DescentBB

So now Mr. Rove has been revealed as the source of who blew a CIA agent's cover intentionally.

Bush is on record saying anyone that gave away a CIA agent should be fired. Obviously, he is now not going to fire Rove.

Rove claims he never gave her name (just saying, the Wife of *insert last name here*). This reeks of Clinton's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" logic. Rove didn't say the name, but he did reveal the identity, blowing her cover.

Read a little here about it: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/13/ ... b.rove.php

What do you think is good punishment for Rove?

What do you think about the story they were trying to bury, that we knew there was no Niger-Yellow Cake- Iraq connection? I think Rove went to such a great length for 2 reasons. 1, the story was very damaging because the "Mushroom cloud" speech was coming up and they wanted to still be able to use it, so why not bury these people... and 2. Rove wanted to set an example, like the mafia does a hit on someone who squeals. He wanted people to think twice by damaging their life if anyone came forward with something damaging to bush.

Birdseye wrote: What do you think is good punishment for Rove?

Exactly what bush said would happen to someone that did this.

He should be fired, shackled and shot. Treason is punishable by death.

I think Rove wanted to put some doubt on Wilsons report by making the reporter question his motives since he lied about who sent him ie; his wife was the one who recomended him for the job.
Her status as covert or not covert wouldn't matter in that context and Rove might not have known she ever worked as a covert operative. She was back at desk duty and according to her supervisor she wasn't likely to ever go into the field again.
How would Rove know she was ever a covert operator?

Also Bush said 'if someone broke the law they would be dealt with' and it hasn't been shown that Rove exposed her "intentionally".
I admit it looks like he may have but you are declaring guilt before the trial begins.

Fusion pimp wrote:He should be fired, shackled and shot. Treason is punishable by death.

I am glad I am not the only one who thinks that "outing" a covert operative is a treasonous act.

If Rove did it, he should see prison time.

From everything I've read it doesn't seem like outing a covert agent was ever his intent, or even that he knew she ever worked as one.
Here is some more

Will, that's plausible. But explain this then, how did the NYT reporters and Novak know that his wife was a covert agent unless they were told that? Bush will not fire Rove, nothing will happen to him. BTW, did you see the verbal beating that McClelland took at the white house press conference? Damn, he took it like a man and kept his composure.

It would be in your best interest to think of all politicians (and their advisors) as dog ★■◆●.

Thatâ??s my idea of partisan politics.

I would love to see Rove sent packing, but I doubt it will happen. He claims he didn't know she was covert, and I imagine it would be pretty difficult to prove otherwise. I have to think that these people are pretty good at the whole deniability thing, and I'm sure that after 2 years, everyone has their stories straight.

As for why he did it, I don't think he outted Plame as some sort of career ending retribution against Wilson. I think he was pushing that information to reporters to chip at Wilson's credibility. Somehow, the whole 'wife was involved in the decision to send Wilson' was a useful theme.

If we're lucky, all this may bring back a bit of the Yellowcake story, which may generate demand for an investigation of the Administration's pre-war intelligence use. They wanted to shelve that investigation until after last years elections. I'm sure they're just really busy.

Birdseye wrote:So now Mr. Rove has been revealed as the source of who blew a CIA agent's cover intentionally.

Perhaps Bird you might one of these days decide to research a topic before you join the shoal of piranha swimming up the wrong tributary trying to find the Rio Negro.
You might have started by wondering why Novak, who wrote a story "outing" Plame isn't sitting in jail or why Cooper who wrote a story outing Plame isn't sitting in jail. Or even why Clifford May who like Judith Miller was going to write a story but didn't, isn't sitting in jail. Too bad you and some of the others here don't use all that horsepower upstairs locked in cranial calcium to wonder about all this.
The big question is why is Judith Miller the only one doing hard time for not writing a dang thing. Lucky for you all I do wonder such things and did a little googling and came up with this (oh and you should really read the whole article):


Judith Miller and the New York Times are protecting Judith Miller and the New York Times â?? not the First Amendment. The real story here is that the Plame conspiracy originated with Miller. It was Miller who gave the administration insiders the information about Plame and gave them pointers on how to leak it to certain journalists like Novak. No doubt, her moves were coordinated with the usual suspects in the neo-con cabal who toiled with her on the WMD scam and had access to Valerie Plameâ??s secret identity. Richard Perle and company wrote the book on the â??Art of the Leak.â?? That also helps explain why Miller didnâ??t write the story. She was the source and one of the masterminds behind the Plame game.

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/16674

Birdseye wrote:What do you think about the story they were trying to bury, that we knew there was no Niger-Yellow Cake-Iraq connection?

Suspending the question, for the moment, whether Ms. "Vanity Fair" Plame was a actually operating as covert CIA agent, I think it might be useful to know that the Butler Report released to the House of Commons in July 2004, addressed this uranium question.

Lord Butler of Brockwell wrote:We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Governmentâ??s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House
of Commons, were well-founded.

By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bushâ??s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:

The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

was well-founded.

Butler Report, p.137, ¶499

BD

Bold Deceiver wrote:

Birdseye wrote:What do you think about the story they were trying to bury, that we knew there was no Niger-Yellow Cake-Iraq connection?

Suspending the question, for the moment, whether Ms. "Vanity Fair" Plame was a actually operating as covert CIA agent, I think it might be useful to know that the Butler Report released to the House of Commons in July 2004, addressed this uranium question.

Lord Butler of Brockwell wrote:We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Governmentâ??s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House
of Commons, were well-founded.

By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bushâ??s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:

The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

was well-founded.

Butler Report, p.137, ¶499

BD

That can't be true because Bill Mahr has made jokes about the yellowcake fiasco so that pretty much seals the deal...debate over.

I'll wait for the grand jury to conclude it's investigation. I don't think we've heard both shoes drop yet and I can't reconcile the New York Times protecting Rove, especially during the last election.

From Will's article wrote:Look at the Cooper e-mail," Luskin continues. "Karl speaks to him on double super secret background...I don't think that you can read that e-mail and conclude that what Karl was trying to do was to get Cooper to publish the name of Wilson's wife.

Riiiight. So telling the press "secret" information couldn't possibly lead to that information being published? Assuming Rove had no intention for this information to be published then Rove is an idiot.

We wouldn't be talking about Plame if Rove hadn't intended her identity to be leaked. Oh, and by some complete coincidence, the administration had a bone to pick with her husband.

Did you see the McLellan press conference from two days ago? The guy refuses to discuss the incident on the grounds that the investigation is ongoing. However, in the past when he called suggestions that Rove was involved in the leak "Ridiculous", the investigation was already ongoing! Further, now he is refusing to comment on whether or not he stands by the ridiculous comment, or on whether or not Bush stands by his commitment to fire anyone involved in the leak. What a prick!

the whole thing stinks, but i don't expect any of the idealogues here to admit that. go ahead and deceive yourselves if that's what you want to do.

"Suspending the question, for the moment, whether Ms. "Vanity Fair" Plame was a actually operating as covert CIA agent"

I think this question is answered by the fact that the CIA sent the criminal referal to Justice. You would have to assume that she was covert, or the law in question wouldn't apply.

Well, that's one assumption. The other being the partisan clamoring for an investigation from the FoJ (Friends of Joe) that smelled Republican blood in the water. To have declined to investigate would have inevitably led to screams of obstruction, stonewalling and cover-up during a critical time in the presidential election. The commentary I've read recently from organs of both left (NYT) and right (WSJ) seem to agree she was not covert and therefore it wouldn't surprise me to see the grand jury conclude no crime. However, with the Rove factor introduced, of course now it's back to being a high crime worthy of capital punishment in liberal circles. Bush will not sacrifice Rove on the altar of leftist opinion. But it's all still speculation anyway until all the facts come to light and all the names are named.

Jeff, that makes no sense. For the law to be broken, Plame had to be demostrably covert. Without that, there is no basis for an investigation, and no reason to worry about appearances. If she wasn't covert, Rove and the others would just be adding relevant information to the story, not possibly committing an illegal act.

"To have declined to investigate would have inevitably led to screams of obstruction, stonewalling and cover-up..."

Only if the CIA classified Plame as covert. If they didn't, Justice wouldn't have been asked to investigate, since no law could've been broken!

*edit, my reply was written before you added on

I imagine among the biggest questions the grand jury investigators are facing is not simply who *outed* Plame but whether she was even capable of being outed. I'm not sure how the CIA shifts designations or how often they review whether someone has compromised themselves. Some have claimed she was covert but she hadn't been covert for a number of years and she was keeping a somewhat high profile (by such things as appearing in the party pages of Vanity Fair on the arm of US Ambassador Joe Wilson). Strange way of preserving anonymity for a undercover spy, yes? If you were CIA director, would you feel confident you could field her again without fear of discovery of a tie to the US government? Heh. Again, bah, this is all just wishful thinking from the left and only the grand jury and DoJ will ultimately decide.

All I'm saying is that the CIA wouldn't have instigated the investigation unless covert assets were compromised. She was outted, and as consequence, so was the CIA front company she was "employed" by.

"(by such things as appearing in the party pages of Vanity Fair on the arm of US Ambassador Joe Wilson)"

The only Vanity Fair piece I know of was written after Novak outted her, and it was about the brouhaha. Was she in it before that? I stopped recieving my GOP Team Leader emails, so I'm a little behind on the talking points.

Backtracking... :p OK, the VF photo was after Novak's piece. Me culpa but I'm in the middle of moving so I haven't had net access for about a week except through work and admittedly I haven't been my usual fact-checking self.

Anyway, I'm saying the CIA didn't initiate the investigation, the DoJ did and the CIA went along. You are making an assumption in a vaccuum without accurately recalling all the demands for an investigation from Wilson & Co. I see it as perhaps the administration/DoJ caving into that pressure if only to keep everything transparent and not hurt the Bush election campaign with a whisper campaign of conspiracy. In the end, maybe it was a *revenge outing* meant to embarrass Wilson but the investigation is NOT CONCLUDED so I'm going back to waiting for the final report before breaking out the noose.

"Anyway, I'm saying the CIA didn't initiate the investigation, the DoJ did and the CIA went along."

That is incorrect. I went searching for link and came up with this:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/973047.asp?0cv=CA01

From the timeline in the middle of that page:

July 2003: CIA Lawyers send the Justice Department a letter raising concerns about the alleged leak. The Justice Department responds by sending the CIA a list of 11 questions to help gauge the seriousness of the accusations.

September 2003: The CIA responds to the Justice Department's questions by saying that the leak was unauthorized and that the news media could not have identified the woman without it. CIA lawyers assert that there are legitimate grounds for an FBI investigation."

Oh, and for Woodchips post...

"The big question is why is Judith Miller the only one doing hard time for not writing a dang thing."

She appears to be the only one who didn't testify.

Palzon wrote:Riiiight. So telling the press "secret" information couldn't possibly lead to that information being published? Assuming Rove had no intention for this information to be published then Rove is an idiot.

Have you considered the possibility that Rove didn't know she ever worked in a covert status? He seems to only know she worked with the CIA regarding WMD monitoring, that doesn't mean he knew she ever worked as a covert operator.

We wouldn't be talking about Plame if Rove hadn't intended her identity to be leaked. Oh, and by some complete coincidence, the administration had a bone to pick with her husband.

Rove's need to mention her affiliation to the CIA was to point out she was the one who got him the assignment, not the vice president which is the story he had been telling the press. Rove wanted to cast doubt on Wilsons motives and whether or not Plame was covert wasn't germane to that task.

Also, she apparantly didn't work as a covert operator for over five years before her identity was disclosed and according to the law that means it's not illegal to disclose her identity...
So Rove may be guilty of being mean or only guilty of accidentily identifying her but either way she had been out of action long enough to make the whole mountain nothing but a molehill.

Bold Deceiver wrote:
Butler Report, p.137, ¶499

BD

*Crickets*

Vander wrote:"Suspending the question, for the moment, whether Ms. "Vanity Fair" Plame was a actually operating as covert CIA agent"

I think this question is answered by the fact that the CIA sent the criminal referal to Justice. You would have to assume that she was covert, or the law in question wouldn't apply.

I think you're jumping the gun there Vander.

Questions such as these aren't "answered" by virtue of the fact they were referred to the DOJ for investigation, or even a to Grand Jury for possible indictment. Some daresay that even if the Grand Jury indicts (it won't), the question won't be answered until a conviction is had . . .

. . . really, will it?

If you can establish the elements, though, this may help you get the conviction:

To prove a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, Pub. L. No. 97-200, 1982 U.S.C.A.N. (96 Stat. 122) 145 (codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 421-426) (the "Act"), the government must establish the following elements:

The United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal a covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States;

The covert agent whose identity was disclosed is an employee of an intelligence agency;

The covert agent whose identity was disclosed has a relationship with such agency that is classified;

At the time of the disclosure, the covert agent whose identity was disclosed was serving outside the United States or had done so within five years of disclosure;

The person disclosing the identity of that covert agent must be authorized, directly or indirectly, to have access to classified information that identifies the covert agent;

The person disclosing the identity knows that the government is taking affirmative measures to conceal the relationship;

The person disclosing the identity knows that the information so identifies the covert agent;

The disclosure is intentional; and

The identity is disclosed to a person not having aurhotization to receive such information. (50 U.S.C. § 421; see S. Rep. 97-201, at 15-21 (1981, reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.A.N. 145, 159-165 (report of Senate Judiciary Committee accompanying the Act.)

You'll have to work for it though; turns out you can't be convicted simply for bearing the name "Karl Rove", which I know saddens many in our listening audience. And, drat it all, there are defenses available to Rove.

And then there's that wicked George W., moving his troops into the Alamo, damnit, and it doesn't look like he's heading there to surrender.

Stay tuned!!!

BD

Well, I think it's safe to say that the CIA was acting as if she was covert. Presumably, they would be able to prove this fact before kicking it over to Justice. After two years of investigation, I have to believe that it has been established to the satisfaction of the investigators. That would be the first thing they nailed down, or else, why investigate further? Why go to such lengths as jailing a reporter if no law could have been broken?

It seems pretty obvious to me that she was provably covert. I'm finding it pretty strange to have to point this out.

Vander wrote:Why go to such lengths as jailing a reporter if no law could have been broken?

It seems pretty obvious to me that she was provably covert. I'm finding it pretty strange to have to point this out.

The reason they might want her info isn't necessarily to prove Rove outed someone, it might be to see if anyone who testified in front of them lied to them...ie; whoever her source is may have lied about telling her anything..or lied about any number of things.
For example Scooter Libby might be her source and he may have testified to the grand jury that he didn't tell her anything. If she reveals that he did he could go to jail for lying to the grand jury about not revealing someones identity even though it turns out it wasn't illegal to reveal the persons identity. He still would have broken the law by lying to the grand jury about it...just ask Martha Stewart about it.

Will Robinson wrote: Rove's need to mention her affiliation to the CIA was to point out she was the one who got him the assignment, not the vice president which is the story he had been telling the press. Rove wanted to cast doubt on Wilsons motives and whether or not Plame was covert wasn't germane to that task.

not as i understand it. my understanding is that wilson never said cheney assigned him. he specifically stated that the cia requested it of him at the behest of cheney. if this is so, then the argument you make falls apart.

Will Robinson wrote:...Rove may be guilty of being mean or only guilty of accidentily identifying her but either way she had been out of action long enough to make the whole mountain nothing but a molehill.

Whether Rove deserves jail is not the important question. I think you're missing the point. First of all that the administration has zero transparency. they're lying scumbags who seem to feel they have no accountability (which, by the way, is no surprise to me since I see ALL governments as liars and thieves).

Second of all, the OP's point was to compare this situation to reactions to Clinton's scandal. This is important because the current situation belies the hypocrisy of the system. Further, what defies logic is that Clinton lied about a blowjob and Rove lied about revealing *national secrets* I'm not defending Clinton for anything - just pointing out a glaring inconsistency.

Vander wrote:It seems pretty obvious to me that she was provably covert. I'm finding it pretty strange to have to point this out.

Well, what's "pretty obvious" and "pretty strange", to you is about to get less obvious, and maybe more strange.

Your assumption is a wrong one, according to ABC, CNN, Bloomberg, Reuters, the Washington Post, the Society of Professional Journalists, and a host of others. These news organizations submitted an amicus brief to the D.C. Court of Appeals on the Cooper/Miller/Time subpoena matter, contending that Plame wasn't covert at all. She held an open desk job in Washington for a number of years. And the CIA appears to have publicly acknowledged her as a CIA agent, which would be a complete defense -- according to the media.

In short, they say Plame wasn't "covert", as that term is defined under the law (50 USC 426, subd. (4).) PDF Link

But hey, don't let me be the Grinch Who Stole Christmas. We all know the media is biased in favor of Karl Rove.

BD

Palzon wrote:First of all that the administration has zero transparency. they're lying scumbags who seem to feel they have no accountability (which, by the way, is no surprise to me since I see ALL governments as liars and thieves).

Don't you work for the government?

Palzon wrote: . . . just pointing out a glaring inconsistency.

If you're referring to the press secretary's purported representation to the media that he'd Karl Rove told him he had nothing to do with the Plame disclosure, I'm disturbed by that as well. If it's true. But I don't see much inconsistency here -- Karl Rove is under vicious attack right now. As was Clinton.

BD

Vander wrote:
Oh, and for Woodchips post...

"The big question is why is Judith Miller the only one doing hard time for not writing a dang thing."

She appears to be the only one who didn't testify.

Strange considering her source signed off on his/hers right to anonymity.

Then there is the issue of Wilson's Niger report. Wasn't it found out later the report was a fabrication?
But then what would you expect from a staunch Kerry supporter.

Palzon wrote: not as i understand it. my understanding is that wilson never said cheney assigned him. he specifically stated that the cia requested it of him at the behest of cheney. if this is so, then the argument you make falls apart.

He did both in different interviews, he said the vice presidents office requested his trip and said in another interview that the cia sent him...
The jist of his comments was to infer he was acting on behalf of the administration which would make his report seem all that more important when the administration seemed to ignore what he wanted us to believe was their own research.
What Rove wanted people to know was that the vice president had never heard of him nor requested he do anything and that Wilson might have his own agenda for giving the report he did.

I don't think Rove tried to out a covert operator, the chain of events don't support that theory and the nature of what Rove did want to accomplish make sense with what did happen.

I'm no fan of dirty tricks and smear the messenger etc. but the way the press operates without sticking to the facts only and excluding some facts from their reports it's become a neccessity for those reported on to take defensive measures!
I'm more angry with the way some reporters have seemed to spin this story than the notion that an ex-covert agent has had her identity exposed, especially since her relationship with a high level diplomat was very public which would have precluded her from ever resuming covert activity even if this report never surfaced. According to her old supervisor 'she took herself out of covert operations years ago for medical reasons (severe headaches) and was not going to go back to covert operations'.

This whole thing has the Dan Rather smell to it:
We think the story is fundamentally true (that Bush lied about WMD) so we publish very slanted and questionable reporting because the public needs to think like we do...

Bold Deceiver wrote:

Palzon wrote:First of all that the administration has zero transparency. they're lying scumbags who seem to feel they have no accountability (which, by the way, is no surprise to me since I see ALL governments as liars and thieves).

Don't you work for the government?

Indeed I do, which is a big reason I know to distrust it

Seriously, I was not referring to every single government employee. I was referring to high level positions that actually have power like president, cabinet, senators, etc.

Bold Deceiver wrote: If you're referring to the press secretary's purported representation to the media that he'd Karl Rove told him he had nothing to do with the Plame disclosure, I'm disturbed by that as well. If it's true. But I don't see much inconsistency here -- Karl Rove is under vicious attack right now. As was Clinton.

BD

So, if Rove is faced with, at the very least, termination - this would be the same as, say, impeachment (as with Clinton)?

"In short, they say Plame wasn't "covert""

Perhaps I'm using too much common sense in picking this apart? Like I said before, Plame's status, it would seem, would be the first thing to check out in the investigation. It would be the one thing that would determine if a crime even could have been committed. Perhaps I'm giving too much credit?

From that .pdf, it looks as though Plame was covert, but some mistakes were made which may invalidate that status in the context of the applicable law. The biggest hurdle (without actually knowing the contents of the two WashTimes articles) is Novak's discussions with a CIA source about Plame's status. Was that discussion sanctioned by the CIA? I can't remember if Novak used an unnamed source, or a legitimate CIA spokesperson.

In any event, my working theory is still that Plame was covert, and that the investigation has established this fact before turning the investigation toward the leakers. But hey, I've been wrong before.

I would also like to state again that I don't think Rove will be found guilty of breaking this law. There's too much deniability. My favored, plausible outcome is that this tarnishes Rove's mystique a little and gets the DC Press Corp a little more agitated. Perhaps I'm aiming a bit low.

Palzon wrote:First of all that the administration has zero transparency.

How about "the reporters refusing to testify have zero transparency"?

If Karl Rove was the source of the leak, any one of those reporters could roll over on him right now. That leads me to believe he hasn't done anything more than what he's already disclosed -- that is, challenged Wilson's claim that he was sent at Cheney's request by saying that Wilson's wife, who worked for the CIA, recommended him for the trip.

If there's more to it than that... wouldn't every reporter involved want to be the one to break the story and bring Rove down? Yet certain reporters continue to stonewall... why is that?

"why is that?"

Heh, if this were the Clinton Administration, we know what a lot of people's answers would be...

Lothar wrote:

Palzon wrote:First of all that the administration has zero transparency.

How about "the reporters refusing to testify have zero transparency"?

i have no reason to disagree with this. concealed sources are in place to protect whistle blowing, not the settling of a political vendetta. screw miller and cooper, i say.

Yet it is a problem if the administration leaked information to do political harm to someone. If true, this means that the administration put political screwjobbing Wilson as a higher priority than a matter (even if of relatively minor importance) of national security.

Lothar wrote:If Karl Rove was the source of the leak, any one of those reporters could roll over on him right now. That leads me to believe he hasn't done anything more than what he's already disclosed -- that is, challenged Wilson's claim that he was sent at Cheney's request by saying that Wilson's wife, who worked for the CIA, recommended him for the trip.

First of all, Cooper's emails already revealed that Rove WAS a source of the leak, so i'm not sure what your first sentence means.

Second, It is my understanding that Wilson NEVER said Cheney personally sent him. I've yet to seen evidence otherwise. If such evidence exists I'd be happy to let this go. However, if Wilson never said Cheney personally sent him, the argument that Rove was just clearing up an error (as opposed to exacting political payback) collapses. totally.

Lothar wrote: If there's more to it than that... wouldn't every reporter involved want to be the one to break the story and bring Rove down? Yet certain reporters continue to stonewall... why is that?

Umm, i guess you did not see the McLellan press conference earlier this week. Maybe you missed this posted above...

Palzon wrote:The guy refuses to discuss the incident on the grounds that the investigation is ongoing. However, in the past when he called suggestions that Rove was involved in the leak "Ridiculous", the investigation was already ongoing!

L, You have this completely wrong. Every reporter at the press conference tried to break this wide open. However, they couldn't because the administration (via McLellan) stonewalled them. Those reporter's did everything but call McLellan a pathetic little b!tch. The reporter's were totally pissed off about the situation.

As far as the major media at large - they are big business - the entertainment business. they don't care about informing you. they care about keeping people watching. also, you should recognize that lack of media attention at large does not prove there was no wrong doing and is not a valid argument.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162583,00.html

If true, this would finally provide a little insight into the NYT's about-face and Miller's martyrdom. Why do I get the feeling I'm watching an old Roadrunner cartoon? BOOM!

bash wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162583,00.html

If true, this would finally provide a little insight into the NYT's about-face and Miller's martyrdom. Why do I get the feeling I'm watching an old Roadrunner cartoon? BOOM!

Which brings us back to my earlier reply:

"The real story here is that the Plame conspiracy originated with Miller."

Who told Miller?

Wouldn't it be sweet if it turned out to be Wilson? It's interesting (very) that Wilson himself is now acknowledging his wife was no longer in a clandestine profile when Novak identified her. Appears Joe is trying to have his yellowcake and eat it too.