Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Holt: "If Rove Leaked Agent's ID, He Should Go".

By Mark Moore (click "comments" below for article).


Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

I spoke with State Senator Jim Holt today about the amazing story hitting the wires concerning his opinion on the Rove matter.

He says that the AP called up and asked him whether or not he thought that White House Deputy Karl Rove should resign for leaking the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. The Grand Jury is still investigating whether Rove broke any laws regarding the Plame affair.

Reporter Matt Cooper, under threat of imprisionment for contempt if he failed to testify, claims he told the grand jury that it was Rove who leaked the identity of Plame. While Rove did not use Plame's name, Cooper says Rove made her identity clear by saying who her husband was.

Rove and the White House are not talking, so it seems to be Cooper's word against nobody's.

Not much of Holt's comments made it into the widely circulated accounts. Here is the quote that did get circulated, "I think he should resign," said Jim Holt, a Republican state senator in Arkansas who is running for lieutenant governor. "I hope Karl Rove doesn't come gunning for me."

Of course that was prefaced by the condition,"if he leaked the identity of a CIA operative". It appears Rove did, and Rove does not deny it, but the investigation churns on.

Jim Holt explained his thinking to me on the phone today. "I was on the staff at the National Security Agecny during my service in the Army. I was a staff sergeant. If I had leaked the name of a CIA operative to the media, I would have lost my security clearance and been fired. They would have probably court-martialed me. It would not have mattered if I did it as an act of malice or simply got too talkative."

"I believe in holding everyone to the same standard. I don't think White House Deputies should be allowed to endanger the lives and blow the covers/careers of CIA operatives. The men and women of our armed forces can't get away with that, and the powerful and connected should not be able to either."

Holt explained that he is being consistent on priciple in all of these recent controversies. "I think illegal aliens should be held accountable when they break the law. I think SAM's club, if they want to sell liquor, should have to follow the same legal restrictions as the other liquor stores in the state. And I think that White House staff should be held to the same standard of accountablility that I had to follow as a staff sergeant in the United States Army. I am getting all of these people upset with me just because I refuse to budge from the principle that the law should be applied without partiality."

Holt expressed concerned that too many people have given up on the rule of law, and without that ideal civilized society itself is at risk.

8:52 PM, July 13, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim Holt needs to learn that sometimes a person needs to just keep his mouth shut, especially when it serves no purpose and certainly doesn't create a political climate that advances his own beliefs.

People don't just go around saying exactly what they are thinking, even when what they are think is exactly correct. It's called "tact".

Please Jim! Get a clue! Hurry and do it before you completely destroy yourself politically. You are no help to us if you are flipping burgers at the local Denny's.

11:42 PM, July 13, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

5:50 AM, July 14, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

President Bush's personal credibility appears to be eroding at a time when Iraq has become the top public priority and the White House is engulfed in controversy over senior Bush adviser Karl Rove. ... The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed the percentage of Americans who believe Bush is "honest and straightforward" fell to 41 percent from 50 percent in January, while those who say they doubt his veracity climbed to 45 percent from 36 percent…

5:58 AM, July 14, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To anonymous @11:42,

Reguarding your comment: "People don't just go around saying exactly what they are thinking, even when what they are think is exactly correct."

Jim Holt is exactly what we need in politics. Someone who isn't afraid to say the truth and isn't afraid what the media will say about him or what people like you think about him.

I say "GO JIM". Keep up the great work. Your my HERO!

If only an ounce of us had the guts to do what you do, this world would be a better place: )

6:30 AM, July 14, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I like Jim Holt but he needs to learn to educate himself about things before speaking. Anybody who has researched this knows Karl Rove did nothing wrong. He was returning a call from a reporter about Social Security and towards the end of the conversation Cooper asked him about Wilson. Karl Rove Said be careful Wilson is not telling the truth the VP never sent this guy anywhere and never asked for a report the only reason he went to Niger was apparently his wife works for the CIA and got him the gig. Now it is a fact that Mrs. Plame drove her car everyday into Langly and that was where her office is so how does saying she works for the CIA do anything to risk her outing it was obvious and clear to anyone who knew her that she worked at the CIA. He broke no law and put nobody at risk by saying she worked there. ALso Wilson said in his esquire interview that on his 3rd date with Mrs. Plame he was making out with her and she told him she was a spy so she apparently did not think it was a big deal and was not real secretive. Jim Holt spoke with out knowing the facts which is always a huge mistake and Jim needs to take it back and stand up to the democrats and left wing media that are having a witch hunt and Jim just joined in and ased for an innocent person to be burned at the stake. Shame Shame Shame

6:44 AM, July 14, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To anonymous @11:42,

A typical Bush monkey see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil if it comes from a Republican.
Which is more important "turd blossom" getting his political agenda done or justice? Why do you hate America?

6:47 AM, July 14, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anybody who has researched this knows Karl Rove did nothing wrong."

typical wing nut denial

6:50 AM, July 14, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you read what Mark Martin wrote that Jim said, "I was on the staff at the National Security Agecny during my service in the Army. I was a staff sergeant. If I had leaked the name of a CIA operative to the media, I would have lost my security clearance and been fired. They would have probably court-martialed me. It would not have mattered if I did it as an act of malice or simply got too talkative."

I imagine that Senator Holt undertands a little more about keeping a secret than we do and I bet he is exactly right about NOT giving any information or get expelled. Plain and simple!

If you think about it, Sen. Holt didn't say anything different than the President said himself. IF he did it he should be fired or resign.

7:02 AM, July 14, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark A.R. Kleiman raises the mindboggling possibility that Fitzgerald may go after Rove with an espionage indictment -- the same charge used to fry the Rosenbergs.
But Rove's conduct certainly meets the far less demanding elements of the Espionage Act: (1) possession of (2) information (3) relating to the national defense (4) which the person possessing it has reason to know could be used to damage the United States or aid a foreign nation and (5) wilful communication of that information to (6) a person not entitled to receive it.
Under the Espionage Act, the person doing the communicating need not actually know that revelation could be damaging; he needs only "reason to know." Classification is generally reason to know, and a security-clearance holder is responsible for knowing what information is classified.
Nor is it necessary that the discloser intend public distribution; if Rove told Cooper -- which he did -- and Cooper didn't have a security clearance -- which he didn't -- the crime would have been complete.
And to be a crime the disclosure need not be intended to damage the national security; it is only the act of communication itself that must be wilful.
It's also a crime to "cause" such information to be communicated, for example by asking someone else to do so.
Gulp. What's the matter, Karl? You look a little pale.

7:32 AM, July 14, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My goodness you people are dense. Can someone please freakin research things before they start spouting off crap as if it is fact. And to you idiot liberals who said think I am in denial I base everything I say from fact and law not my hatred of the other party so shut your trap until you get some facts on your side. The reason Jim Holt is dead wrong is two fold 1. Rove never turned over her name 2. Even if he had she was no longer a covert agent. The law states that you must have been on at least one mission in the last 5 years which plame had not so under law she was actually no longer an agent so there is no differnece between saying Plame worked at the CIA and saying your neighbor works at the FBI. If they drive their car to the building everyday go through the gate and go to their office I do not think it is a national secret that they work at that place. So learn the facts and shut your pie holes no laws were broken.

7:41 AM, July 14, 2005  
Blogger terrymcdermott said...

G. Gordon Liddy went to jail for a lesser crime. So why should Rove be ignored?

10:50 AM, July 14, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What crime did Rove Commit? He told a reporter that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA this was not a secret she did not hide this fact she drove to Langly at least five days a week. Last I checked America still allowed people to tell others where people worked if it is already public knowledge.

11:14 AM, July 14, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rockefeller interjected himself into this fight by criticizing Holt and defending Rove. Why would any candidate for an Arkansas office get involved in nasty DC politics.

2:23 PM, July 14, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wish Rockefeller would be as open about issues in Arkansas like abortion and tax increases as he is about DC politics.

2:24 PM, July 14, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Beebe is slick, look at this analysis:

3:46 PM, July 14, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

1) Some of you keep saying that Holt is talking about something "that he knows nothing about". He was an NSA (National Security Agency) watch officer for six years. He is in a far better position than almost anyone in this state to know what is appropriate. It is only natural that this is something he should be passionate about.

2) This stuff about "no law was broken because she had not been on a covert mission in 5 years" stuff is silly.

Have any of you considered that the judges and the special prosecutor are aware of that provision of the law? And are you yourselves aware of the definition of the word COVERT?


8:17 PM, July 14, 2005  
Anonymous ummmmmmmmm, dang! said...

The Nazi Arkansas Times:

12:02 AM, July 15, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mark you just proved my point I think the special prosecutor does know about this and this is why Karl Rove is not a target of the investigation. My concern is that the media and Jim Holt do not know the facts in this case but they all are more than happy to speak about it. I understand Jim knows about National Security but that does not mean he knows all the facts in this case. This is why people should shut their mouths and let the investigation play out. If the people who actually know the facts find Karl Rove is guilty of breaking a law or leaking secure information I will agree he needs to go but until then I will hold my complete judgement of this issue just as Holt should have done.

10:55 AM, July 15, 2005  
Blogger terrymcdermott said...

You condemn Holt for giving his opinion on this matter, and the last time I read the Constitution we have Freedom of Speech.

Besides that, look at all the stupid things Howard Dean has said. Do you condemn him like you do Jim Holt?

3:21 PM, July 15, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Look Anon 10:55 AM,

I did not hold my fire on Clinton until the judge found him guilty of perjury seven years into his reign and I should not have to. Same here. The JURY is not supposed to talk about it- that does not me I can't call it like I see it. Rove probably is not the only leaker, but he did show poor judgement. He gave her away to Matt Cooper and prior to that confirmed her ID to Novak.

And another thing, just because Rove's lawyer says he is not formally a "target" does not mean they are not looking. It is now SOP to refer to suspects as "person's of interest" because once they are formally a suspect you have a higher standard for evidence gathering and the like.

9:12 PM, July 15, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Holt likes to demagogue any issue that is getting attention at the moment. I am a right wing conservative, who voted for Holt in the senate but I won't ever vote for him again. He may "stand for things" but he is useless and ineffective because he cannot work with anyone to get the job done. He is self absorbed and thinks he is God's gift to's just too much, Jim.

9:37 PM, July 15, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Do you mean issues like Abortion, Homosexual Marriage, Local Control of Schools, Illegal Aliens, and Runaway Judges? I wish more office holders would "demogouge" those issues. He talks about the things that most Arkansans want, but their "leaders" sell them out on.

The only reason he is "ineffective" is that the other legislators WILL NOT DO what the vast majority of their constituients want them to do on these and other issues. THEY are the ones that are "ineffective" from the view of the people, because they are the ones who refuse to act along with Holt.

He was VERY EFFECTIVE at blocking HB 1525, scholarships for illegal aliens. The phoney conservatives in this state hate Jim Holt. It is actual hate- because next to him, a geniune conservative, their own phoney character becomes apparent.

9:50 PM, July 15, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Jim is not an effective legislator. By that don't even mean capable of making back-room deals, rather, he is the very definition of a gad-fly: flitting around without any focus.

If he would take the time to be fully versed in an issue, then he could probably have done some good. The problem is, and was, that Jim is a pure gut-reaction politician. No consideration of anything but his opinion. Now that is a problem that many legislators face, but he is especially guilty of it.

He never does his home-work. He plays fast and loose with facts and the truth. He slams others for possible ethical lapse, when facing several problems himself.

Now I don't doubt that many will vote for him in 2006 because he only lost to Blank Lincoln by 12%, but he has never shown a willingness to build a coalition to win. He got the Republican base vote in 2004. Blank got the 48% Democrat base vote, but she also picked up all of the swing vote. Without money, intellect, or an ability to attract a broader following, Holt dooms the GOP to yet another loss if he wins the primary nomination.

There are other good conservatives out there. Holt's just not one of them.

1:05 PM, July 16, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

anon 1:05

You simply do not know what you are talking about. You throw out one vauge accusation after another with no details, no supporting evidence, and no proof. You have not made ANY case whatsoever. All you have done is make a series of unsupported accusations.

Here is where Holt discusses his stand on the issues....

I would invite all the readers to look at that long page and see what detailed, specific, well-thought out answers Holt gives to the questions.

I have never seen a GOP or Dem politician's web-site that goes into that much detail. If you have, anon 1:05, post them here so that our readers can go there themselves and see who gives the best answers.

I have had in-depth philosophical discussions with him. The guy is as sharp as a tack. He is smarter than his critics.

Yes, he has an artsy, poetic side, but he is also still an intelligence specialist, like he was in the Army.

People are creatures of habit. Jim could win Lt. Governor even without as many votes as he got last time. There are already enough people that voted "Holt" in 04 that thousands of them could stay home in 06 and Holt still win. And this time the opponent will not have Blanche Lincoln's stature.

If Holt "can't win", it is only because "conservatives" like yourself won't stop ripping him up with a tidal wave of allegations that you cannot support.

5:03 PM, July 16, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In 04 no one outside Northwest really knew him. Now people are starting to see his true colors. If you think Jim Holt can win a Republican primary with only the Constitution Party's support you are even more dilusional than I thought. Republicans will not support a non-republican who attacks his own party leaders to get some headlines. He attacked the Gov and now Mr. Rove. He is TOAST. Holt will get no more than 23% in May.

4:08 PM, July 17, 2005  
Blogger terrymcdermott said...

You think Jim Holt will loose because of is comments on Huckabee and Rove? Are you saying that the
Republican primary will be a
race on the person and not on the issues?

5:46 PM, July 17, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am saying Republicans will not support a Constitution Party member posing as a republican over a good republican.

7:15 PM, July 17, 2005  
Blogger terrymcdermott said...

Jim Holt is not a member of the Constitution Party. He is a Republican, who is a true Conservative.Unlike many Republicans who are Conservative in name only.

7:24 PM, July 17, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice. I guess you get to decide who is conservative and who isn't. I don't think Huck is a conservative. I think Asa is. I don't think Win knows what he is (his campaign staff certainly don't). I also think that Holt, is looney as a gaggle of howling monkeys on crack. I voted for him in 2004 only because I thought he would support the president's judicial nominees (good call on my part).

However, Holt is without stature intellectually. And what is it with his paranoia? I mean every time I see him its not "hi, how are you," its "are we ok," or "are you mad at me" or "why does everybody hate me."

Next time God tells this loon to run for something, maybe he ought to ask God why he hates him so much.

8:15 PM, July 17, 2005  
Blogger terrymcdermott said...

Be careful when you bring God into an argument. You may need to read Jonathan Edward's sermon "The Sinners in the hands of an Angry God."

8:57 PM, July 17, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

So you guys think that someone can win statewide in Arkansas with Republican votes alone? Why not get help from Libertarians, or Constitution party members, or even Democrats?

Holt is reaching out, something that "moderate" Republicans drone on about endlessly in an effort to get conservatives to shut up, but they don't really mean it. Otherwise guys like you would applaud Holt for getting conservative smaller parties and disgrunteled Democrats to support him.

9:19 PM, July 17, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

And another thing, Republican "leaders" have been trying to push the grassroots left for sometime. Holt is the champion of the folks who won't be pushed- and its a lot more than 23%!

9:22 PM, July 17, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Hey anon 8:15,

I presented a url to Holt's positions. Which of those do you consider to be "without intellectual stature"? Go ahead and post it right here, then tell us the intellectual flaw in what he says. Back up your mud with some intelligent argument of your own- if you have any.

You trash talkers just come on here and throw out as much vauge mud as you can think of in an effort to scare people off Holt just in case some of it might be true. I, with my name on this, tell the readers that you are completely wrong.

People ARE out to get him, that is why they say terrible things about him in the papers and on this blog. How on Earth can people who have been out to get Holt this hard have the nerve to then turn around and claim he is paranoid?

That is not being paranoid, it is being realistic. If you don't think Rove won't retaliate against people who cross him, then you should have heard Congressman Tom Tancredo when he came to Little Rock.

9:29 PM, July 17, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have you guys heard about Rockefeller's liberal donors?

9:45 PM, July 17, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Being conservative does not make you intellectually inferior. I vote for conservatives period. That is why I will be voting for Jim Holt, Asa Hutchinson, Jim LeGrone, and Gunner DeLay, assuming nobody better gets in the AG's race. I know there are some other conservatives in the LG's race but they way they have attacked Holt has turned me off.

6:57 AM, July 18, 2005  
Anonymous just an average chad said...

I don't understand WHY it seems like every thread that is Jim Holt related always end up being used by Jim Holt haters to personally attacking Jim. I have read all the threads that are Holt related, and I detect a consistent style and tone from some Holt attacker(s) that always seem to want to do nothing but pick on Jim. And Mark, like you have pointed, I am starting to believe that there really seem to be people that are OUT to get Senator Holt, for whatever reason.

From the point of view of an average reader - all these vicious hurls seem so childish, petty and not very convincing at all - I hope not all politicians and players in politics have to adopt such tactics to gain an upper hand in the political arena.

anonymous@657 - Yes, the way they have attacked Jim Holt has definitely turned me off too! Honestly, I am tired of reading the intensely one-sided mud-slinging against Senator Holt.

2:04 PM, July 18, 2005  
Blogger kw's blog said...

The important section of this article.
"I think he should resign," said Jim Holt, a Republican state senator in Arkansas who is running for lieutenant governor. "I hope Karl Rove doesn't come gunning for me." Of course that was prefaced by the condition,"if he leaked the identity of a CIA operative".

Now the main idea of this section
I think he should resign if he leaked the identity of a CIA operative.

How you interpret this statement depends on who you are. For example:

If you are a leftist, you assume Rove exposed Miss Plame/Wilson right before she was going to capture Osama (and give him therapy), end all terrorism in the world, and solve the Kennedy assassination. You take this comment and Bush's comment to scream that Rove should be hanged for treason. Facts stating otherwise are ignored.

If your a Jim Holt hater, you whine about how Jim has joined the leftside of the force and stabbing Rove in the back as the left hangs him. Blinded by hate, you fail to understand the concept of a If/then statement and scream that a former NSA agent doesn't know as much about this issue as you do.

If your a conservative, you realize that Holt's statement is the same as the Bush if/then statement. You also know that Miss Plame/Wilson is not America's 007 secret agent and that half her freinds/neighbors already knew about her anyway. You probably know that Wilson was a Kerry supporter who went to Niger to bash the War on Terror. You probably also know that after some chit-chat at some parties, Wilson claimed Saddam didn't want Uranium from Niger and that real intellegence agents from Britian still state otherwise. You also know the concept of an if/then statement and decide NOT to scream about these Holt comments like an idiot.

3:59 PM, July 18, 2005  
Blogger The Partisan Arkansan said...

Im a Holt supporter, and I dont mean bad , But why did the AP call Jim for a comment

5:56 PM, July 19, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

I guess they were trolling around for a Republican who would not say "My guy can do no wrong". It takes two increasingly rare things to do that: integrity and courage.

In this case they need to be combined with a background that would enable them to understand the seriousness of the allegations. Since Sen. Holt spent 9 years in the Army with a specialty in intelligence he has the required background to speak knowledgably about this- few of his critics do.

As Don Elkins points out, if Plame had been in some African country posing as a business woman or party girl and made some "friends", those friends could still be intelligence sources for our country. The bloody dictator who runs the place might not mind if some of his generals were friends of that American Business Woman. Once he discovers that the business women was actually a CIA operative, he takes everone of his countrymen who were her known associates and feeds them to the crocodiles.

Right now, undercover CIA agents are working throughout the world trying to establish contacts and get them to work for us. If you were such a potential contact, do you think you would be inclined to put your life on the line knowing that six years later the President's Deputy could blow your cover to the press just to squelch a story?

Rove's actions hurt America's national security. Right now, in the middle of a "War on Terror", it hurt us. Sen. Jim Holt understands that. The braying donkeys that are his critics don't.

Sen. Holt is not partisan, just conservative. It is hard for some people to grasp the difference.

7:41 AM, July 21, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Best regards from NY! Nice rent car Adware removal software block pop up ad Tuxedo shirt for woman Jackson hole time share coming down from concerta A&e awning instructions law student ritalin mastel botox sarajevo Ritalin for treatment of cluster headaches Ferrari 250 gt lusso Plain n' fancy cabinets moving company Baccarat new york credit score trans union Mild anti depressant

9:53 AM, February 15, 2007  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home