0
   

Rove was the source of the Plame leak... so it appears

 
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 06:07 am
I am appalled on many fronts.

That our journalists, investigative or not, aren't good enough in doing their jobs.

That the company that employs such journalists does not have the 'vision thing' or journalistic integrity, or political courage; to make such findings front and center and hammer away at them.

That the populace, even when the first two points are correct, doesn't pay any attention, and/or doesn't care sufficiently to get off their collective asses and insist that something be done.

Something, anything at all. But not apathy or ignorance.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 06:23 am
mysteryman wrote:
kelticwizard wrote:
Foxfyre:

As I have mentioned several times in this thread, it does not matter that Novak called Rove. Novak recited the tale of Wilson and Plame, which he had gotten from a senior Administration official, and Rove either said, "I heard that too,", (Rove's version] or "Oh, you know about it", (Novak's version).

If those words are to be interpreted as confirming the story, which was a leak, then Rove is in trouble for confirming a leak. Security regulations say clearly there is no difference between confirming a leak and committing the leak itself.


KW,
I do have a small problem with what you are saying,and here is why...
Saying " I heard that too" is not neccessarily confirming something.
For example,if someone tells you that there is a monster in Loch Ness,and you say "I heard that too",are you confirming that the monster exists?
No,what you are doing is saying that you heard the same story.
That does not,by itself,mean that it is true.
One small problem MM.. Loch Ness isn't covered by National Security Clearance regulations.

The correct response is to not comment at all. Any other response confirming or agreeing with it is a violation of regulations. I heard that too is a leak.

If "I heard that too" is allowed then reporters could just keep asking questions, pretending they know something even though they don't, until they stumble on one that gets an affirmative response.
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 06:42 am
It appaers that Fitzgerald is pursuing comspiracy charges, perjury and obstruction of justice.

From new issue of Time (time.com, subscription only)

Quote:
From legal and political angles, it looks better if Administration officials were leakees, not leakers. If the blame for blowing the cover of a CIA officer can be spread around, so much the better. And it suggests the challenge that Fitzgerald may face in building a case. It is one thing if Rove happened to hear from a reporter that Plame was a CIA officer, casually confirmed that he had already heard that to another reporter (Novak) and incidentally spread the word to a third (Cooper). It's perhaps something else if Administration officials made an effort to gather information on Wilson, discovered that his wife was a CIA officer and carried out a strategy to discredit Wilson that included outing his wife to a number of reporters. It is still another thing to do the second and pretend, under oath, that you had done the first.
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 06:42 am
It is tough to enter this conversation when there is SO much Ad Hominem going on.

What are the facts - Did Rove leak information that 'outed' an undercover CIA agent? That is all.

Landmines in this case:

1) Wilson lied first.
2) Reporters not 'doing thier job'.
3) Rove evil overlord of the universe.

etc.

Just the facts maam.

TTF
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 06:51 am
More on the perjury angle from nytimes.com

Quote:
In any event, the investigation of the Wilson case may have moved beyond the 1982 law. The special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, may also be examining the accounts given by officials to investigators and to the grand jury in light of Mr. Cooper's testimony.

If the differences are significant, Mr. Fitzgerald could consider filing obstruction of justice or perjury charges.

"They would line up what Cooper says and what his notes say with what Rove told the grand jury on three occasions and see to what extent there is a material variation," said Kirby D. Behre, a former federal prosecutor who is now with Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker in Washington.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 07:00 am
Well, I would assume that they would do that.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 07:04 am
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/politics/18rove.html?hp&ex=1121659200&en=5d074605a9c862ec&ei=5094&partner=homepage

July 18, 2005
Reporter Says He First Learned of C.I.A. Operative From Rove
By LORNE MANLY and DAVID JOHNSTON
Matthew Cooper, a reporter for Time magazine, said the White House senior adviser Karl Rove was the first person to tell him that the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was a C.I.A. officer, according to a first-person account in this week's issue of the magazine.

The account also stated that Mr. Rove said Mr. Wilson's wife had played a role in sending Mr. Wilson to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq.

The article, a description of Mr. Cooper's testimony last Wednesday to a federal grand jury trying to determine whether White House officials illegally disclosed the identity of a covert intelligence officer, offered the most detailed account yet of how a White House official purportedly did not merely confirm what a journalist knew but supplied that information.

Mr. Cooper said in his article that Mr. Rove did not mention the name of Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, or say that she was a covert officer. But, he wrote: "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.

"Is any of this a crime? Beats me."

The details in Mr. Cooper's article about his conversation with Mr. Rove are largely consistent with the broad outlines of Mr. Rove's grand jury testimony about the conversation as portrayed in news accounts.

But Mr. Cooper's article, a rare look inside the deliberations from a prime participant in this political and journalistic drama, is likely to add fuel to a political firestorm over whether there was a White House effort to disclose Ms. Wilson's identity as payback for her husband's criticism of the administration.

Mr. Rove's allies have said that he did not initiate any conversations with reporters and that he was merely warning them off what he said was faulty information. But White House statements over the past two years have left the impression that administration officials were not involved in identifying Ms. Wilson.

Mr. Cooper also wrote about a conversation he initiated with I. Lewis Libby, chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney. Although it has been known that reporters spoke to Mr. Libby, what he said was not known. His conversation with Mr. Cooper is the first indication that Mr. Libby was aware of Ms. Wilson's role in her husband's trip to Africa. When Mr. Cooper asked if Mr. Libby knew of that, Mr. Libby said he had heard that as well, the article said.

Both Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove sought to dispel speculation that Mr. Cheney had played a role in dispatching Mr. Wilson on his mission.

Mr. Cooper's article was the fulcrum for a day of partisan bickering on the television news talk programs, cable news channels and the Web. Some Democrats, saying Mr. Rove's credibility was in tatters, again called for his dismissal, while Republicans continued to defend him, saying Democrats were prejudging a continuing investigation and were trying to injure Mr. Rove's reputation with information that actually vindicated him.

"It's wrong, it's outrageous, and folks involved in this, frankly, owe Karl Rove an apology," Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said yesterday on "Meet the Press" on NBC.

Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, declined to comment yesterday on the details in Mr. Cooper's article. He has said previously that prosecutors advised Mr. Rove that he was not a target in the case. Mr. Libby and his lawyer, Joseph A. Tate, have said in the past that they will not discuss the matter. Efforts to reach Mr. Tate yesterday were unsuccessful.

Mr. Cooper found himself in front of the grand jury on Wednesday morning, a week after a receiving "an express personal release from my source," sparing him a jail sentence for civil contempt of court. Another reporter facing the same punishment that day, Judith Miller of The New York Times, was jailed after refusing to disclose her source for an article she never wrote.

Mr. Cooper had refused to testify about what a confidential source, now known to be Mr. Rove, had told him for an article that appeared on Time magazine's Web site on July 17, 2003, about administration officials "having taken public and private whacks" at Mr. Wilson.

It can be a crime to knowingly name a covert officer for the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. Rove's supporters have argued that he did not know of her history as a covert operative and questioned whether she remained one under the statute.

The Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into the leak in September 2003. But with pressure mounting on the administration to appoint an independent counsel, Attorney General John Ashcroft that December recused himself from the inquiry, and Patrick J. Fitzgerald, a federal prosecutor in Chicago, was chosen as special counsel.

Under federal law, prosecutors and grand jurors are sworn to secrecy. And while witnesses are free to discuss their testimony, Mr. Fitzgerald has asked that the witnesses not comment. Administration officials have heeded the request.

Mr. Cooper did not, instead providing a glimpse inside an inquiry engulfing Mr. Rove, the quintessential Bush insider who is on the cover of Time and Newsweek this week.

Mr. Cooper estimated that he spent about a third of his two and a half hours of testimony responding to jurors' questions, rather than to the prosecutor's, although Mr. Fitzgerald asked questions on their behalf.

"Virtually all the questions centered on the week of July 6, 2003," Mr. Cooper wrote. Mr. Wilson wrote an Op-Ed article that appeared in The New York Times that day challenging the veracity of 16 words in Mr. Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech, which claimed that British intelligence believed that Saddam Hussein had sought nuclear fuel in Africa.

Mr. Cooper, who had just a few weeks earlier become a White House correspondent after serving as deputy bureau chief in Washington, wrote that he called Mr. Rove the next Friday, July 11. He said he told the grand jury he was interested in "an ancillary question" to whoever had vetted the president's State of the Union address: "why government officials, publicly and privately, seemed to be disparaging Mr. Wilson" after the White House had said the claim about nuclear fuel should not have been in the speech.

But the Bush White House is not known for backing down from challenges, and Mr. Wilson had asserted that the administration had "twisted" intelligence about the threat posed by Iraq and was becoming increasingly public about his views after the Op-Ed article appeared.

Mr. Cooper said he spoke to Mr. Rove on "deep background," saying the sourcing description of "double super secret background" he used in his e-mail message to his boss was "not a journalistic term of art" but a reference to the film "Animal House," where the Delta House fraternity was placed on "double secret probation."

"The notes, and my subsequent e-mails, go on to indicate that Rove told me material was going to be declassified in the coming days that would cast doubt on Wilson's mission and his findings," Mr. Cooper wrote.

Mr. Cooper also wrote that he told the grand jury he was certain Mr. Rove never mentioned Ms. Wilson by name, and that he did not learn of her identity until several days later, when he either read it in a column by the syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who referred to her by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, or found it through a Google search.

"Rove did, however, clearly indicate that she worked at the 'agency' - by that, I told the grand jury, I inferred he obviously meant the C.I.A. and not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency. Rove added that that she worked on W.M.D. (the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction) issues and that she was responsible for sending Wilson. This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife."

The Senate Intelligence Committee, in its report, said interviews and documents provided by the C.I.A.'s counterproliferation division indicate that Ms. Wilson suggested her husband for the trip. Ms. Wilson portrayed her role as minimal to the committee and said she attended a meeting involving Mr. Wilson, intelligence analysts and other C.I.A. officials only to introduce her husband.

In his article, Mr. Cooper also shared a memory that was not in his notes or e-mail messages: Mr. Rove's ending the phone call by saying, "I've already said too much."

"This could have meant he was worried about being indiscreet, or it could have meant he was late for a meeting or something else," he wrote. "I don't know, but that sign-off has been in my memory for two years."

In the article, Mr. Cooper writes only of his dealings with Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby, but under questioning by Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" yesterday, Mr. Cooper hinted that he might have had more sources for the original article.

"Did Fitzgerald's questions give me a sense of where the investigation is heading? Perhaps," Mr. Cooper added. "He asked me several different ways if Rove indicated how he had heard that Plame worked at the C.I.A. (He did not, I told the grand jury.) Maybe Fitzgerald is interested in whether Rove knew her C.I.A. ties through a person or through a document."

Novak's CNN Job Is Safe for Now

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif., July 17 (AP) - Mr. Novak's status as a CNN contributor will remain unaffected during a federal investigation into the revelation of a C.I.A. officer's identity, executives at the news channel said Sunday.

"I think we're all aware that no one really knows what's going on in the investigation of the Valerie Plame incident," said Jonathan Klein, president of CNN/U.S. "So it would be awfully presumptuous of us to take steps against a guy in his career based on second-, third-, fourth-hand reporting."
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 07:14 am
Pile them on. The more the merrier.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 07:15 am
Didn't mean to duplicate CI's post, something is wrong with my computer and I missed some posts.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 07:27 am
The funniest thing on Meet the Press was after Mehlman had praised Fitzgerald when Russert asked if Mehlman and the RNC would abide by whatever Fitzgerald's findings were.
Mehlman refused to answer the question even though asked twice and prompted by the Dem guest to say "yes."

And then 5 minutes latter Mehlman complained about others on the show not answering questions. I roared at that one.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 07:30 am
Thanks for the Time snippets, Chrissee.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 07:33 am
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1462833#1462833

Here is an off-topic discussion of interest to me, if it is of interest to anyone here reading these posts.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 09:51 am
July 18, 2005
Reporter Says He First Learned of C.I.A. Operative From Rove
By LORNE MANLY and DAVID JOHNSTON
Matthew Cooper, a reporter for Time magazine, said the White House senior adviser Karl Rove was the first person to tell him that the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was a C.I.A. officer, according to a first-person account in this week's issue of the magazine.

The account also stated that Mr. Rove said Mr. Wilson's wife had played a role in sending Mr. Wilson to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq.

The article, a description of Mr. Cooper's testimony last Wednesday to a federal grand jury trying to determine whether White House officials illegally disclosed the identity of a covert intelligence officer, offered the most detailed account yet of how a White House official purportedly did not merely confirm what a journalist knew but supplied that information.

Mr. Cooper said in his article that Mr. Rove did not mention the name of Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, or say that she was a covert officer. But, he wrote: "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.

"Is any of this a crime? Beats me."

The details in Mr. Cooper's article about his conversation with Mr. Rove are largely consistent with the broad outlines of Mr. Rove's grand jury testimony about the conversation as portrayed in news accounts.

But Mr. Cooper's article, a rare look inside the deliberations from a prime participant in this political and journalistic drama, is likely to add fuel to a political firestorm over whether there was a White House effort to disclose Ms. Wilson's identity as payback for her husband's criticism of the administration.

Mr. Rove's allies have said that he did not initiate any conversations with reporters and that he was merely warning them off what he said was faulty information. But White House statements over the past two years have left the impression that administration officials were not involved in identifying Ms. Wilson.

Mr. Cooper also wrote about a conversation he initiated with I. Lewis Libby, chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney. Although it has been known that reporters spoke to Mr. Libby, what he said was not known. His conversation with Mr. Cooper is the first indication that Mr. Libby was aware of Ms. Wilson's role in her husband's trip to Africa. When Mr. Cooper asked if Mr. Libby knew of that, Mr. Libby said he had heard that as well, the article said.

Both Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove sought to dispel speculation that Mr. Cheney had played a role in dispatching Mr. Wilson on his mission.

Mr. Cooper's article was the fulcrum for a day of partisan bickering on the television news talk programs, cable news channels and the Web. Some Democrats, saying Mr. Rove's credibility was in tatters, again called for his dismissal, while Republicans continued to defend him, saying Democrats were prejudging a continuing investigation and were trying to injure Mr. Rove's reputation with information that actually vindicated him.

"It's wrong, it's outrageous, and folks involved in this, frankly, owe Karl Rove an apology," Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said yesterday on "Meet the Press" on NBC.

Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, declined to comment yesterday on the details in Mr. Cooper's article. He has said previously that prosecutors advised Mr. Rove that he was not a target in the case. Mr. Libby and his lawyer, Joseph A. Tate, have said in the past that they will not discuss the matter. Efforts to reach Mr. Tate yesterday were unsuccessful.

Mr. Cooper found himself in front of the grand jury on Wednesday morning, a week after a receiving "an express personal release from my source," sparing him a jail sentence for civil contempt of court. Another reporter facing the same punishment that day, Judith Miller of The New York Times, was jailed after refusing to disclose her source for an article she never wrote.

Mr. Cooper had refused to testify about what a confidential source, now known to be Mr. Rove, had told him for an article that appeared on Time magazine's Web site on July 17, 2003, about administration officials "having taken public and private whacks" at Mr. Wilson.

It can be a crime to knowingly name a covert officer for the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. Rove's supporters have argued that he did not know of her history as a covert operative and questioned whether she remained one under the statute.

The Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into the leak in September 2003. But with pressure mounting on the administration to appoint an independent counsel, Attorney General John Ashcroft that December recused himself from the inquiry, and Patrick J. Fitzgerald, a federal prosecutor in Chicago, was chosen as special counsel.

Under federal law, prosecutors and grand jurors are sworn to secrecy. And while witnesses are free to discuss their testimony, Mr. Fitzgerald has asked that the witnesses not comment. Administration officials have heeded the request.

Mr. Cooper did not, instead providing a glimpse inside an inquiry engulfing Mr. Rove, the quintessential Bush insider who is on the cover of Time and Newsweek this week.

Mr. Cooper estimated that he spent about a third of his two and a half hours of testimony responding to jurors' questions, rather than to the prosecutor's, although Mr. Fitzgerald asked questions on their behalf.

"Virtually all the questions centered on the week of July 6, 2003," Mr. Cooper wrote. Mr. Wilson wrote an Op-Ed article that appeared in The New York Times that day challenging the veracity of 16 words in Mr. Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech, which claimed that British intelligence believed that Saddam Hussein had sought nuclear fuel in Africa.

Mr. Cooper, who had just a few weeks earlier become a White House correspondent after serving as deputy bureau chief in Washington, wrote that he called Mr. Rove the next Friday, July 11. He said he told the grand jury he was interested in "an ancillary question" to whoever had vetted the president's State of the Union address: "why government officials, publicly and privately, seemed to be disparaging Mr. Wilson" after the White House had said the claim about nuclear fuel should not have been in the speech.

But the Bush White House is not known for backing down from challenges, and Mr. Wilson had asserted that the administration had "twisted" intelligence about the threat posed by Iraq and was becoming increasingly public about his views after the Op-Ed article appeared.

Mr. Cooper said he spoke to Mr. Rove on "deep background," saying the sourcing description of "double super secret background" he used in his e-mail message to his boss was "not a journalistic term of art" but a reference to the film "Animal House," where the Delta House fraternity was placed on "double secret probation."

"The notes, and my subsequent e-mails, go on to indicate that Rove told me material was going to be declassified in the coming days that would cast doubt on Wilson's mission and his findings," Mr. Cooper wrote.

Mr. Cooper also wrote that he told the grand jury he was certain Mr. Rove never mentioned Ms. Wilson by name, and that he did not learn of her identity until several days later, when he either read it in a column by the syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who referred to her by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, or found it through a Google search.

"Rove did, however, clearly indicate that she worked at the 'agency' - by that, I told the grand jury, I inferred he obviously meant the C.I.A. and not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency. Rove added that that she worked on W.M.D. (the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction) issues and that she was responsible for sending Wilson. This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife."

The Senate Intelligence Committee, in its report, said interviews and documents provided by the C.I.A.'s counterproliferation division indicate that Ms. Wilson suggested her husband for the trip. Ms. Wilson portrayed her role as minimal to the committee and said she attended a meeting involving Mr. Wilson, intelligence analysts and other C.I.A. officials only to introduce her husband.

In his article, Mr. Cooper also shared a memory that was not in his notes or e-mail messages: Mr. Rove's ending the phone call by saying, "I've already said too much."

"This could have meant he was worried about being indiscreet, or it could have meant he was late for a meeting or something else," he wrote. "I don't know, but that sign-off has been in my memory for two years."

In the article, Mr. Cooper writes only of his dealings with Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby, but under questioning by Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" yesterday, Mr. Cooper hinted that he might have had more sources for the original article.

"Did Fitzgerald's questions give me a sense of where the investigation is heading? Perhaps," Mr. Cooper added. "He asked me several different ways if Rove indicated how he had heard that Plame worked at the C.I.A. (He did not, I told the grand jury.) Maybe Fitzgerald is interested in whether Rove knew her C.I.A. ties through a person or through a document."

Novak's CNN Job Is Safe for Now

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif., July 17 (AP) - Mr. Novak's status as a CNN contributor will remain unaffected during a federal investigation into the revelation of a C.I.A. officer's identity, executives at the news channel said Sunday.

"I think we're all aware that no one really knows what's going on in the investigation of the Valerie Plame incident," said Jonathan Klein, president of CNN/U.S. "So it would be awfully presumptuous of us to take steps against a guy in his career based on second-, third-, fourth-hand reporting."
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 10:11 am
Quote:
Outing Plame may not have been illegal. What is the prosecutor hunting?

Sunday, July 17, 2005

Why is special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald pursuing so zealously the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame, since it is all but impossible to prove that the leaker or leakers committed a crime?

The Intelligence Identities Protection Act requires that the leaker have learned the identity of a "covert agent" from authorized sources. And it requires that the leak be deliberate.

The law defines a "covert agent" as someone working undercover overseas, or who has done so in the last five years. Plame had operated under non-official cover, but was outed by CIA traitor Aldrich Ames, and has been manning a desk at CIA headquarters since 1997.

So why is Fitzgerald acting like Inspector Javert in "Les Miserables"? The answer may lie in a sentence Walter Pincus of The Washington Post wrote on June 12, 2003. First, some background:

At Plame's suggestion, the CIA sent her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, to Niger in February 2002 to investigate a report by a foreign intelligence service that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium. In his report to the CIA (as documented by the Senate Intelligence Committee), Wilson said Iraqis had approached Nigerien officials. In 1999, an Iraqi delegation met with the prime minister in the interest of "expanding commercial relations" -- which the prime minister interpreted to mean uranium sales -- but no deal had been made.

In September 2002, the British government published a white paper in which it made public British intelligence's belief that Saddam had tried to buy uranium in Africa. A month later, the CIA received from an Italian source documents purporting to show that Niger and Iraq had done a deal. These turned out to be forgeries.

President Bush mentioned the British findings in his State of the Union address in January 2003. In his leaks to Pincus, and earlier to New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, Wilson claimed Bush knew this was false. The key sentence in Pincus' story is this:

"Among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong,' the former U.S. government official said."

Wilson's official role ended when he returned from Niger in March. The CIA didn't get the Italian forgeries until October. Wilson had no access to them. He either was making up what he told Kristof and Pincus, or he had received an unauthorized leak of classified information.

Wilson outed himself in an op-ed in the New York Times on July 6, 2003, "What I Didn't Find in Africa," which described his CIA-sponsored trip to Niger in 2002. On July 14, 2003, columnist Robert Novak wondered why Wilson, who had no intelligence background and strong anti-Bush views, had been selected for the Niger mission. "Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report," he wrote. That set off the Plame name game.

Journalists lost interest when in July 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded Wilson was lying about who sent him to Niger and what he learned there. Furthermore, the Butler Commission concluded reports Saddam was trying to buy uranium were "well founded."

But by then the special prosecutor they'd sought had been appointed, and Fitzgerald was demanding testimony from two reporters, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, who wrote a story about Plame, and Judith Miller of the New York Times, who didn't.

Journalistic interest revived when Cooper revealed his source was Bush political guru Karl Rove. Novak (the journalist who outed Plame) hasn't revealed his sources. But a fawning profile of Wilson and Plame in Vanity Fair in January 2004 offers a clue:

"Wilson was caught off guard when around July 9 he received a phone call from Robert Novak who, according to Wilson, said he'd been told by a CIA source that Wilson's wife worked for the agency."

Cooper is a free man because Rove gave him explicit permission to talk about their conversation. Miller is in jail because her source didn't, suggesting he or she is someone other than Rove.

Liberals want Rove's scalp. But the revelation Friday (if true) that Rove learned of Plame's occupation from a journalist makes it most unlikely that he could prosecuted successfully under the Identities Act.

Maybe Rove -- or someone else -- lied to the grand jury. Or maybe Fitzgerald is investigating a different crime.

What if someone in the CIA was leaking classified information to influence the 2004 election? Uncovering a crime like that would be worthy of Inspector Javert's doggedness.

I suspect the biggest shoe in this case has yet to drop, and liberal journalists won't be happy when it does.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 10:19 am
Your writer lost credibility here:

Quote:
Journalists lost interest when in July 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded Wilson was lying about who sent him to Niger and what he learned there.


When he resorted to a lie. Which you know as well as I do.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 10:21 am
And why, Tico, are you attempting to obfuscate or otherwise divert attention from this?
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 10:24 am
Let's get this 'driving' issue out on the table for discussion. Why the defenses and apologists?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 10:25 am
sumac wrote:
And why, Tico, are you attempting to obfuscate or otherwise divert attention from this?


From your "Expatriation" thread? Sorry, not my intent.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 10:33 am
Quote:
NEW YORK In his first TV interview since testifying to the grand jury in the Plame case, Time magazine's Matthew Cooper suggested to Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday morning that he heard about Plame in July 2003 from more than just two administration officials, Karl Rove and "Scooter" Libby. He first said there "may have" been other sources, then confirmed that he had told the grand jury about them, indicating they did exist.

He would not identify them.

Cooper also told Russert that he first heard about Plame from Rove during their now famous interview, and that Rove said at the close of their conversation, "I've already said too much." Cooper said he did not know what to make of that admission, but "I know it has stuck in my head for two years."

He said that when Libby talked about Plame he "interpreted this as confirmation."

Cooper has a cover story coming out Monday in Time on the case. In it, Cooper writes: "When [Rove] said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know. Is any of this a crime? Beats me."


ed and pub link

transcript of the Russert/Cooper interview


from/about Cooper's article in Time

Quote:
Cooper also reveals what he describes as a surprising line of questioning: "The prosecutor asked if I had ever called Mr. Rove about the topic of welfare reform. Just the day before my grand jury testimony Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, had told journalists that when I telephoned Rove that July, it was about welfare reform and that I suddenly switched topics to the Wilson matter.

"After my grand jury appearance, I did go back and review my e-mails from that week, and it seems as if I was, at the beginning of the week, hoping to publish an article in TIME on lessons of the 1996 welfare-reform law, but the article got put aside, as often happens when news overtakes story plans. My welfare-reform story ran as a short item two months later, and I was asked about it extensively. To me this suggested that Rove may have testified that we had talked about welfare reform, and indeed earlier in the week, I may have left a message with his office asking if I could talk to him about welfare reform.

"But I can't find any record of talking about it with him on July 11, and I don't recall doing so."
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Jul, 2005 10:37 am
this whole thing reminds me of "hogan's heros", colonel clink and sergeant schulz :
"i know nothing, herr commandant ! "
hbg
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Karl Rove E-mails - Discussion by Diest TKO
Rove: McCain went 'too far' in ads - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Sheryl Crow Battles Karl Rove at D.C. Press Dinner - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
Texas attorney fired for Rove article comments - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/01/2024 at 08:28:53