PLAMEGATE
We Do The Research So Reporters Don't Have To

Stunningly, no member of the White House press corps has asked press
secretary Scott McClellan about Karl Rove's role in outing former CIA
operative Valerie Plame since Rove's lawyer admitted on Saturday that
Rove was one of Time reporter Matt Cooper's sources. Below are ten
vital facts that the media needs to communicate -- and that Americans
deserve to know -- about PlameGate. (Click here to get the email
addresses of your local media outlets, and let them know they're
missing out on a serious story.)

THE PLAME LEAK IS OF VITAL IMPORTANCE: Commenting on the remarks of the
federal judges who have ruled on Cooper/Miller case, Lawrence O'Donnell
today pointed out that "All the judges who have seen the prosecutor's
secret evidence firmly believe he is pursuing a very serious crime, and
they have done everything they can to help him get an indictment." And
remember, it was George W. Bush's father who, speaking at CIA
headquarters in 1999, said, "I have nothing but contempt and anger for
those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They
are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors." Likewise, when asked
whether exposing Valerie Plame's identity would be "worse than
Watergate," President Bush's close colleague Ed Gillespie said, "Yeah,
I suppose in terms of the real world implications of it," adding that
"to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative -- it's
abhorrent, and it should be a crime, and it is a crime." Those who try
to play down the importance of PlameGate are deceiving themselves.

KARL ROVE HAS NOT YET ANSWERED WHETHER HE IS A SUBJECT OF THE
INVESTIGATION: Rove's attorney Robert Luskin acknowledged over the
weekend that Karl Rove has testified "two or three times" before the
grand jury. These multiple visits prompted one lawyer "representing a
witness sympathetic to the White House" to tell Newsweek that there is
"growing 'concern' in the White House that the prosecutor is interested
in Rove." Luskin has insisted in several recent interviews that Rove is
not a "target" of Fitzgerald's investigation. But this leaves open the
possibility that Rove is a "subject" of the investigation. The
difference? While a "target" is a "putative defendant" according to the
U.S. Attorneys' Manual, a "subject" is a person not yet thought to have
committed a crime but "whose conduct is within the scope of the grand
jury's investigation" (these two definitions are distinct from the
third possible status, a mere "witness"). Lawrence O'Donnell, who broke
the news of Rove's contacts with Time reporter Matt Cooper, notes:
"Three trips to the same grand jury is frequently an indicator of
subject status." So, Mr. Rove, if you're not a target, are you a
witness or a subject?

ROVE HAS NEVER DENIED LEAKING THE IDENTITY OF WILSON'S WIFE: The public
statements by Karl Rove and his attorney Robert Luskin regarding Rove's
role have been worded vaguely, in such a way that leaves unclear
whether Rove is denying that he ever revealed (in any way) the true
identity of Joseph Wilson's wife, or whether he is merely denying that
he revealed the specific name -- Valerie Plame (also her maiden name)
-- that she used only while carrying out her covert work. Rove's
attorney told Newsweek that Rove "did not tell any reporter that
Valerie Plame worked for the CIA"; he told the Los Angeles Times that
Rove "absolutely did not identify Valerie Plame." And in August 2004,
Rove denied knowing Plame's name: "Well, I'll repeat what I said to ABC
News when this whole thing broke some number of months ago. I didn't
know her name and didn't leak her name." Under a strict interpretation,
these statements confirm only that Rove did not leak Plame's name, not
whether he revealed her role as a covert operative.

ROVE'S DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION IS UNCLEAR: As several
commentators have noted, Rove's attorney has almost uniformly stated
that Rove never "knowingly" disclosed classified information (although
on one occassion, Luskin did apparently say to Bloomberg News that Rove
"did not reveal any confidential information," leaving off the word
"knowingly"). As Lawrence O'Donnell pointed out: "Not coincidentally,
the word 'knowing' is the most important word in the controlling
statute (U.S. Code: Title 50: Section 421). To violate the law, Rove
had to tell Cooper about a covert agent "knowing that the information
disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is
taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence
relationship to the United States." So, did Rove ever unknowingly
disclose classified information? Moreover, a legal memo obtained by
Hill reporter Josh Marshall interpreted the relevant laws to hold that
"a government insider, with access to classified information, such as
Rove is also prohibited from confirming or further disseminating the
identity of a covert agent even after someone else has leaked it."
According to today's New York Times, "Cooper's decision to drop his
refusal to testify followed discussions on Wednesday morning among
lawyers representing Mr. Cooper and Karl Rove, the senior White House
political adviser, according to a person who has been officially
briefed on the case." Did Rove ever confirm or disseminate classified
information?

ROVE COULD COME CLEAN AT ANY TIME: A simple, clear statement by Rove
would do much to end speculation about his role in any potential
wrongdoing. Yet Rove is refusing to answer questions about the case,
and, more suspiciously, his attorney is justifying his silence with the
specious claim that Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has "asked us
not to talk about what Karl has had to say." As O'Donnell points out,
"Prosecutors have absolutely no control over what witnesses say when
they leave the grand jury room. Rove can tell us word-for-word what he
said to the grand jury and would if he thought it would help him." The
only thing that prevents him from doing so, O'Donnell adds, is "a good
lawyer who is trying to keep him out of jail."

BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS COULD KEEP MILLER OUT OF JAIL: Whether
one supports or opposes Judith Miller's refusal to reveal her source,
the fact remains that she never had to face this fate. At any time, the
Bush administration officials who leaked Valerie Plame's identity could
step forward and relieve Miller of her difficult circumstances. As
Joseph Wilson noted last night, "The sentencing of Judith Miller to
jail for refusing to disclose her sources is the direct result of the
culture of unaccountability that infects the Bush White House from top
to bottom. ... Clearly, the conspiracy to cover up the web of lies that
underpinned the invasion of Iraq is more important to the White House
than coming clean on a serious breach of national security." Likewise,
John Dean, former White House counsel to President Nixon during the
Watergate controversy, said on Tuesday: "Whoever it is, he or she is a
huge coward. And the fact that they would let somebody [go to prison]
-- this is the sort of thing that Mafia people do, that drug kings do,
not somebody who's serving in the White House as a public servant."

ROVE AND NOVAK HAVE A TRACK RECORD: Karl Rove and Robert Novak
apparently have a history of spreading damaging information. In January
2003, Ron Suskind reported in Esquire that "Sources close to the former
president [George H.W. Bush] say Rove was fired from the 1992 Bush
presidential campaign after he planted a negative story with columnist
Robert Novak about dissatisfaction with campaign fundraising chief and
Bush loyalist Robert Mosbacher Jr. It was smoked out, and he was
summarily ousted."

AT LEAST ONE WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL HAS BEEN CAUGHT IN A LIE: Rove's
acknowledgement of his role in spreading information about Wilson and
Plame seems to clearly contradict a claim in October 2003 by White
House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, who said that "those individuals
[Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams, and Lewis Libby] assured me they were not
involved with this." So, did Karl Rove and his White House colleagues
deceive Scott McClellan, or did Scott McClellan deceive the American
people?

AN APPARENT DISCREPANCY EXISTS IN THE TIMELINE OF ROVE'S CONTACTS WITH
JOURNALISTS: Though Rove's involvement in spreading information about
former ambassador Wilson and his wife is now known, the timeline
remains unclear. Recent statements from Rove's lawyer have only muddied
the picture. In October 2003, Rove reportedly admitted to the grand
jury "that he circulated and discussed damaging information regarding
[Plame] with others in the White House, outside political consultants,
and journalists," part of an "aggressive campaign to discredit Wilson
through the leaking and disseminating of derogatory information
regarding him and his wife." According to investigative journalist
Murray Waas, Rove told the grand jury that "he had only circulated
information about Plame after it had appeared in [Robert] Novak's
column." But according to Rove's attorney Robert Luskin, "Rove spoke to
Cooper three or four days before Novak's column appeared." What's the
real story here?

PRESIDENT BUSH'S THOUGHTS ARE UNKNOWN: For well over a year, the White
House line has been that "no one wants to get to the bottom of [this
investigation] more than the President of the United States."
Considering his great interest, it seems surprising, then, that
President Bush has had nothing to say about Saturday's revelation that
his own top advisor, Karl Rove, apparently did indeed participate in
the coordinated campaign to smear former ambassador Joe Wilson. This
fact alone speaks volumes about the character of this White House.

RACE
It's Everyone's Business

On January 15, 2003, when Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich and Lt. Gov.
Michael Steele were sworn into office, Steele said "Forty years ago,
Martin Luther King had a dream. How fitting today we celebrate not only
the inauguration of a new era, but the birthday of a man who dreamed
this day would come." Times have changed. Late last month, Ehrlich held
a $1,000-a-plate fundraiser at the all-white Elkridge country club.
Neither Ehrlich or Steele see anything wrong with it. During a radio
interview about the controversy Tuesday, Ehrlich said "I don't know
what their membership is, and guess what? It's not my business." Steele
told the Associated Press, "I don't know that much about the club, the
membership, nor do I care, quite frankly, because I don't play golf."
It's time to stop playing dumb. Days earlier, The Baltimore Sun told
Ehrlich's staff the paper had confirmed that "the club has had no
African-American members in its 127-year history." Email Bob Ehrlich
and Michael Steele and ask them if, in light of their commitment to
Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy, they will continue to support
institutions that practice racial discrimination.

CLUB'S HISTORY OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION WAS NOT A MYSTERY: Ehrlich and
Steele pretend that Elkridge's club membership is a mystery. In fact,
its racially discriminatory practices are well known. In 1985,
"Frederick Motz quit Elkridge in 1985 after he was nominated to the
federal bench" to avoid questions about its all-white membership. In
1977, Maryland passed a law "prohibiting country clubs from getting a
property tax break if they discriminated in their membership policies."
Elkridge "gave up its tax break...rather than give its membership list
to the state."

WHEN IN DOUBT, ATTACK THE MESSENGER: Instead of taking responsibility
for his actions, Gov. Ehrlich attacked the messenger. Specifically, his
staff accused the Baltimore Sun, who broke the story about the Ehrlich
fundraiser of having "some association with Elkridge over the years."
It's true that "Former [Baltimore Sun] publisher Reginald
Murphy...joined the club when he moved to Baltimore in 1981." But once
he found out about its membership composition "he dropped his
membership after helping establish the Caves Valley Golf Club, which he
said was founded to be inclusive regardless of religion, race or
gender." It's not the first time Ehrlich as tried to bully the Sun into
silence. Last November Ehrlich banned all state officials from speaking
with two Baltimore Sun journalists because, in his view, they were
"failing to objectively report" on state issues. Citing the First
Amendment, the Sun asked "a federal judge to lift the [Ehrlich]
administration's order." The lawsuit, which is still pending, alleges
that Ehrlich's actions discourage "speech by any citizen of Maryland
who disagrees with the Governor, and it will leave the door open for
any public official to punish any individual who says something the
government does not like."

WHEN IN DOUBT, BLAME OTHERS: Ehrlich said that his fundraiser is a
"non-story" other Maryland politicians have held events at the Elkridge
Club. Although, Ehrlich didn't name any names, Baltimore County
Executive James T. Smith Jr. admitted that he held a fundraiser at the
club on May 4. Smith's conduct was wrong but it doesn't excuse Ehrlich.
Moreover, there is a difference in how the two men have dealt with the
situation. Smith admits he made a mistake and has promised "he will not
have future campaign events" at Elkridge. Ehrlich remains unrepentant
and has emphasized that he has spoken at Elkridge "many, many times
over the years."

WHEN IN DOUBT, BLAME YOUR STAFF: Just in case Ehrlich's other excuses
didn't work for you, he's got one mo it was all his staff's fault.
Ehrlich told WBAL radio that "the decision to hold an event at the
Elkridge Club on June 20 was made by his campaign staff, not by him."
So much for personal responsibility.