act of 1982. Fitz may be preparing a case against that.

  Each type of illegal act is reinforcing other ones and is a criminal act independently of itself.

  So a composite smoking gun with a triple barrel.
  So there!

     

  by ecoast on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 01:22:29 PM PDT

  •  One problem with this...

    ...which you probably realize now. The AP apparently put the column out on the wire three days beforehand, although I can't find the bugger.
    Chris

    by CHFDigital on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 01:54:44 PM PDT

    •  confirming or denyiong ANY detail of a CIA

      agent is a crime. Doesn't matter when anybody started the rumor, Karl Rove took an oath that he would not divulge secret information

      that somebody might have printed or stated a rumor has no bearing on Karl Rove's sworn pact to protect the secrets of the United States

      If Newsweek printed the codes to the US nuclear arsenal, would Karl Rove then be legally entitled to confirm that they are indeed the correct codes ???

      It doesn't matter who the fuck was talking about Valerie Plame, Karl Rove swore an oath that HE wouldn't talk about Valerie Plame. that is the only thing that matters here

      and the fact that Karl may have falsely sworn before a grand jury that he DIDN'T talk about Valerie Plame

      What Novakula knew, and what Cooper knew,  are not important facts to this case. What Rove swore to do (keep America's secrets secret) and then FAILED to do, and maybe what Rove swore he didn't do, (talk about Valerie Plame) and actually did are the two criminal acts

      by knowthings on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 04:46:29 PM PDT

•  That's not what the article says

  And that's not the point of most commenters.  It's a semantic difference.  You take it to mean that he was the original source of the leak.  He need not be the original source of the Plame leak to "out" her.  The Newsweek article only says that Rove was the source for Cooper.  Novak (and his sources) first disclosed the status of Wilson's wife.

  And he (Novak) may have known that what he did was illegal.

  And it is obvious to many that Rove has been trying to hide his tracks from the beginning.

  by Pandemoniac on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 01:28:57 PM PDT

  •  True

    It is a semantic difference. I interpret "outed" as in "someone who broke the law." I think people should stay away from "outed" and just say "Rove told Cooper Wilson's wife was CIA."

    Sure "outed" is more exciting, but I want unambiguous information not excitement.

    (Also, it's not "outing" if Cooper knew beforehand which, as far as I know, Cooper hasn't said one way or the other--but it is still "telling")

    by rush22 on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 05:52:48 PM PDT

•  Four points

  1) That Rove outed Plame-Wilson, Apparently the date was before Novak's story was published.

  2) The law forbids government employees with security clearances from identifying agents even when someone else has done it first.

  3) The pattern of providing that identification and excuse (the claim that Wilson was recuited for the trip by his wife) shows a concerted effort to spread that story.

  
  And against.

  The notes don't quite say that Cooper got that information from Rove. Hence, the need for Cooper's testimony.

  by Frank Palmer on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 02:45:24 PM PDT

•  right fucking here Dude

  Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"--CIA Director George Tenet--or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip."

  maybe you don't get it, the secrecy oath says YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT SECURITY ISSUES AT ALL

  you neither confirm nor deny. Youhave no duty to protect Time or newsweek, nor do you have the right to play charades or twenty questions

  any comment about the status of a CIA Agent, TRUE OR FALSE, is a violation of the secrecy oath

  and not knowing the person referenced IS AN AGENT is not an excuse, nor is thinking the person ISN'T an Agent an excuse

  there is no scenario where a person under security clearances can speculate or discuss any top secret information, ANY INFORMATION, whether it's TRUE OR FALSE information, is included under the security oath

  by knowthings on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 04:35:17 PM PDT

  •  Curious

    Do you mean the House of Representatives secrecy oath? or the Senate one? Rove isn't a member of either. Another one perhaps? I'm just "fucking curious dude."

    Here is the law regarding "Protection of identities of certain United States undercover intelligence officers, agents, informants, and sources": http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----000-.html

    It's pretty specific.

    Tell me what am I missing.

    by rush22 on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 05:45:53 PM PDT

    •  here's the problem dude

      this is from Hunter's front pager

      This is someone citing knowledge of Plame's CIA status inside the White House contemporaneous to the trip itself, and leaking that knowledge to Pincus on the 12th.

      if it aint Karl, then the fact that Karl knew is another crime

      pretty soon all those crimes add up to a RICO prosecution for treason

      shopping a NOC Agent isn't covered by any stupidity or corruption clauses

      that this information was made public is a seriouse crime, If karl doesn't want to take the hit, we can put george in the chair too

      by knowthings on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 06:57:13 PM PDT

•  So the way I see it...

  is that, as it stands, the Newsweek report is "Rove told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA."

  We'll have to wait and see what the surrounding circumstances were, but hopefully he'll be indicted. The amount of wiggle room he has left is getting smaller all the time. For example, did someone leak to Rove? Even so, he can still be charged if he knew she was a covert agent (participating in leaking a covert agent is crime too, even if you aren't the source.)

  The just as big story is that this apparently means he committed perjury when he testified that he had not spoken to Cooper until after Novak, which is contradicted by the memos that Time has.

  Another possibility is that this is even bigger than just a CIA leak. Remember that forged documents were involved too. Who forged them and why?

  by rush22 on Sun Jul 10, 2005 at 04:51:02 PM PDT