Plame affair

Plame affair and CIA leak scandalTemplate:Fn (rel. CIA leak grand jury investigation) are common terms for a United States political scandal concerning whether there was an unauthorized disclosure of the identity of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative. Robert Novak reported Plame's status in in a July 2003 column in the Washington Post. As of January 2006 a special counsel investigation continues.

The column[1], by conservative pundit Novak, was published eight days after Plame’s husband, retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, in a New York Times op-ed [2], criticized the George W. Bush administration's use of "unreliable" "yellowcake" documents as part of its rationale for the Iraq War. In the article Wilson claimed to have been sent to Niger following a request by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney to investigate the alleged purchase of uranium from Africa by Iraq. Wilson claimed that Novak had conspired with Bush administration sources to expose his wife's identity as "political retribution" for his earlier criticism. It is a federal crime for anyone with authorized knowledge of the identity of an active or recently active undercover CIA operative to knowingly divulge it to persons not otherwise authorized to know it.

The Plame Affair includes the subsequent Special Counsel investigation by special ocunsel Patrick Fitzgerald into the actions of Bush administration officials — including Karl Rove, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Ari Fleischer, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney[3] and unknown others, including CIA officials — regarding their knowledge of the leak of Plame's identity. In addition to Novak, seven other journalists are reported to have known Plame's identity before the Novak column was published, including Judith Miller of The New York Times, who would later spend eighty-five days in jail for failing to divulge the identity of her confidential administration source to a grand jury.

On October 28, 2005 Fitzgerald announced the grand jury had indicted Lewis Libby, Chief of Staff and assistant for National Security Affairs to Dick Cheney, Vice President of the United States, and a National Security Adviser to George W. Bush, President of the United States.[4]

While Fitzgerald is bound by grand jury secrecy rules from disclosing that more indictments are planned, and specifically cautioned against "reading tea leaves," some believe that his remarks might indicate that they are unlikely. [5] However, on November 18, 2005 Fitzgerald announced that he will use a new grand jury in his ongoing investigation, prompting legal experts to opine that new testimony may be sought from Bob Woodward, reflecting the apparent new timeline of events brought to light by Woodward's deposition earlier in the same week. [6]

Valerie Plame has been a CIA employee for 20 years. "Blowing the cover" of a covert agent could be harmful for all of the agent's contacts in the past as a covert agent. It could also make it more difficult for other CIA agents in the future to find trustful cooperation with persons all over the world. And former President George H. W. Bush, the current President's father and former Director of the CIA, has spoken about those who expose clandestine CIA officers: "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...." (April 26, 1999, CIA headquarters, Langley, Virginia, at its rededication as the George Bush Center for Intelligence). It is questionable, however, whether an agent who, for example, drives his car every day past the guarded gates to the CIA parking lot may properly be classified as a covert agent.

Due to the increased scrutiny caused by Wilson's talking points, in came to the new media attention that John Kerry, the junior Democratic senator from Massachusetts, had revealed the name of Fulton Armstrong durring the nomination of John Bolton.

At his October 28, 2005, press conference, Special Counsel Fitzgerald was asked if he knew whether Libby revealed Plame's covert status knowingly; he responded:

Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward. I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent. We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion. [7]

Fitzgerald said also broadly about her status in CIA, in the beginning of his press conference: "Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified". And: "Valerie Wilson's cover was blown in July 2003. The first sign of that cover being blown, was when Mr. Novak published a column on July 14th, 2003."

Background

Beginning in late 2002, and in the context of the War on Terrorism (a consequence of the September 11, 2001 attacks), the United States began an international campaign for stricter sanctions and regime change in Iraq because of questions about its former actions and its current capability to create weapons of mass destruction ("WMD"). The U.S. led an effort for renewed sanctions through the U.N. as a response to what it said was Iraqi intransigence and refusal to allow thorough, randomly conducted weapons inspections; the U.S. demanded that international sanctions contain strict time requirements and a threat of hostile consequences for any non-compliance. After UN Security Council Resolution 1441 against Iraq was adopted, the U.S. insisted that it had the authority to enforce the United Nations sanctions. This position, advocated repeatedly by the Bush administration and its supporters, has been and still is disputed by numerous legal experts. According to most members of the Security Council, it is up to the council itself, and not individual members, to determine how the body's resolutions are to be enforced.[8][9][10]

In the years before and for months after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, U.S. government officials with the suport of other countries' intelligence agencies publicly presented evidence that the Iraqi government had reconstituted its WMD program — including chemical and biological weapons — and furthermore that it was actively trying to obtain the capability to develop nuclear weapons. Some critics of the United States invasion of Iraq say that the series of sanctions and diplomatic maneuvers were not made in good faith and that the Bush administration had evidently decided to invade Iraq shortly after the September 11 attacks. The United States intelligence service had believed that Iraq had been reconstituting it's WMD programs since 1998 [11] when Operation Desert Fox was undertaken in response to Iraq's removal of UNSCOM inspectors.

Along with other reasons for war, the U.S. cited British intelligence that Saddam Hussein's regime attempted to acquire yellowcake uranium from Africa. The original intelligence showed evidence of purchase of the material from Niger as well as a timeline for negotiations for obtaining the material. Shortly after the 2003 State of the Union address, the documents showing Iraqi purchases of yellowcake uranium were deemed to be false. Later investigations (the Butler Report in the United Kingdom and the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report of July 7 2004) repeated the unverified claim that there was intelligence from multiple sources other than the Niger documents that indicated Iraqi attempts to purchase the material.

Oddly enough the French had warned the Bush administration, a year before the State of the Union, that the allegation could not be supported with evidence.[12] But current critics suggest the French were denying the evidence because of their involvement in the Oil For Food Scandal. Whatever their reasons, their comment regarding the veracity of the story turned out to be correct.

The IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) asked the U.S. Government for documentation in the Autumn of 2002, and after some delay, the U.S. Government sent documents to the IAEA without further comment. The IAEA experts quickly determined that the documents were primitive forgeries. And the Nobel Prize-winning director of IAEA, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, told the U.N. Security Council that the documents were forgeries, on March 7 2003.

The IAEA operatives, during several months of U.N. inspections in Iraq before the war, found no evidence of any nuclear programme in the country. That was told to the U.N. Security Council in March 2003, before the war. The official U.S. Duelfer Inspection Report found later, after the war, that all nuclear production facilities in Iraq was destroyed before 1991 and never reconstituated. In March 2003 the U.N. experts asked for a few more months of inspections to verify the chemical and biological weapons disarmament in Iraq. But the U.S. government denied more time for inspections, and invaded Iraq, on March 19 2003.

File:Patrick Fitzgerald 18380357.jpg

Patrick Fitzgerald

After the invasion of Iraq, Wilson publicly criticized the Bush administration in a New York Times opinion column. Eight days later, Plame's identity as a CIA agent was exposed in conservative pundit Robert Novak's regularly syndicated column, along with an allegation that Plame had a role in sending Wilson to investigate the Iraq-Niger "yellowcake" claim. The revelation of Plame's identity began a larger political scandal, and Wilson claimed that Rove had leaked Plame's identity as a CIA operative in retaliation for his public contradiction of Bush administration claims. A subsequent special investigation was launched and placed under the direction of Patrick Fitzgerald, and numerous established and speculated connections to Bush administration officials have since surfaced. On October 28, 2005, a grand jury returned a 5-count indictment against Lewis Libby, Cheney's Chief of Staff, on charges of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements. When the indictment was announced, Libby resigned his post.

The indictment alleges that Libby had informed several reporters about Ms. Wilson's employment at the CIA, that this information was classified, and that Vice President Dick Cheney got the information from CIA sources and brought it to Libby's attention. Both Karl Rove and Lewis Libby had told reporters about the occupation of Joe Wilson's wife in CIA, but Lewis Libby did it first, according to the investigation, to reporter Judith Miller on June 23 2003.

Wilson's investigation and critical editorial

Wilson said that his African diplomatic experience led to his selection for the mission to Niger; he is a former ambassador to Gabon, another uranium-producing African nation, and was once posted in the 1970s to Niamey, Niger's capital. He was also once Director for African Affairs in the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton. According to the Senate investigation and the Libby indictment, Wilson's wife recommended Wilson when she was consulted on who to send on the mission.

In his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush cited a claim by British intelligence that Iraq sought uranium from Niger, saying "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." This is a claim the British government still maintains despite the forgery of some of the public documents released by the U.S. and British governments.

Beginning in May, 2003, Wilson began a series of anonymous interviews with various reporters, and wrote a critical opinion piece in The New York Times, published 6 July 2003[13]. In it, Wilson suggested that the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence findings in order to bolster a pre-established agenda to invade Iraq during the Iraq disarmament crisis that led to that 2003 invasion. On 11 July 2003, five days following the publication of Wilson's op-ed piece, the CIA issued a statement discrediting what it called "highly dubious" accounts of Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium from Niger.[14]

Wilson's central claim was that several reports and investigations were done on Niger, among them his own on a journey in 2002, and all found the claims from President George Bush about a contact between Iraq and Niger to be unsubstantiated. He claimed the information given by the American government before the Iraq war was based on deceptions and false information.

In the press release, CIA Director George Tenet said it should "never" have permitted the "16 words" relating to alleged Iraqi uranium purchases to be used in the State of the Union address, and called it a "mistake" that the CIA allowed such a reference in a speech Bush used to take the United States to war.

Eight days following Wilson's Times editorial, Novak published his column containing the information about Plame's identity. Wilson claimed that the leak was an act of political retribution against him designed to destroy his wife's career.

Robert Novak article

File:George Tenet.gif

George Tenet

In his July 14 2003 column, Novak wrote that the choice to use Wilson "was made routinely at a low level without [CIA] Director George Tenet's knowledge." Novak went on to identify Plame as Wilson's wife: "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 Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip.[15]

Although Wilson wrote that he was certain his findings were circulated within the CIA and conveyed (at least orally) to the office of the Vice President, Novak questioned the accuracy of Wilson's report and added that "it is doubtful Tenet ever saw it." However, Tenet himself later indicated not only his familiarity with the report but that it "was given a normal and wide distribution" in intelligence circles but not Congress or the Administration[16]. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence report stated that Wilson's report was actually viewed by the CIA as bolstering the belief that Iraq was trying to acquire "yellowcake" to reconstitute his nuclear WMD program. The State Department remained skeptical, however.[17]

Defenders of White House officials believe that Wilson, in a partisan way, initiated a smear campaign against the Bush administration. They promote the related view that those White House officials who talked on background about Wilson were, rather than trying to punish him by exposing his wife, trying to prevent reporters from believing Wilson's "disinformation." Opponents counter this argument by asserting that such officials would still have a duty to diligently avoid exposing undercover officers or other confidential information.

Claim of Plame-Wilson conspiracy

In Novak's July 14 column, he claimed that Plame had a role in selecting Wilson, her husband, for his trip to Niger:

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 Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report [concerning alleged Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium in Niger]. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me. ^[18]

Wilson had been open about the CIA's sponsorship of his trip (which he called "discreet but not secret"), and wrote that he had been "informed by officials at the CIA that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report" relating to the sale of uranium yellowcake from Niger (see also Yellowcake Forgery).

Yellowcake

Two other reports from Niger support his view that the construction of the uranium consortium in Niger, with its difficult road connections, tight production schemes, and close relations to several countries and to several official departments in Niger, could not be a possible tool for export of "yellowcake" to Iraq. However, the CIA viewed the report as bolstering the belief that Iraq was trying to acquire "yellowcake" [19]

Iraq already possessed a large amount of yellowcake that had been reported to the IAEA, but lacked the means to transform it to the enriched uranium needed for bomb production. The UN had found no evidence before the war, through its inspections, that Iraq had any remaining nuclear program nor could it be confirmed in general that Iraq had disarmed as it was required to do under the U.N. resolutions. Rumors of Iraq's desire to acquire uranium from Africa seems to have been based partially on the documents delivered from Italy describing a Niger transaction, but these were very simple and primitive forgeries. Other evidence that has led the British government to continue to state that Iraq wanted to acquire African uranium is said to be classified, and therefore can not be substantiated at this time. Only the false documents were given to IAEA when IAEA experts asked the US government for documentation of its claims.

Of his trip to Niger, Wilson wrote, "I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction [purchase of uranium ore] had ever taken place." Wilson also noted that U.S. Ambassador to Niger Barbara Owens-Kirkpatrick "knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington."

However, a Senate intelligence committee report issued on July 9 2004 is taken by some to refute Wilson's claims about the extent of his wife's involvement in arranging the trip as well as the conclusions reached in his report. As reported by the Washington Post:

The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on 12 February 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said. [20]

Several high ranking CIA officials disputed the claim that Plame was involved in the final decision to send Wilson, and indicated that the operations official who made it was not present at the meeting where Wilson was chosen. Wilson wrote: "Apart from being the conduit of a message from a colleague in her office asking if I would be willing to have a conversation about Niger's uranium industry, Valerie had had nothing to do with the matter." And former CIA officer Larry Johnson elaborated:

Another false claim is that Valerie sent her husband on the mission to Niger. According to the Senate Intelligence Committee Report issued in July 2004, it is clear that the Vice President himself requested that the CIA provide its views on a Defense Intelligence Agency report that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from Niger. The Vice President's request was relayed through the CIA bureaucracy to the Director of the Counter Proliferation Division at the CIA. Valerie worked for a branch in that Division. The Senate Intelligence Report is frequently cited by Republican partisans as "proof" that Valerie sent her husband to Niger because she sent a memo describing her husband's qualifications to the Deputy Division Chief. Several news personalities, such as Chris Matthews and Bill O'Reilly continue to repeat this nonsense as proof. What the Senate Intelligence Committee does not include in the report is the fact that Valerie's boss had asked her to write a memo outlining her husband's qualifications for the job. She did what any good employee does; she gave her boss what he asked for.[21]

Others argue that Wilson has said that his wife did not authorize the trip and that he cannot speak about the details. The Senate intelligence committee report and other sources seem to confirm that Plame gave her husband a positive recommendation. However, they also confirm that she did not personally authorize the trip, contrary to what Matthew Cooper reports having been told by Karl Rove.

Response to the article

Wilson charged that Plame's CIA status was deliberately exposed by Bush administration officials, as retaliation for his public charge that U.S. intelligence concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was largely a conspiracy to falsify and fabricate evidence to support the war.

The Bush administration countered that it had only been trying to respond to Wilson's attempt to discredit it, by in return disputing several claims of his own. In particular, Wilson claimed that he had been sent to Niger as a response from the CIA to a question from the Office of the Vice President, whereas Cheney said he never heard of the whole mission to Niger before it happened. But later Cheney did admit that he put a question before the CIA about the Niger allegations. Defenders of the Bush administration say the only reason to mention Wilson's wife was to discredit this claim, and not to retaliate against Wilson in a personal way. Showing that Wilson's wife was indeed somewhat responsible for his mission to Niger was to dispute the Wilson claim that he was sent by the Vice President's office and that the administration had personal knowledge of his report. However, mentioning Wilson's wife in public could be a chance for the Bush administration to discredit Wilson for his public critique on the validity of the Niger/Iraq yellowcake story.

Novak defends his column

In a later column, Novak said he included this paragraph "because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission." He claimed:

I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment. Wilson had become a vocal opponent of President Bush's policies in Iraq after contributing to Al Gore in the last election cycle and John Kerry in this one ... 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 counter-proliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. ^[22]

Novak also suggested that Plame's relationship to Wilson could be assumed by reading his entry in Who's Who In America, though it was her CIA status rather than her marriage which was a secret. The following day on CNN, Novak announced that Plame's nominal employer was Brewster Jennings & Associates.[23] "There is no such firm, I'm convinced," Novak said, noting that "Ms. Valerie E. Wilson" had donated $1,000 to the Gore campaign in 1999 and had listed Brewster Jennings & Associates as her employer.[24] "CIA people are not supposed to list themselves with fictitious firms if they're under a deep cover — they're supposed to be real firms, or so I'm told. Sort of adds to the little mystery."[25] To date, there is no evidence that Brewster Jennings & Associates has ever had any employees other than Plame.

Other than the use of the word "operative", there was nothing in the original article to suggest that Plame was engaged in covert activities and, in fact, whether Plame was "covert" has not been legally established. Novak later said a CIA source told him unofficially that Plame had been "an analyst, not in covert operations." But in fact the CIA source did warn Novak several times against the publication. The suggestion that naming Plame as an agent was a serious crime first appeared in an article by David Corn published by The Nation on July 16 2003, two days after Novak's column. ^[26] Because Plame's official cover was that she was working for a private company, Novak's identification of her as an Agency operative compromised both Plame's cover and contacts but may have also compromised the cover of any other operatives associated with that company. Larry C. Johnson wrote, "Robert Novak’s compromise of Valerie caused even more damage. It subsequently led to scrutiny of her cover company. This not only compromised her 'cover' company but potentially every individual overseas who had been in contact with that company or with her."[27]

Novak indicated that he had used the term "operative" loosely, and had not intended it to identify Plame as an undercover agent. Novak's initial column identified Plame as "an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." He has since claimed that he believed Plame was merely an analyst at the CIA, not a covert operative — the difference being that analysts are not undercover, so identifying them is not necessarily a crime. Novak said the term "operative" is "a word I have lavished on hack politicians for more than 40 years."[28]

Critics of Novak's defense argue that after decades as a Washington reporter, Novak was well aware of the difference and would be unlikely to make such a mistake. A search of the LexisNexis database for the terms "CIA operative" and "agency operative" showed Novak had accurately used the terms to describe covert CIA employees, every time they appear in his articles.[29]

Corn, in his July 16th, 2003 blog post that deconstructed Novak's terminology, was the first publication to use the terms "covert" or "undercover" in regard to Plame's status at the CIA. Corn indicated in that post and subsequent ones that he was speculating that Plame might have been "covert" based on Novak's use of the term "Agency operative", which typically is applied only to covert CIA employees. In any case, once Novak had revealed that Plame worked at the CIA the secret was blown and Corn was not revealing anything new.

Novak has also claimed that Plame's CIA employment was an "open secret" in Washington, indicating that effective "affirmative measures" to conceal her relationship to the CIA were not being taken. Several ex-CIA operatives who knew Plame have disputed this and indicated that she was at one time a NOC. Larry C. Johnson has stated that Valerie Plame "agreed to operate overseas without the protection of a diplomatic passport [and if she had been] caught in that status she would have been executed." ^[30] Others counter that this was well in the past, and outside the time frame protected by the law forbidding disclosure of an undercover agent. When Novak approached the CIA's office of Public Affairs regarding his article on Plame, he claimed that the office expressed no specific danger to anybody in case of the public disclosure of her name, but warned strongly against it. And the CIA officer telephoned later to Novak to repeat his warning.

In "The CIA Leak," Novak stated this explanation for the two "senior administration officials" and the "CIA official" referenced in his June 14 article:

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 counter-proliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger [Fitzgerald's later report indicates that this official — "Operative A" — "helping" Novak was Karl Rove]. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission. ^[31]

In other interviews, Novak confirmed that his sources warned him not to mention Plame. His motivation to disregard the warnings is suggested by this comment in "The CIA Leak": "I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment." Just four days before he revealed Plame's name, Novak wrote "Bush's Enemy Within." Therein, Novak excoriates the Bush administration's appointment of Frances Townsend to an important national security post, explaining she may potentially later betray Bush because two of her former superiors were liberal Democrats, and she had served in the US Attorney's office in Manhattan. According to Novak, this office was "notoriously liberal laden." ^[32]

On February 12, 2004, Murray S. Waas for the American Prospect wrote that two "administration officials" spoke to the FBI and challenged Novak's account about not receiving warnings not to publish Plame's name. According to one of the officials, "At best, he is parsing words ... At worst, he is lying to his readers and the public. Journalists should not lie, I would think." ^[33] Novak has also stated on CNN's Crossfire that "Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this." ^[34] But he said also earlier: "I didn't dig it up. It was given to me" about Valerie Plame's identity.

Others, such as Nicholas Kristof[35] also argue that Plame's identity had already been compromised by the CIA double agent Aldrich Ames.

Responses of the Bush administration

Bush and his White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan have made several statements about the administration's response if anyone was found to have been involved in the leak:

McClellan - September 29 2003: "The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration." [36]

Bush - September 30 2003: " And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. ... I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." [37]

McClellan - October 7 2003: "Let me answer what the President has said. I speak for the President and I'll talk to you about what he wants." and "If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates, that's not the way this President expects people in his administration to conduct their business." [38]

Bush - June 10 2004 (Responding to a media question which asked "do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have . . . leaked [Valerie Plame's] name?"): "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts." [39]

Bush - July 18 2005: "I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts. And if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

Novak's sources

In another series of leaks during July 2005, it was revealed that Rove was Novak's second source ^[40]. Novak told Rove about Plame, using her maiden name. Through his personal attorney, Robert Luskin, Rove has stated that other media sources told him about Plame, although he's not sure which journalist first told him. Rove and his attorney do not dispute TIME Magazine reporter Matthew Cooper's contemporaneous email and subsequent grand jury testimony, as related by Cooper himself, that he first learned Plame's identity from Rove. The investigation potentially involves multiple leak sources other than those who spoke to Novak, yet Novak was the first to print reference to Wilson's wife. It was initially believed that Lewis Libby was the first official to name Wilson's wife as a CIA agent to a reporter, Judith Miller on June 23 2003, however Bob Woodward, assistant managing editor of The Washington Post, later disclosed that he had been notified of Plame's position in the CIA by a "senior administration official" a full month before her identity was disclosed. Woodward provided sworn testimony to this effect on November 14 2005 although he has also stated that Novak's source was not in the White House [41]. The identity of Novak's first source is still publicly unknown — the person Novak described as "not a partisan gunslinger".

Justice Department investigation

The matter is currently under investigation by the Justice Department and the FBI. Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself from the investigation in December 2003. U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald currently heads the investigation, as Special Counsel. Because the Justice Department is a part of the executive branch, some critics of the Bush Administration contend that the absence of rapid and effective action has been deliberate.

In March 2004, the Special Counsel subpoenaed the telephone records of Air Force One.

On April 7, 2005, the Washington Post reported that unnamed sources speculated that Fitzgerald was not likely to seek an indictment for the crime of knowingly exposing a covert officer (which prompted the inquiry), although he may possibly charge a government official with perjury for giving conflicting information to prosecutors during the investigation. ^[42] Fitzgerald sought to compel Matt Cooper, a TIME Magazine correspondent who had covered the story, to disclose his sources to a grand jury. After losing all legal appeals up through the Supreme Court, TIME turned over Cooper's notes to the prosecutor. Cooper agreed to testify after receiving permission from his source, Karl Rove, to do so. Robert Luskin confirmed Rove was Cooper's source. A July 11, 2003 email from Cooper to his bureau chief indicated that Rove had told Cooper that it was Wilson's wife who authorized her husband's trip to Niger, mentioning that she "apparently" worked at "the agency" on weapons of mass destruction issues. Newsweek reported that nothing in the Cooper email suggested that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative ^[43], although Cooper's TIME Magazine article describing his grand jury testimony noted that Rove said, "I've already said too much." Neither Newsweek nor TIME have released the complete Cooper email.

The leak to Newsweek, presumably from TIME Magazine, was the first major leak of investigative information. More attenuated leaks have followed, seemingly tailored to either include or absolve various officials and media personages. As of late July 2005, Fitzgerald's office has apparently not talked to the press. White House officials such as Press Secretary Scott McClellan and the President have not made any on-the-record comments concerning the investigation since Newsweek's e-mail scoop, although other Republican officials, particularly RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, are talking with the press.

New York Times reporter Judith Miller served a civil contempt jail sentence from early July 2005 to 29 September 2005, for refusing to testify to the grand jury. She was released upon reaching an agreement with Fitzgerald to testify at a hearing scheduled on the morning of September 30 2005.[44][45] Miller had previously indicated that, unlike Cooper's source, hers had not sufficiently waived confidentiality. She issued a statement at a press conference after her release, stating that her source, Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, had released her from her promise of confidentiality.

Some commentators, most prominently Arianna Huffington, on her Huffington Post blog, have suggested that Miller may have been "grandstanding" in delaying her testimony to the grand jury. Others believe that Miller went to jail to land a million dollar book deal and to move attention from her questionable Iraq war reports. Others argue that there is no reason to believe that she went to jail for anything other than her stated reason, to protect confidential informants.[46]

On October 6 2005, Fitzgerald recalled Karl Rove, for the fourth time, to take the stand before the grand jury investigating the leak of Plame's identity. This is significant, according to major media sources, as previously Fitzgerald had indicated that the only remaining witnesses to call were Cooper and Miller before he would close his case. Reports have focused on this "last-minute" recall to testify, widely reporting that this is seen by other high-ranking government sources as "ominous" for senior officials in the Bush Administration. The grand jury term expired on October 28.[47][48][49] As mentioned in the introduction to this article, on November 18, 2005 Fitzgerald submitted new court papers indicating that he will use a new grand jury to assist him in his ongoing investigations.

Time line of Plame affair

Further information: Plame affair timeline

CIA calls for leak investigation

On September 26 2003, the CIA requested that the Justice Department investigate the matter.[50] Karl Rove was identified by the New York Times in connection to the Plame leak on 2 October 2003, in an article that both highlighted Attorney General John Ashcroft's employment of Rove in three previous political campaigns, and pointed to Ashcroft's potential conflict of interest in investigating Rove. Ashcroft's subsequent recusal lead to the appointment of U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald as Special Counsel on 30 December 2003 (Comey names Fitzgerald). Fitzgerald began investigations into the leak working from White House telephone records turned over to the FBI in October 2003. [51]

Though Plame's exposure was claimed by Wilson to be retaliation for Wilson's editorial on issues surrounding the yellowcake forgery, the White House and the GOP have sought to discredit Wilson with a public relations campaign that claims Wilson has a partisan political agenda. However, Wilson along with current and former CIA officials have asserted the leak not only damaged Plame's career, but arguably endangered U.S. National Security and endangered the missions of other CIA agents working abroad under nonofficial cover (as "NOCs"), passing as private citizens without diplomatic passports. Plame worked for the CIA for nearly 20 years. She was identified in the New York Times as a N.O.C. by Elisabeth Bumiller, who wrote (5 October 2003):

But within the C.I.A., the exposure of Ms. Plame is now considered an even greater instance of treachery. Ms. Plame, a specialist in nonconventional weapons who worked overseas, had "nonofficial cover," and was what in C.I.A. parlance is called a NOC, the most difficult kind of false identity for the agency to create. While most undercover agency officers disguise their real profession by pretending to be American embassy diplomats or other United States government employees, Ms. Plame passed herself off as a private energy expert. Intelligence experts said that NOCs have especially dangerous jobs.

Articles in The Washington Post,[52] The Wall Street Journal, and many other publications have pointed to Plame's association with Brewster Jennings & Associates, a fictitous one-person law services office that was nothing more than "a telephone and a post office box."[53] Disclosure of the identity of a covert agent is illegal under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, though the language of the statute raises the issue of whether Karl Rove is within the class of persons to whom the statute applies.[54] However, Title 18, United States Code, Section 641[55] prohibits theft (or conversion for one's own use) of government records and information for non-governmental purposes and was found to apply in the conviction of Jonathan Randel[56].

While the complete list of witnesses who have testified before the grand jury is not known (Fitzgerald has conducted his investigation with much more discretion than previous presidential investigations[57]), a number of individuals have acknowledged giving testimony, including White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, Deputy Press Secretary Claire Buchan, former press secretary Ari Fleischer, former special advisor to the president Karen Hughes, former White House communications aide Adam Levine, former advisor to the Vice President Mary Matalin, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell.[58] On 13 May 2005, citing "close followers of the case," The Washington Post reported that the length of the investigation, and the particular importance paid to the testimony of reporters, suggested that the counsel's role had expanded to include investigation of perjury charges against witnesses.[59] Other observers have suggested that the testimony of journalists was needed to show a pattern of intent by the leaker or leakers.[60]

Both Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush have been interviewed by Fitzgerald, although not under oath. [61]

Legal filings by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald contain many pages blanked out for security reasons, leading some observers to speculate that Fitzgerald has pursued the extent to which national security was compromised by the actions of Rove and others. On 18 July 2005, The Economist reported that Valerie Plame had been dissuaded by the CIA from publishing her own account of her exposure, suggesting that such an article would itself be a breach of national security. The Economist also reported that "affirmative measures" by the CIA were being taken to protect Plame's identity at the time Karl Rove revealed her CIA affiliation to journalists. [62]

Contempt of court: Miller, Cooper

New York Times investigative reporter Judith Miller, who met with Lewis Libby on July 8 2003, two days after Wilson's editorial was published, never wrote or reported a story on the Plame affair,[63] but nevertheless refused (with Cooper) to answer questions before a grand jury in 2004 pertaining to confidential sources. Both reporters were held in contempt of court. On 27 June 2005, after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari, [64] TIME Magazine said it would surrender to Fitzgerald e-mail records and notes taken by Cooper, and Cooper agreed to testify before the grand jury after receiving a waiver from his source. Miller and Cooper faced potential jail terms for failure to cooperate with the Special Counsel's investigations.[65] Columnist Robert Novak, who later admitted that the CIA attempted to dissuade him from revealing Plame's name in print, "appears to have made some kind of arrangement with the special prosecutor" (according to Newsweek)[66] and he has not been charged with contempt of court.

Miller was jailed on 7 July 2005, and remained there until September 29 when she agreed to testify in front of a grand jury after her source "voluntarily and personally released [her] from [her] promise of confidentiality." She was being held in Alexandria, VA in the same facility as Zacarias Moussaoui. In August 2005 the American Prospect magazine reported that Lewis Libby testified he had discussed Plame with Miller during a July 8 2003 meeting. Libby signed a general waiver allowing journalists to reveal their discussions with him on this matter, but American Prospect reported that Miller refused to honor this waiver on the grounds that she considered it coerced. Miller had said she would accept a specific individual waiver to testify, but contends Libby had not given her one until late September 2005. In contrast, Libby's lawyer has insisted that he had fully released Miller to testify all along.

Karl Rove

On September 29, 2003, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said, regarding any suggested involvement of Karl Rove with the leak, that "The President knows" that it was not true.

And I said it is simply not true. So, I mean, it's public knowledge. I've said that it's not true. And I have spoken with Karl Rove ... He [President Bush]'s aware of what I've said, that there is simply no truth to that suggestion. And I have spoken with Karl about it.[67]

During the Republican National Convention, Rove told CNN:

I didn't know her name and didn't leak her name. This is at the Justice Department. I'm confident that the U.S. Attorney, the prosecutor who's involved in looking at this is going to do a very thorough job of doing a very substantial and conclusive investigation.[68]

On 1 July 2005 Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, on the McLaughlin Group stated: "And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of ... for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that TIME magazine's going to do with the grand jury." The document dump has since occurred.[69]

Karl Rove

On 2 July 2005, Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, said that his client spoke to TIME reporter Matt Cooper "three or four days" before Plame's identity was first revealed in print by commentator Robert Novak. (Cooper's article in TIME, citing unnamed and anonymous "government officials," confirmed Plame to be a "CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." Cooper's article appeared three days after Novak's column was published.) Rove's lawyer, however, asserted that Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and that "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." This second statement has since been called into question by an e-mail, written three days before Novak's column, in which Cooper indicated that Rove had told him Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. If Rove were aware that this was classified information at the time, then both disclaimers by his lawyer would be untrue. Furthermore, Luskin said that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury "two or three times" (three times, according to the Los Angeles Times of 3 July 2005 [70]) and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him and that Rove "has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else." Rove's lawyer declined to share with Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff the nature or contents of his client's conversations with Cooper. [71] [72] [73][74] [75]

On 6 July 2005, Cooper agreed to testify, thus avoiding being held in contempt of court and sent to jail. Cooper said "I went to bed ready to accept the sanctions for not testifying," but told the judge that not long before his early afternoon appearance at court he had received "in somewhat dramatic fashion" an indication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep his source's identity secret. For some observers this called into question the allegations against Rove, who had signed a waiver months before permitting reporters to testify about their conversations with him (see above paragraph). [76]

Cooper, however, stated in court that he did not previously accept a general waiver to journalists signed by his source (whom he did not identify by name), because he had made a personal pledge of confidentiality to his source. The 'dramatic change' which allowed Cooper to testify was later revealed to be a phone conversation between lawyers for Cooper and his source confirming that the waiver signed two years earlier applied to conversations with Cooper. Citing a "person who has been officially briefed on the case," The New York Times identified Rove as the individual in question,[77] a fact later confirmed by Rove's own lawyer.[78] According to one of Cooper's lawyers, Cooper has previously testified before the grand jury regarding conversations with Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Jr., chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney, after having received Libby's specific permission to testify.[79][80]

Rove's email to Hadley

In an email sent by Karl Rove to top White House security official Stephen Hadley immediately after his 11 July 2003 discussion with Matt Cooper (obtained by the Associated Press and published on 15 July 2005), Rove claimed that he tried to steer Cooper away from allegations Wilson was making about faulty Iraq intelligence. "Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming," Rove wrote to Hadley. "When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger. Isn't this damaging? Hasn't the president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this." Rove made no mention to Hadley in the e-mail of having leaked Plame's CIA identity, nor of having revealed classified information to a reporter, nor of having told the reporter that certain sensitive information would soon be declassified.[81] Although Rove wrote to Hadley (and perhaps testified) that the initial subject of his conversation with Cooper was welfare reform and that Cooper turned the conversation to Wilson and the Niger mission, Cooper disputed this suggestion in his grand jury testimony and subsequent statements: "I can't find any record of talking about [welfare reform] with him on July 11 [2003], and I don't recall doing so," Cooper said. [82][83]

Karl Rove revealed as one source of TIME article

On 10 July 2005, Newsweek posted a story from its July 18 print edition which quoted one of the e-mails written by TIME reporter Matt Cooper in the days following the publication of Wilson's op-ed piece.[84] Writing to TIME bureau chief Michael Duffy on 11 July 2003, three days before Novak's column was published, Cooper recounted a two-minute conversation with Karl Rove "on double super secret background" in which Rove said that Wilson's wife was a CIA employee: "it was, KR [Karl Rove] said, Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on WMD issues who authorized the trip." In a TIME article released 17 July 2005, Cooper says Rove ended his conversation by saying "I've already said too much." If true, this could indicate that Rove identified Wilson's wife as a CIA employee prior to Novak's column being published. Some believe that statements by Rove claiming he did not reveal her name would still be strictly accurate if he mentioned her only as 'Wilson's wife', although this distinction would likely have no bearing on the legality of the disclosure. The White House repeatedly denied that Rove had any involvement in the leaks. Whether Rove's statement to Cooper that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA in fact violated any laws has not been resolved.

In addition, Rove told Cooper that CIA Director George Tenet did not authorize Wilson's trip to Niger, and that "not only the genesis of the trip [to Niger] is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report" which Wilson made upon his return from Africa. Rove "implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate Iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger," and in an apparent effort to discourage Cooper from taking the former ambassador's assertions seriously, gave Cooper a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Cooper recommended that his bureau chief assign a reporter to contact the CIA for further confirmation, and indicated that the tip should not be sourced to Rove or even to the White House. The Washington Post reported that the CIA, contradicting Rove, "maintained that Wilson was chosen for the trip by senior officials in the Directorate of Operations counter-proliferation division (CPD) — not by his wife — largely because he had handled a similar agency inquiry in Niger in 1999"[85], though she is reported to have suggested him for the 1999 trip[86].

Cooper testified before a grand jury on 13 July 2005, confirming that Rove was the source who told him Wilson's wife was an employee of the CIA.[87] In the 17 July 2005 TIME Magazine article detailing his grand jury testimony, Cooper wrote that Rove never used Plame's name nor indicated that she had covert status, although Rove did apparently convey that certain information relating to her was classified: "Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the C.I.A. and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the 'agency' on 'W.M.D.'? Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know. Is any of this a crime? Beats me."[88] Cooper also explained to the grand jury that the "double super secret background" under which Rove spoke to him was not an official White House or TIME Magazine source or security designation, but an allusion to the 1978 film Animal House, in which a college fraternity is placed under "double secret probation."[89]

On 13 August 2005 journalist Murray Waas reported that Justice Department and FBI officials had recommended appointing a special prosecutor to the case because they felt that Rove had not been truthful in early interviews, withholding from FBI investigators his conversation with Cooper about Plame and maintaining that he had first learned of Plame's CIA identity from a journalist whose name Rove could not recall. In addition, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, from whose prior campaigns Rove had been paid $746,000 in consulting fees, had been briefed on the contents of at least one of Rove's interviews with the FBI - raising concerns of a conflict of interest with the not-yet-recused Attorney General. [90]

Following the revelations in the Libby indictment, sixteen former CIA and military intelligence officials urged President Bush to suspend Karl Rove's security clearance for his part in outing CIA officer Valerie Plame.[91]

Other journalists with early knowledge

Days after Novak's initial column appeared, several other journalists, notably Matthew Cooper of TIME magazine, published Plame's name citing unnamed government officials as sources. In his article, titled "A War on Wilson?", Cooper raised the possibility that the White House had "declared war" on Wilson for speaking out against the Bush Administration.[92]

Both NBC correspondent Andrea Mitchell and MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews have been mentioned in the press as having early knowledge of the Plame leak, although their conversations with (unnamed) White House officials may have taken place after Novak's article was published.[93] Matthews is reported to have told Wilson, "I just got off the phone with Karl Rove, who said your wife was fair game."[94] Two Newsday reporters who also confirmed and expanded upon Novak's account, Timothy M. Phelps and Knut Royce, were also mentioned in October 2003 in connection to the investigation.[95]

Walter Pincus, a Washington Post columnist, has written that he was told in confidence by an (unnamed) Bush administration official on 12 July 2003, two days before Novak's column appeared, that "the White House had not paid attention to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s CIA-sponsored February 2002 trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction."[96] Because he did not believe it to be true, Pincus did not report the story.

Tim Russert, the Washington bureau chief of NBC News, and Glenn Kessler, a diplomatic reporter for the Washington Post, have both offered testimony in the ongoing investigation.[97]

The November 16 2005 issue of the Washington Post [98] revealed that Bob Woodward was told by a senior Bush administration official that Valerie Plame was a CIA analyst on weapons of mass destruction a month before it was reported in Robert Novak's column. To critics this is a rather surprising turn of events, since Woodward repeatedly downplayed the importance of the leak. [99][100][101][102][103]

According to the blog, The Raw Story, and The Times Woodward's source was National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley.[104] [105]

Air Force One memo

In late July and early August, 2005, a great deal of attention began to be paid to a classified State Department memorandum which may have been the original source of the leaked suggestion regarding Plame, and may help to identify those who were in a position to have and therefore to leak Plame's identity.

According to reports in the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post, the three page memo was originally dated June 10, 2003 and addressed to Undersecretary of State Marc Grossman, who had asked to be briefed on the history of opposition by the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) to the White House's position that Saddam Hussein was attempting to obtain uranium from Africa. It was a summary of the notes (included with the memo) taken by an unnamed senior analyst, of a meeting at the CIA on February 19, 2002 where Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger was discussed.

The memo mainly shows that the State Department had already decided on the basis of other evidence, detailed in the memo, that Iraq was not in fact seeking to acquire uranium from Niger, and therefore opposed Wilson's trip as unnecessary. However, two sentences of background information in the second paragraph mention Wilson's wife, identifying her as "Valerie Wilson", and speculate that it was she "who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue". Although she is not explicitly identified as a covert agent, the paragraph naming her was marked with an (S) [106], the prescribed way to indicate in a U.S. classified document that a paragraph is classified at the "secret" level. [107] Anyone with a U.S. security clearance is expected to be familiar with this notation. This could make leaking the contents of the document a crime.

According to the Washington Post, on July 6, 2003, shortly after Wilson had written in the New York Times and the Post and appeared on Meet the Press criticizing the Bush administration's statements regarding Saddam's attempts to acquire yellowcake, Secretary of State Colin Powell had asked Carl W. Ford Jr., at that time director of INR, to explain Wilson's statements. Ford readdressed the memo to Powell, who received it on July 7, 2003 as he was about to leave for Africa aboard Air Force One with President Bush, White House senior adviser Dan Bartlett, then White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, and others. The memo was passed around on the plane and discussed. The Post's sources report that Ford described the details of the memo in 2004 for the grand jury investigating the leak.

One week later, on July 14, 2003, Robert Novak stated in his column that it was Plame's idea to send Wilson to Niger, in the process exposing her as a CIA operative, which launched the controversy and eventually an investigation regarding the source of the information. Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, who received the leak later than Novak, stated that it was given to him by Karl Rove and confirmed by Lewis "Scooter" Libby. According to Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, Rove has stated that he had not seen the memo until it was given to him by prosecutors investigating the leak, and that he learned of Plame from Novak. Novak has written that he got his information from "another journalist", unnamed, and that for confirmation of Plame's role he called two administration officials as well as CIA spokesman Bill Harlow, who advised him not to mention Plame by name; but he dismissed Harlow's advice because "once it was determined that Wilson's wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as 'Valerie Plame' by reading her husband's entry in 'Who's Who in America.' "

Pincus' description of the contents of the memo was cited as support by those who believe that someone in the administration's inner circle was responsible for the leak[108], [109], who state that, to date, it is the only known document even tentatively linking Plame to the suggestion that Wilson be sent to Niger (aside from a separate statement of "additional views" filed by three Republican senators in connection with the Senate investigation into prewar intelligence on Iraq, which was not written until 2004); the precise information leaked to Novak, Cooper, and the Post's Walter Pincus in order to discount Wilson's qualifications. In their view this is consistent with the memo as the source of the leaked exposure of Plame via someone who was on that flight of Air Force One, as well as confirming that the information was known to be secret.

Supporters of the administration counter that the source of the information could have been the earlier June 10 State Department memo, the notes of the CIA meeting by the unnamed senior State Department analyst, the analyst and other attendees at that meeting, or the persons at CIA involved with arranging Wilson's Niger trip, not just somebody who read the memo aboard Air Force One.

Indictments

On October 28 2005, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald issued a five-count indictment[110] (PDF) of Libby on felony charges of perjury, making false statements to FBI agents and obstruction of justice for impeding the Federal grand jury investigating the CIA leak case. Libby has not been indicted for the actual leaking of Plame's name to Robert Novak. While Fitzgerald did indicate that further indictments are possible, he indicated his understanding that this would be a rare occurrence, once a grand jury has been dismissed. However, Karl Rove's attorneys did indicate that their client is still a potential target of this investigation.[111]

The prosecutor investigating the leak of a CIA officer's identity disclosed Friday November 18 2005 that he will enlist a different grand jury than the one that indicted the top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney last month.

The use of a new grand jury could indicate that additional evidence or charges are coming. But experienced federal prosecutors cautioned against reading too much into Fitzgerald's disclosure.

"It could just mean that the prosecutor needs the powers of the grand jury" to further his investigation and make a final determination whether to charge, said Dan French, a former federal prosecutor now representing a witness in the CIA inquiry.

"One of the greatest powers of the grand jury is the ability to subpoena witnesses … and Fitzgerald may want that authority to pursue additional questions," French said. He might also need subpoenas to obtain documents, telephone records and executive branch agency security logs.[112]

Reactions to the controversy

White House reactions

In the beginning the White House called the allegation that Rove disclosed classified information "totally ridiculous" and "simply not true," and stated that "if anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration."[113] [114][115][116] The White House continued to publicly assert that no Bush administration officials were involved in the leak until after the Supreme Court decision of 2005, the subsequent release of internal TIME magazine email, and TIME reporter Matt Cooper's decision to testify to the grand jury. Once Karl Rove's involvement was disclosed, the White House refused to comment on the ongoing investigation and stated that they would fire anyone convicted of criminal activity. Critics find an intent to protect Mr. Rove in the new specificity, while supporters say this is indicative of was what was meant all along.

On September 29, 2003, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan stated that "[i]f anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration,"[117] adding that Karl Rove had specifically assured McClellan that he was not involved, and that "the President expects his administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct and the highest ethics."

On September 30, 2003, Mr. Bush said " And if there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of." Followed by, "I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."[118]

President George W. Bush, who has repeatedly denied knowing the identity of the leaker, called the leak a "criminal action" for the first time on 6 October 2003, stating "[i]f anybody has got any information inside our government or outside our government who leaked, you ought to take it to the Justice Department so we can find the leaker."[119][120] Speaking to a crowd of journalists the following day, Bush said "I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is -- partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers."[121]

On 8 October 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that "no one has more of an interest in getting to the bottom of this than the White House does, than the President does."[122]

On 10 October 2003, after the Justice Department began its formal investigation into the leak, McClellan specifically said that neither Rove nor two other officials whom he had personally questioned – Elliott Abrams, a national security aide, and Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff – were involved and that anyone who was involved in leaking classified information would be fired. [123]

On 10 June 2004, eight months after the formal outside investigation was begun and five months after the appointment of a Special Counsel, President Bush was asked by a reporter, "Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, suggesting that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name? ... And do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?" The President responded, "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts."[124]

On 11 July 2005, White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who had since become a grand jury witness himself, refused at a press conference to answer dozens of questions, repeatedly stating that the Bush Administration had made a decision not to comment on an "ongoing criminal investigation" involving White House staff.[125] McClellan declined to answer whether Rove had committed a crime. McClellan also declined to repeat prior categorical denials of Rove's involvement in the leak,[126] nor would he state whether Bush would honor his prior promise to fire individuals involved in the leak.[127][128][129] Although Democratic critics called for Rove's dismissal, or at the very least immediate suspension of Rove's security clearances and access to meetings in which classified material was under discussion, Rove remained working in the White House.

Neither Rove nor the President offered immediate public comment on the unfolding scandal.[130][131][132][133][134] Congressional Republicans remained silent on the issue of the Valerie Plame leak and a White House compromise of national security, and as of 18 July 2005, not a single elected Republican member of Congress had called for Rove to be disciplined or impeached. Rove was vociferously defended by Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman and by many conservative news outlets and commentators, some of whom followed cues laid out in a "talking points" memo, circulated among Republicans on Capitol Hill, which questioned Joseph Wilson's credibility.[135] Among others, David Brooks, conservative New York Times editorialist and NPR commentator, attacked Wilson on 14 July 2005 by falsely alleging that he had claimed Cheney sent him on the Niger mission, and that in speaking to Cooper and others, Rove was merely correcting a reporter's misconception.[136] In an even more extreme example of partisanship, the Editorial Board of The Wall Street Journal praised Rove on 13 July 2005 for leaking Plame's identity, referring to him as a "whistleblower."[137] Fox News's John Gibson said that even if Rove is not being truthful, he deserves a medal for leaking Plame's CIA identity because Joseph Wilson opposed the war and "Valerie Plame should have been outed by somebody."[138][139]

On 18 July 2005, after having brushed off similar questions about the Rove scandal for nearly a week, President Bush stated that "[i]f someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."[140] [141] This was widely interpreted as a retraction of multiple earlier promises to fire anyone involved in the leak itself. Others counter this view by relying on the one previous mention of illegality, the September 30 2003 remarks, to suggest that criminality was a pre-requisite all along. Many news outlets speculated that Rove's (future) legal defense might be built upon testimony that he was ignorant of Plame's protected status at the time he outed her as a CIA employee; if it could be proven that he had heard of her CIA covert status before speaking to journalists, however, Rove could face far more serious charges. A New York Times story of 16 July 2005 suggested that the Special Counsel grand jury has questioned whether a particular top secret State Department report naming Plame may have been the source of Rove's information.[142]. Colin Powell was photographed carrying the report in Africa in the company of the President in the days following the 6 July 2003 publication of Wilson's op-ed piece. Powell is reported to have testified before the grand jury.

White House Chief of Staff, Andrew Card was informed by then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales around 8:00 PM on September 29, 2003, that the Department of Justice was beginning an investigation of the Plame affair, and that the next morning, Gonzalez would order the White House staff to preserve all documents which may be related to the case. Gonzalez has stated that he did not send the order to the staff because of the lateness of the hour, but speculation has suggested that he notified Card in order to give him a twelve hour head start before destruction of any incriminating documents would be prohibited.[143] This was unusual, according to the Washington Post, since the White House Staff is usually quickly notified of any investigations so as to safeguard the integrity of any documents, emails or memoranda that might be required for the investigation.[144]

Congressional reactions

On July 15 2005, ninety one Democratic members of Congress signed a letter calling for Karl Rove to explain his role in the Plame affair, or to resign; thirteen Democratic Members of the House Judiciary Committee have called for hearings on the matter. [145]

A Resolution of Inquiry has been offered by Rush Holt (D-NJ) and John Conyers (D-MI), requesting that the Bush Administration release all documents concerning the exposure of Ms. Plame.

Barney Frank (D-MA) and John Conyers (D-MI) have authorized the Library of Congress to research legal precedent for the impeachment of White House staffers. [146]

A series of nationwide town hall meetings was scheduled for July 23 2005 to review the Downing Street memo, the Plame affair, and the situation in Iraq. [147].

Twenty-six Democratic Senators, including seven members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, have issued a public statement authored by Senator John Kerry, calling for Congressional hearings to investigate the Plame leak. [148]

As of 15 August 2005, no Republican member of Congress had publicly voiced concern about a breach in national security, nor the continuing role of Karl Rove in the Bush Administration. As of 15 August 2005, not a single Republican member of the House of Representatives or Senate had called for Rove to be fired, impeached, disciplined, or even questioned about his reasons for leaking a CIA operative's identity.

On November 1 2005, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) called for a closed session, for only the 54th time since 1929, to discuss the Plame affair and the Bush Administration's role in pre-Iraq War intelligence.

On November 5 2005, Conservative Senator Zell Miller wrote a column describing his view of the Plamegate affair as a "sting operation" by the Wilsons designed to pull down a sitting president. Miller claims that Joseph Wilson played a key role by "misrepresenting" the intelligence he gathered on his trip to Niger, publishing his findings in an op-ed piece.[149]

Reactions of former CIA officers

On 20 July 2005, eleven former CIA officers backed Valerie Plame in a three page statement and characterized the leak of her identity as damaging "national security and threaten[ing] the ability of U.S. intelligence gathering." [150]

"Intelligence officers should not be used as political footballs," the eleven said. "In the case of Valerie Plame, she still works for the CIA and is not in a position to publicly defend her reputation and honor."

Former DCI George Tenet told a Senator that he was "furious" with the Bush Administration about the leak in 2003.[151] And Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA colleague of Plame's in the late 1980's, heavily criticized the Bush Administration's handling of the leak: "This is wrong and this is shameful. Instead of a president concerned first and foremost with protecting this country and the intelligence officers who serve it, we are confronted with a president who is willing to sit by while political operatives savage the reputations of good Americans like Valerie and Joe Wilson."[152]

On 22 July 2005, Johnson,[153] along with former CIA case officers David MacMichael and James Marcinkowski[154], former senior CIA analyst Mel Goodman, and retired Army colonel and DIA officer W. Patrick Lang,[155] testified at a Senate Hearing on the consequences of the leak.

Lang emphasized his view that the Bush Administration's action in leaking Plame's identity had threatened vital national security interests over the long term, by sending the message to potential assets around the world that their identity will not be protected if they work with the CIA. "This says to them that if you decide to cooperate, someone will give you up, so you don't do it," he said. "They are not going to trust you in any way."[156]

Fred Rustmann, a covert CIA agent from 1966 to 1990, was briefly a supervisor of Valerie Plame Wilson during her early career at the CIA, although he left the agency before she went undercover. "She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," he told The Washington Times. "Her neighbors knew this, her friends knew this, his friends knew this. A lot of blame could be put on to central cover staff and the agency because they weren't minding the store here. ... The agency never changed her cover status."[157] It is not clear how Mr. Rustmann, who left the Agency in 1990, would know this, since Plame is said to have gone undercover after 1990. And investigations by the FBI and by journalists revealed Rustmann's comments to be "baseless"; friends and neighbors of the Wilsons had no idea that Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the CIA before reading about it in Novak's column.[158][159] [160]

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former CIA case officer, dismissed the damage caused by outing Valerie Plame. "The revealing of Valerie Plame's true employer," he wrote, "has in all probability hurt no one overseas. You can rest assured that if her (most recent) outing had actually hurt an agent from her past, we would've heard about it through a CIA leak. Langley's systemic sloppiness--the flimsiness of cover is but the tip of the iceberg of incompetence--has repeatedly destroyed agent networks and provoked 'flaps' with some of our closest allies. A serious CIA would never have allowed Mr. Wilson to go on such an odd, short 'fact finding' mission. It never would have allowed Ms. Plame potentially to expose herself by recommending such an overt mission for her mate, not known for his subtlety and discretion. With a CIA where cover really mattered, Mr. Libby would not now be indicted. But that's not what we have in the real world."[161]

However, Larry Johnson noted that Plame's outing probably did compromise national security through revealing her cover company: "every time that someone like this is outed, it's not just the person. In this case, it's the front company. It's other NOCs who may have been exposed.... But what I do know for certain is, we're not just talking about Valerie Plame. We're talking about an intelligence resource, a United States national security resource that was destroyed by these White House officials that went out and started talking to the press about this. Reckless. And they have -- they have harmed the security of this country."[162]

Public opinion

In a poll conducted July 13 - July 17 2005 by ABC News, a plurality (47%) of people surveyed said the White House is not cooperating fully with the ongoing investigation; the remainder either had no opinion (28%) or thought the White House was fully cooperating (25%).[163]. According to the poll, "75 percent say Rove should lose his job if the investigation finds he leaked classified information. That includes sizable majorities of Republicans, independents and Democrats alike — 71, 74 and 83 percent, respectively." ibid

A CNN poll dated 22 July - 24 July found that 49% of respondents say Rove should resign, 31% said he should not, and 20% had no opinion. USAToday

In a poll commissioned by Newsweek and published 8 August 2005, 45% believed Rove "guilty of a serious offence", 15% "not guilty of a serious offence", and 37% responded "don't know."[164]

Critics of the Bush administration allege that this episode, together with the outing of undercover source Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan which prematurely terminated an ongoing operation, demonstrates the low priority of national security in the Bush White House relative to political gain, or even just revenge for political damage.[165]

Criticism of Plame/Wilson

Regarding Wilson's trip to Niger

Wilson was criticized by the Senate Select Committee on PreWar Intelligence alleging, wrongly, that he claimed his trip to Niger proved that Iraq was not seeking uranium from Niger. A former Minister of Niger told Wilson, that he, during an OAU minister meeting in Algiers in 1999, had an informal meeting with an official from Iraq, who wanted to talk about "trade" between the two countries. But their talk never came to any clear topic. The Minister let all matters drop because of UN sanctions against Iraq. And he told Wilson he didn't know if the official wanted to talk about uranium.(Pages 39-44). (See also Joe Wilson's book The Politics of Truth, page 28.)

The Senate Select Committee also criticized Wilson for allegedly stating that his trip to Niger had proved that Niger documents may have been forged when acting as a source for a June 12, 2002 Washington post article. (Report, page 45 and Additional Views of Pat Roberts, et al. at pages 443-444). However, Wilson explained that he "may have 'misspoken' to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were forged." (Report, page 44). Similarly, a May 6, 2003 article by Nicolas Kristof for which Wilson was one of the sources states that "that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged." In a later article, Mr. Kristof confirmed that Wilson was the source for this statement, but defended Wilson, stating that although Wilson may not have had the documents in his possession, he may still have provided information necessary to debunk the documents. In that article, Mr. Kristof also explained "Wilson has said that he misspoke when he made references to the documents to me and to two other journalists."

Regarding Plame's CIA job allegedly being widely known

Wilson had told media before July 2003 that only Valerie Plame's brother, her parents and he, knew her secret identity as a CIA agent. Fitzgerald had the FBI do some investigation in this area.

On November 8 2005, Wayne Simmons, a 27-year veteran of the CIA appeared on FOX News Radio and said "As most people now know, [Plame] was traipsed all over Washington many years ago by Joe Wilson and introduced at embassies and other parties as 'my CIA wife.'" [166]

On 3 October 2003 Andrea Mitchell, a NBC reporter, stated in an appearance on CNBC's "Capitol Report" when asked how widely it was known in Washington D.C. that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA: "It was widely known among those of us who cover the intelligence community and who are activly engaged in trying to track down who among the foreign service community was the envoy to Niger."[167] She later retracted this story completely, telling radio host Don Imus: "The fact is that I did not know [Plame's identity] before the Novak column."[168]

In September 2003, Clifford May of National Review Online writing about Novak's column saying Plame worked at the CIA: "That wasn't news to me... I had been told that [Plame was CIA] - but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhand manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of." [169] Yet nearly two years later he wrote: "In fact, the public still knows very little about Plame. Perhaps Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, has by now learned the relevant facts. Most of us first saw her name in Bob Novak's July 14 2003, column."[170]

On November 4 2005 retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely claimed that Plame's husband, Joseph C. Wilson had spoken to him about his wife's role with the CIA while they were waiting together in the green room before appearing on FOX News. He initially said this occurred on three to five occasions, first in February or March of 2002, more than a year before Novak's column was published. Vallely also said Wilson was proud to routinely introduce his wife as a CIA employee at cocktail parties. [171] Wilson has since demanded that Vallely retract these allegations, calling them "patently false." Wilson wrote to his attorney in an email included in his demand for a retraction: "This is slanderous. I never appeared on TV before at least July 2002 and only saw him maybe twice in the green room at FOX. Vallely is a retired general and this is a bald faced lie.... I never laid eyes on [Vallely] till several months after he alleges I spoke to him about my wife."[172] Indeed, Wilson and Vallely could have been together in the green room at most four times beginning in August, 2002.[173] But a compendium of the times that Wilson and Vallely appeared on FOX has revealed that there is only one possible date, September 12 2002, during which the two would have been in the green room within hours of each other.

In response to this explanation, Brit Hume of FOX News reported, "liberal Websites say they have proof Vallely is lying, saying research service LexisNexis shows Vallely and Wilson never appeared on FOX on the same day. But in fact, Vallely and Wilson appeared on the same day nine times in 2002, and on the same show twice — on September 8 and September 12, when both men appeared within 15 minutes of one another." [174]

According to Jeralyn Merritt, who went through the FOX transcripts to compile this information notes that on September 12, "Wilson's segment was over 15 minutes before Vallely's began. The Fox green room in New York is very small and contains an even smaller makeup room that only has one guest chair. Guests are by themselves in the makeup room. I assume Wilson would have been having his makeup done before his segment, so Vallely wouldn't have been with him then. Even if they did overlap in the green room for a couple of minutes, it strains credulity to think the topic of Wilson's wife's employment with the CIA would have come up. There likely would have only time for mere pleasantries."[175]

On November 7, 2005, Vallely appeared on ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show; on this occasion he stated that Wilson had disclosed Plame's employment while in the green room only once, but could not remember the precise date:

we got to talk about our families, past assignments, and so on and so forth. And only on one occasion do I recall, you know, "My wife's at the agency."

... it was 2002, and -- ...

Probably was in that summer, early fall timeframe that it happened.

On November 8, WorldNetDaily confirmed that

Since speaking with WND late Friday, Vallely has clarified the number of occasions Wilson mentioned his wife's status and when the conversation occurred.

After recalling further over the weekend his contacts with Wilson, Vallely says now it was on just one occasion [176]

Media Matters noted that "Vallely's allegations have come nearly two years after the beginning of Fitzgerald's high-profile investigation. Despite widespread reporting about the seriousness of Fitzgerald's investigation, Vallely apparently did not feel compelled to share his story until more than a week after Libby's indictment. In an interview on the November 8 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Alan Colmes asked Vallely: 'Did you talk to the FBI, or do you plan to talk to the FBI?' Vallely responded, 'Well, no, I haven't talked to them.'"[177] On The Sean Hannity Show of November 7, Vallely stated:

I was asked, 'Why didn't you say this before?' Well, I figured Joe Wilson would self-destruct at some point in time.

According to ABC Radio Networks' John Batchelor on November 6, touting McInerney's scheduled appearance on Batchelor's show the next day, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, who has coauthored with Vallely a book about the war on terrorism, alleged that Wilson had also told him about his wife's job with the CIA while in the green room at FOX News studios;

Lt. General Tom McInerney, USAF (ret), West Point '59, will join his colleague Maj. General Paul Vallely, USA (ret), West Point '61, on my show Monday 7 November ... to repeat and expand upon Vallely's memory that Joe Wilson more than once in 2002 in the green room at Fox New [sic] Channel in Washington D.C. boasted about his wife the "CIA desk officer." McInerney has the same memory and more, since both he and Vallely were on FNC between 150 and 200 times in 2002 each. [178].

However, when McInerney appeared on the November 7 show, he did not mention any direct "memories" of any similar incident, and limited his comments to very general support of Vallely:

But to your knowledge, Paul Vallely has revealed nothing but the truth. Is that correct, General?

Absolutely.

[179]

Former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson questions the credibility of both Generals, noting "I too was a Fox News Contributor in 2002 and spent a lot of time in the Green Room with both Vallely and McInerney. I saw them but never saw Joe Wilson. What is really curious is that I know I spent more time with Vallely and McInerney than Joe Wilson ever did and the subject of my wife (or their wives) never came up... What is so pathetic is that both Vallely and McInerney present themselves as military experts on special operations when neither has held any position of any importance with those forces. In fact, neither has ever held compartmented clearances required to know about those special programs. Given their track record of getting military facts wrong there is no doubt they are wrong about Joe Wilson."[180]

Batchelor also suggested on November 6 that Hoover Institution senior fellow and National Review contributor Victor Davis Hanson had also reported being similarly informed of Plame's employment by Wilson:

Also, I have written my regular correspondent Victor Davis Hanson to ask after his reported memories of Wilson boasting to him in a green room meeting that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA.[181].

However, on November 8, WorldNetDaily reported that "contrary to a report, Hanson said Wilson did not disclose his wife's CIA employment"; Hanson offered, however, that Wilson was

very "indiscreet" and "unguarded" with personal information, rambling in a "stream of consciousness" manner. [182]

Despite the numerous suggestions to the contrary Fitzgerald concluded in his indictment against Libby, "Prior to July 14 2003, Valerie Wilson’s affiliation with the CIA was not common knowledge outside the intelligence community."

Regarding Plame's status as covert

The USA Today stated on July 14 2005 that Mrs. Plame hadn't been outside the United States as an NOC or Non-Official Cover since 1997, when she returned from her last assignment, and married Joe Wilson and had her twins. This claim was reiterated the following day in an article in the Washington Times.[183]

Conservative columnist Max Boot calls Joseph Wilson a "liar," and claims that Plame's status was not "covert" at the time of her outing in the Novak column because she had been working in Virginia for more than five years.[184] Although he left the CIA in 1993, Larry C. Johnson attempted to clear up the confusion surrounding Plame's status in a column responding to Max Boot: "The law actually requires that a covered person 'served' overseas in the last five years. Served does not mean lived. In the case of Valerie Wilson, energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job. She met with folks who worked in the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies. She was a national security asset until exposed by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby."[185]

Plame worked for the CIA for 20 years, and her status, according to the New York Times, was "non-official cover." (5 October 2003). U.S. intelligence officials confirmed that Plame was working undercover shortly after it had been revealed by Robert Novak.[186] Senator Charles Schumer asked the FBI to investigate the leak because the CIA had identified Plame's status as covert.[187]

Criticism of Patrick Fitzgerald

General Paul E. Vallely has criticized Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald on FOX News for not contacting a number of people who publicly stated they knew of Plame's job at the CIA.

"Many of us as private citizens really challenged the depth and the extensiveness of Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald because he never called in Joe Wilson or Valerie Plame, who was an analyst by the way, and that's documented, or any of the hierarchy of the CIA. And so to me that's an incomplete process and should probably be null and void." Video

An editorial in the Washington Post reads:

The special counsel was principally investigating whether any official violated a law that makes it a crime to knowingly disclose the identity of an undercover agent. The public record offers no indication that Mr. Libby or any other official deliberately exposed Ms. Plame to punish her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. Rather, Mr. Libby and other officials, including Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff, apparently were seeking to combat the sensational allegations of a critic. They may have believed that Ms. Plame's involvement was an important part of their story of why Mr. Wilson was sent to investigate claims that Iraq sought uranium ore from Niger, and why his subsequent -- and mostly erroneous -- allegations that the administration twisted that small part of the case against Saddam Hussein should not be credited. To criminalize such discussions between officials and reporters would run counter to the public interest... That said, the charges Mr. Fitzgerald brought against Mr. Libby are not technicalities. According to the indictment, Mr. Libby lied to both the FBI and a grand jury. No responsible prosecutor would overlook a pattern of deceit like that alleged by Mr. Fitzgerald. The prosecutor was asked to investigate a serious question, and such obstructions are, as he said yesterday, like throwing sand in the umpire's face. In this case, they seem to have contributed to Mr. Fitzgerald's distressing decision to force a number of journalists to testify about conversations with a confidential source. Both Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove appear to have allowed the White House spokesman to put out false information about their involvement. [188]

John W. Dean, the former counsel to Richard Nixon, wrote an open letter to Patrick Fitzgerald saying:

In your post as Special Counsel, you now have nothing less than authority of the Attorney General of the United States, for purposes of the investigation and prosecution of "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity." (The employee, of course, is Valerie Plame Wilson, a CIA employee with classified status, and the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson.) On December 30, 2003, you received a letter from the Deputy Attorney General regarding your powers. On February 6, 2004 you received a letter of further clarification, stating without reservation, that in this matter your powers are "plenary." In effect, then, you act with the power of the Attorney General of the United States.

In light of your broad powers, the limits and narrow focus of your investigation are surprising. On October 28 of this year, your office released a press statement in which you stated that "A major focus of the grand jury investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003, information concerning Valerie Wilson's CIA affiliation, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official made such a disclosure knowing that Valerie Wilson's employment by the CIA was classified information."

<.......................>

Troubling, from an historical point of view, is the fact that the narrowness of your investigation, which apparently is focusing on the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (making it a crime to uncover the covert status of a CIA agent), plays right into the hands of perpetrators in the Administration.

Indeed, this is exactly the plan that was employed during Watergate by those who sought to conceal the Nixon Administration's crimes, and keep criminals in office.

The plan was to keep the investigation focused on the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters - and away from the atmosphere in which such an action was undertaken. Toward this end, I was directed by superiors to get the Department of Justice to keep its focus on the break-in, and nothing else.

That was done. And had Congress not undertaken its own investigation (since it was a Democratically-controlled Congress with a Republican President) it is very likely that Watergate would have ended with the conviction of those caught in the bungled burglary and wiretapping attempt at the Democratic headquarters.[189]

Legal questions

There are many questions surrounding the allegations of illegality by Karl Rove, Lewis Libby, and perhaps other administration officials. These officials are potentially vulnerable under a number of federal laws relating to disclosure of Plame's identity, along with laws against perjury, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice.

The unusual circumstances of this case led a number of media organizations to file a friend-of-the-court (amicus curiae) brief on behalf of the journalists who were subpoenaed (Matthew Cooper, Judith Miller, and Time Inc.). In this brief, lawyers representing 36 media organizations, including ABC News, AP, CNN, CBS News, WSJ, Fox News, USA Today, NBC News, Newsweek, and Reuters, argued to the court that "there exists ample evidence in the public record to cast serious doubt as to whether a crime has even been committed under the Intelligence Protection Act in the investigation underlying the attempts to secure testimony from Miller and Cooper." [190] Victoria Toensing, the principal author of the amicus brief, also contended that Ms. Plame didn't have a cover to blow, citing a July 23 2004 article in the Washington Times which argued that Valerie Plame's status as a previous undercover CIA agent may have been known to Russian and Cuban intelligence operations prior to the Novak article.

Perhaps because Toensing's brief did not address issues relating to (possible) perjury and obstruction of justice charges, nor many other possible violations associated with the disclosure of classified information, many of these same news outlets continue to suggest the possibility that Rove may have violated the law. (The amicus brief predated the publication of internal Time email, as well as Cooper's own testimony and published account of Rove's role.) Although some reporters speculate that Rove's (future) legal defense might be built upon testimony that he was ignorant of Plame's protected status at the time he outed her as a CIA employee, most agree that if it could be proven that he had heard of her CIA covert status or if he knew material was classified when he spoke to journalists, Rove could face far more serious charges.

A New York Times story of 16 July 2005 suggested that the Special Counsel grand jury has questioned whether a particular secret State Department briefing which named Plame in connection to Wilson may have been the source of Rove's information.[191]. Colin Powell was photographed carrying the briefing during a visit to Africa, in the company of the President, in the days following the 6 July 2003 publication of Wilson's Op-Ed piece. (According to Time, Powell received the briefing, dated 10 June 2003, nearly a month later on 7 July 2003.)

The Wall Street Journal reported on 19 July 2005 that the briefing "made clear that information identifying an agent and her role in her husband's intelligence-gathering mission was sensitive and shouldn't be shared."[192] Specifically, the briefing marked Valerie Wilson's name and CIA responsibilities as "snf", for "secret no foreign", meaning the information was so sensitive it could not be shared even with allied foreign security agencies such as Britain's MI6.[193]

Although some legal pundits felt that Rove was unlikely to have been in violation of the narrowly-worded Intelligence Identities Protection Act — in fact, the CIA's original "crimes report" submitted to Fitzgerald apparently did not mention the Act[194]— many others argue that by compromising Valerie Plame's position, Rove may have broken one or more federal laws. According to John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist and former presidential counsel, Rove is likely to have violated Title 18, Section 641 of the United States Code, which prohibits the theft or conversion of government records for non-governmental use. [195] In 2003, this law was successfully used to convict John Randel, a Drug Enforcement Agency analyst, for leaking to the London media a name of someone that he believed the DEA was not paying enough attention to in a money laundering investigation (Lord Ashcroft). In a statement to Randel, United States District Court Judge Richard Story wrote, "Anything that would affect the security of officers and of the operations of the agency would be of tremendous concern, I think, to any law-abiding citizen in this country." Having pled guilty, Randel's sentence was reduced from 500 years in a federal prison, to a year of imprisonment and three years of probation.

This may be seen by Bush's political opponents as setting precedent for the prosecution of similar leaks, and Karl Rove is likely to face greater consequences than Randel if indicted for violating Section 641. Whereas Randel leaked sensitive information about an individual whose name could be found in the DEA files, unlikely to affect the national security of the United States, it is argued that Rove may have leaked the identity of a CIA agent, an expert on weapons of mass destruction, at a time when the United States had gone to war based on the perceived threat from such weapons.

Intelligence Identities Protection Act

Much of the media attention has focused on whether one or more senior officials violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (50 USC 421-426). (See Intelligence Identities Protection Act for the full text of this act.) However, proving a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act involves several elements which may be difficult to establish in this case.

In order to violate the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, one must expose the identity of a "covert agent." To be considered a covert agent, one must be "serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States." § 426(4)(a)(ii). (See [196] and [197] for the definition of covert agent.) Plame hasn't been posted overseas in the last five years.

In his book The Politics of Truth, Joe Wilson wrote that he and Plame, his then future wife, both returned from overseas assignments in June 1997. Wilson's book indicates neither he nor Plame was again stationed overseas. Novak's article was published more than 6 years later. [198] Neither Wilson nor Plame will say whether she was stationed overseas since 1997, but Wilson responded to a reporter's question that "the CIA obviously believes there was reason to believe a crime had been committed" because it referred the case to the Justice Department [199], implying that she may have traveled overseas undercover. On July 14 2004 Joe Wilson was on the Wolf Blitzer Show and stated "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity." [200] This was in response to the pictures of Joe Wilson and his wife taken in Vanity Fair magazine, a month earlier. Many former CIA agents and other former government officials argue that regardless of whether she went overseas in the required time period, her "outing" as an intelligence official harmed national security by compromising the front company and every other CIA employee using that front, moreover the disclosure sends a message to potential CIA agents and assets around the globe that the CIA could not guarantee that their identity would be protected if they chose to work undercover for the Agency or in cooperation with it.

In order for one to be protected by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, it must be proven that the U.S. government "is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent’s intelligence relationship to the United States." Republicans have argued, in their talking points on the issue, that if Plame worked at CIA's headquarters it could show that the CIA was not taking the required "affirmative measures." Former CIA officer Larry C. Johnson has strongly disagreed, pointing out that Plame worked for a CIA front corporation created and maintained at taxpayer's expense, which would constitute an affirmative measure to conceal her covert employment. Johnson and ten other former CIA and DIA officers and analysts wrote a letter disputing the Republicans' argument, saying:

"These comments reveal an astonishing ignorance of the intelligence community and the role of cover. The fact is that there are thousands of U.S. intelligence officers who 'work at a desk' in the Washington, D.C. area every day who are undercover. Some have official cover, and some have non-official cover. Both classes of cover must and should be protected." Source:[201]

Johnson argues that the debate over the legality of the leak functions as a red herring, distracting the public from the direct harms to national security caused by the leak. "What is so despicable about all of this is that the conservative movement," he writes, "is now serving as apologists for political operatives who have destroyed an intelligence network and at least one case officer's distinguished career. The new standard for the Republican National Committee--Karl Rove didn't commit a crime. Boy, there's a slogan to run on, 'At Least I Wasn't Indicted'."[202]

On March 23, 2005, 36 news organizations, including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AP, Newsweek, Reuters America, the Washington Post and the Tribune Company, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington.[203] In this brief these news organizations contend that there is "serious doubt" that there was a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act because of unsubstantiated news reports that Valerie Plame didn't meet the criteria of a "covert" agent and that her status as a CIA agent was known to both the Russian and Cuban intelligence operations prior to the Novak article.

On page 10, paragraph 2 of the Amici Curiae Brief filed by 36 major news organizations [204] Robert Novak reports he called the C.I.A. to determine whether Valerie Plame is an agency employee and received confirmation that she was.

Assuming that Robert Novak's report is true and that the information was classified, he did not have the security clearance required to receive that information.

Furthermore, on the surface it appeared the C.I.A. failed to protect her identify as required by the statutes to prosecute someone for violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act by confirming this information to Robert Novak.

Supporters of Rove, including many Republicans, assert that he has testified truthfully, and interpret the law to favor Rove's account of ignorance as to Plame's specific CIA status. Rove is believed to have agreed to testify to the grand jury in October 2005 with the understanding that his testimony would not free him from possible legal charges.

Espionage Act

There is precedent for prosecuting a leak under the Espionage Act. In United States v. Morison, Samuel Morison was convicted of espionage for leaking classified surveillance photos of a Soviet aircraft carrier to Jane's Defense Weekly. The court specifically found that there is no need under this law to show any "evil purpose." Morison unsuccessfully argued that he was trying to help the media avoid incorrect reporting on an alleged Soviet military buildup. [205]

In 2003, Sandy Berger, former Clinton administration National Security Advisor, removed classified documents from a National Archives reading room to prepare for his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. Even though no classified information leaked as a result, he pled guilty to violating the Espionage Act in mishandling the documents and his security clearance was suspended for 3 years.

Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 USC 794 states that “Whoever, in time of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy, collects, records, publishes, or communicates, or attempts to elicit any information with respect to the movement, numbers, description, condition, or disposition of any of the Armed Forces, ships, aircraft, or war materials of the United States, or with respect to the plans or conduct, or supposed plans or conduct of any naval or military operations, or with respect to any works or measures undertaken for or connected with, or intended for the fortification or defense of any place, or any other information relating to the public defense, which might be useful to the enemy, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.”

On October 28, 2005, Lewis Libby resigned from his position in the White House. This followed immediately after he was indicted on five criminal felony charges including obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury. Special Counsel Fitzgerald indicated that he considered the charges grave, as they represented a fundamental attack on the legal system. Also mentioned in the indictment, but not charged was "Libby was obligated by applicable laws and regulations, including Title 18, United States Code, Section 793," which is the Espionage Act (from the indictment page 2, section b stated [206]).

Theft of Government Property

The 1985 Morison case also established that Title 18, Section 641 of the United States Code could apply to a leak of information. This law prohibits the theft or conversion of government records for non-governmental use. In addition to espionage, Morison was convicted of breaking this law. The court found that an intangible (classified information) can be covered by the law, even where First Amendment issues may be implicated.

In 2002, the Bush administration also successfully used this law to convict Jonathan Randel for leaking to the media non-classified information about the Drug Enforcement Administration

Randel was a Drug Enforcement Agency analyst convicted of leaking confidential files on Lord Ashcroft to London media. Ashcroft is a contributor to American and British conservative causes who had been investigated by the DEA. The files related to investigations into drug trafficking and money laundering in Belize and supposedly included Ashcroft's name. In a statement to Randel, United States District Court Judge Richard Story wrote, "Anything that would affect the security of officers and of the operations of the agency would be of tremendous concern, I think, to any law-abiding citizen in this country." If convicted on all counts, Randel could have faced 500 years in a federal prison. Because Randel made a deal to plead guilty to violating section 641, all of the other counts were dropped. He was sentenced to a year of imprisonment and three years of probation.[207]

These cases may be seen as setting precedent for the prosecution of similar leaks. In particular, the cases established that confidential information can be government property, and leaking it qualifies as theft of the information.

Karl Rove is likely to face greater consequences than Randel if convicted for violating Section 641. Randel leaked sensitive but not secret information about DEA files that were unlikely to affect the national security of the United States, though it may have been embarrassing to an influential contributor. Rove may have leaked the identity of a CIA agent, an expert on weapons of mass destruction, during a time when the United States was at war based on a potential threat to its security from such weapons.

John Dean has also argued that federal conspiracy and fraud statutes may apply in this case. "If two federal government employees agree to undertake actions that are not within the scope of their employment," he argues, "they can be found guilty of defrauding the U.S. by depriving it of the 'faithful and honest services of its employee.'"

Conspiracy to Impede or Injure Officer

Dean and other observers have noted that the Federal Conspiracy statues are quite broad, and include:

If two or more persons in any State, Territory, Possession, or District conspire to prevent, by force, intimidation, or threat, any person from accepting or holding any office, trust, or place of confidence under the United States, or from discharging any duties thereof, or to induce by like means any officer of the United States to leave the place, where his duties as an officer are required to be performed, or to injure him in his person or property on account of his lawful discharge of the duties of his office, or while engaged in the lawful discharge thereof, or to injure his property so as to molest, interrupt, hinder, or impede him in the discharge of his official duties, each of such persons shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six years, or both.

Which means that if any agreement was made to disclose any information which would have hindered any agent of the CIA, not merely Valerie Plame, or any other government official, from performing their duty, or injuring such an officer for having done their duty - then felony charges of conspiracy can be brought.

The Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement

Cooper's thus far unrefuted testimony suggests Rove may have violated the "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement" (Form SF-312 [208]), which he signed as a condition of employment. However, no charges have been filed against Rove in relation to Form SF-312, and no evidence has yet been presented that implicates that Rove committed any crime related to Form SF-312.

SF-312 prohibits confirming or repeating classified information to unauthorized individuals, even if that information is already leaked. SF-312 is a vehicle for federal employee compliance with Executive Order 13292. Executive orders are not laws, but violation typically results in dismissal. Relevant passages of the agreement read,

I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by a foreign nation.

...

I have been advised that any breach of this Agreement may result in the termination of any security clearances I hold; removal from any position of special confidence and trust requiring such clearances; or the termination of my employment or other relationships with the Departments or Agencies that granted my security clearance or clearances. In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of Sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, Title 18, United States Code, * the provisions of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code, and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.

In addition, the briefing booklet distributed with that form states,

Before confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.[209]

Other laws and precedents

The Los Angeles Times reports that Rove pursued Wilson so aggressively because "He's a Democrat." Although it is not at all clear whether Joseph Wilson is protected by federal civil service laws, notably the post-Watergate Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, retaliation against an employee based upon political affiliation is generally illegal. [210]

The Libby indictment [211] (Par. 1.f) asserts Plame's status as a CIA employee was classified at the time it was leaked. An individual's failure to protect classified information, criminal or not, is often grounds for the revocation of their security clearance.

Actual damage caused

While the breaking of Valerie Plame's cover as a CIA employee may be regarded as serious in and of itself, there has been debate over the damage caused by the leak, and the areas into which that damage may extend, particularly in relation to Plame's work with her cover company, Brewster Jennings & Associates.

Legal filings by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald contain many pages blanked out for security reasons, leading some observers to speculate that Fitzgerald has pursued the extent to which national security was compromised by the actions of Rove and others. On 18 July 2005, The Economist reported that Valerie Plame had been dissuaded by the CIA from publishing her own account of her exposure, suggesting that such an article would itself be a breach of national security. The Economist also reported that "affirmative measures" by the CIA were being taken to protect Plame's identity at the time Rove revealed her CIA affiliation to journalists.[212]

Unnamed CIA officials maintain that Novak was asked not to publish Plame's name "for security reasons." However, Novak has stated that prior to naming Plame in his column, a CIA official informed him only that "if her name was printed, it might be difficult if she was traveling abroad," and that "they said they would prefer I didn't use her name." Novak considered this to be a "very weak request," adding that "if it was put on a stronger basis, I would have considered it." [213]

On 14 July 2005 Mike McCurry, White House press secretary to President Clinton, described Rove's role in the entire affair: "a two-minute call such as the one now reported is basically to get the signals straight -- green, yellow, red." McCurry continues, "Rove seems to have been telling Cooper that the yellowcake story was a flashing yellow and [Cooper] needed to be cautious. {...} Unless conversations go well beyond what has been reported, there has to be some other explanation for the zeal with which this investigation is being pursued. Something consequential must have happened because of this leak that we have not yet read about. That's about all I can imagine, because otherwise the whole thing -- leak, story, investigation -- seems a little disproportionate. Maybe a major intelligence operation got botched. Or someone took a real hit somewhere in the world as a result." [214]

CIA Book of Honor. Note missing name in 2003. Photo PD 2004, Central Intelligence Agency

A possibility has been raised by several sources that a death may have occurred as a result of this leak. Under the Espionage Act, this could lead to a death penalty case. The CIA Wall of Honor has stars representing agents killed on duty. Named stars are used where information is not classified, and anonymous stars are used when the agent's name cannot be released. Below the stars is a chronological Book of Honor. An anonymous star was added to the wall between named stars that can be dated to deaths on February 5, 2003 and October 25, 2003.

Conspiracy theories

The Plame affair has generated more than one conspiracy theory.

CIA conspiracy

A series of events (including reports Wilson openly talked of his wife's CIA job) have led critics of Plame/Wilson to view the Plamegate affair as a covert CIA operation by a rogue agent (or perhaps Agency) designed to pull down a sitting president. [215] Plame's husband is thought to have played a key role by "misrepresenting" the intelligence he gathered on his trip to Niger. Wilson learned the former prime minister of Niger had been approached in 1999(!) by an Iraqi delegation seeking "expanding commercial relationships" which the PM interpreted as seeking uranium. Wilson then published his op-ed piece claiming his trip disproved the story Iraq sought uranium. [216] Wilson was not required to sign a confidentiality agreement with the CIA since he is not an employee of the CIA. Such a confidentiality agreement is standard practice should anyone be a CIA employee. In addition, if any CIA employee publishes information on a classified trip, it would be illegal. Critics are calling for a new "Plame Rule" that will prevent CIA employees from leaking classified information through their spouses. [217]

The suggestion of a plot by CIA officers is countered by an explosive series of articles [218] in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica.[219][220][221] Investigative reporters Carlo Bonini and Giuseppe d'Avanzo report that Nicolo Pollari, chief of Italy's military intelligence service, known as Sismi, brought the Niger yellowcake story directly to the White House after his insistent overtures had been rejected by the Central Intelligence Agency in 2001 and 2002. Sismi had reported to the CIA on October 15 2001, that Iraq had sought yellowcake in Niger, a report it also plied on British intelligence, creating an echo that the Niger forgeries themselves purported to amplify before they were exposed as a hoax.

Pollari met secretly in Washington on September 9 2002, with then–Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. Their secret meeting came at a critical moment in the White House campaign to convince Congress and the American public that war in Iraq was necessary to prevent Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons. What may be most significant to American observers, however, is La Repubblica's allegation that the Italians sent the bogus intelligence about Niger and Iraq not only through traditional allied channels such as the CIA, but seemingly directly into the White House. That direct White House channel amplifies questions about the 16-word reference to the uranium from Africa in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address -- which remained in the speech despite warnings from the CIA and the State Department that the allegation was not substantiated.[222][223][224][225]

Saudi conspiracy interpretation

While many observers are convinced that the administration intentionally leaked Ms. Plame's identity in retaliation against Wilson for his public challenge to the African yellowcake claim, Michael Ruppert offers a different theory.[226] Ruppert shares the belief that the leak was intentional, but argues that the motive was to forestall a possible investigation by Plame and the CIA into the reserve capacity of Saudi oil fields. In this view, the leak was part of a strategy to conceal a coming crisis in energy supply from the American people, known as the peak oil theory.

See also

• CIA leak grand jury investigation
• Yellowcake forgery
• Fitzmas

Notes

Template:Fnb The Plame affair is also known and referred to as the CIA leak scandal. Other common terms include (Plame) CIA leak investigation, Plame scandal, Plamegate, Plameout. Alternate and more pejorative and biased variants are common such as CIAgate, Rovegate, Treasongate, Traitorgate, and Plamegate.

References

• Alexandrovna, Larisa (July 13 2005). "Wilson sees larger administration role in leak". The Raw Story, (July 7 2005). "Judith Miller: Patron Saint of Propaganda". Huffington Post
• Corn, David (July 16 2003). "A White House Smear". The Nation (blog)
• Ensor, David (contributor) et al. (October 1 2003) "Novak: 'No great crime' with leak", CNN.
• Gilliam, Jim (January 17 2004). "Vanity Fair's profile on Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame" (January 17 2004). Jimgilliam.com.
• Isikoff, Michael (July 18 2005). "Matt Cooper's Source". Newsweek.
• Johnson, Larry (July 13 2005). "The Big Lie about Valerie Plame". TPMCafe.
• Johnston, David & Stevenson, Richard W. (July 15 2005). "Rove Reportedly Held Phone Talk on C.I.A. Officer". New York Times.
• Kerber, Ross; & Bender, Bryan (Boston Globe correspondent) (October 10 2003). "Apparent CIA front didn't offer much cover". Boston Globe.
• Kincaid, Cliff (July 11 2005). "Why Judith Miller Should Stay In Jail", Accuracy In Media.
• Leonnig, Carol D. (April 7 2005). "Papers Say Leak Probe Is Over". Washington Post.
• Miller, Zell November 2 2005. "Rule can head off dirty tricks at CIA".
• Novak, Robert (July 10 2003). "Bush's enemy within" (Syndicated column).
• Novak, Robert (July 14 2003). "Mission to Niger" (Syndicated column).
• Novak, Robert (October 1 2003). "The CIA leak" (Syndicated column).
• Seifter, Andrew (July 15 2005). "AP falsely reported Wilson 'acknowledged his wife was no longer in an undercover job' when her identity was first publicly leaked". Media Matters for America.
• Waas, Murray S. (December 2 2004). "Plame Gate". American Prospect (web exclusive).
• Wilson, Joseph. The Politics of Truth: A Diplomat's Memoir. Carroll & Graf, 2004.
• Wilson, Joseph. What I Didn't Find in Africa, New York Times, July 6 2003.

External links

• "Mission to Niger" by Robert Novak (the column that started the affair).
• Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's official Web site
• Cheney Told Aide of C.I.A. Officer, Lawyers Report - David Johnston, Richard W. Stevenson and Douglas Jehl, New York Times, October 25 2005
• The Controlling Law-Big Trouble For The White House Staff
• JustOneMinute Timeline.
• White House Counsel Questioned in CIA Leak
• Valerie Plame's campaign contributions
• Rove Revealed as Source
• Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm - Walter Pincus and Mike Allen The Washington Post Saturday, October 4 2003; Page A03
• U.S. sends the wrong message to the world: IFEX

• Ashcroft recuses himself from Plame Affair case, U.P.I. 30 December 2003
• Grand Jury Hears Plame Case, TIME Magazine 22 January 2004
• Joseph C. Wilson IV Leak, Washington DC City Pages, 28 November 2004
• The White House, the CIA and the Wilsons.
• Key players in the Plame Affair, The Washington Post
• Valerie Plame A timeline
• Plamegate, Franklin, Rosen, Weissman, AIPAC indictment Timeline comparison