1
   

Novak-Rove, who's telling the truth?

 
 
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 06:16 am
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
July 12, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Columnist Robert Novak said publicly for the first time Tuesday that White House political adviser Karl Rove was a source for his story outing the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

In a column, Novak also says his recollection of his conversation with Rove differs from what the Rove camp has said. "I have revealed Rove's name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection," Novak wrote. Novak did not elaborate.

A spokesman for Rove's legal team, Mark Corallo, said Rove did not even know Plame's name at the time he spoke with Novak, the columnist called Rove, not the other way around, and Rove simply said he had heard the same information that Novak passed along to him regarding Plame.

"There was not much of a difference" between the recollections of Rove and Novak, said Corallo.

Novak said he is talking now because Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald told the columnist's lawyer that after 21/2 years his investigation of the CIA leak case concerning matters directly relating to Novak has been concluded.

Triggering the criminal investigation, Novak revealed Plame's CIA employment on July 14, 2003, eight days after her husband, White House critic and former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the administration of manipulating prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction.

Novak's secret cooperation with prosecutors while maintaining a public silence about his role kept him out of legal danger and had the effect of providing protection for the Bush White House during the 2004 presidential campaign.

The White House denied Rove played any role in the leak of Plame's CIA identity, and Novak, with his decision to talk to prosecutors, steered clear of potentially being held in contempt of court and jailed. Novak said he had declined to go public at Fitzgerald's request.

In a syndicated column to be released today, Novak says he told Fitzgerald in early 2004 that Rove and then-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow had confirmed information about Plame.

Contacted Tuesday night, Harlow declined to comment. But a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the matter denied Harlow had been a confirming source for Novak on the story. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Harlow repeatedly tried to talk Novak out of running the information about Plame, and Harlow's efforts did not in any way constitute confirming Plame's CIA identity. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because Harlow may end up being a witness in a separate part of Fitzgerald's investigation, the upcoming criminal trial of Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, on charges of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI.

In his column, Novak said he also told Fitzgerald about another senior administration official who originally provided him with information about Plame. Novak said he cannot publicly reveal the identity of that source even now.
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/46298.html
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 568 • Replies: 7
No top replies

 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jul, 2006 09:08 am
pachelbel said...

Quote:
the public has every right to know what is going on.


So,whats the problem?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 05:36 am
Re: Novak-Rove, who's telling the truth?
dyslexia wrote:

"There was not much of a difference" between the recollections of Rove and Novak, said Corallo.



In response to your question posed in your thread title, dyslexia, probably both. One said, oh you know about that too?, and the other said oh, you've heard that too?, or some such similar words. I don't know about you, dyslexia, but I don't see much difference in the meaning, and I would say it is something bordering on miraculous if anyone could quote their own words or someone elses words, word for word, months or even years later, concerning a short telephone conversation.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 07:30 am
Rove denied having anything to do with revealing Plame's identity as a CIA agent.

Novak said he confirmed she was.

Under Federal law and Executive orders confirming something is the same as revealing it. Rove lied when he said he had nothing to do with revealing Plame's identity. Or Novak lied when he said Rove confirmed it. They both can't be true.

It would appear that Rove is admitting he lied since he is now saying he did confirm it.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 10:18 am
Parados, if her name was not mentioned in the conversation with Novak, and he only acknowledged that Novak had heard the same as him, how is that revealing the identity of Valerie Plame? Novak got her name from Who's Who in America. So if Who's Who confirmed what Novak partially knew, then according to your reasoning, are they also guilty of this crime? Problem, most likely Joseph Wilson himself may have provided the information to Whos Who? Which brings up a question, is Joseph Wilson a possible suspect in this crime?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 11:27 am
Identification is not restricted to name alone. Think about it Okie. Does a crime vicitm have to know the name of the criminal when they pick them out of a lineup?

If I say 'Joe Bloe's wife" is a CIA agent. Anyone that knows who Joe Bloe is would be able to find the wife's name. All I need is enough information to know which Joe Bloe.

If I say, the female that lives in the house at 2311 Oak street in Tulsa Oklahoma is a CIA agent, it would also be an identification.


As to your other argument. If Joe Bloe says, this is my wife Susan. That in no way identifies his wife as a CIA agent. The name of his wife isn't classified.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 11:44 am
Parados, you need to call Fitzgerald and clue him in. All of this precious legal advice that is so obvious to you must have slipped through the cracks, Parados.

Parados, way back when, I said I would not be surprised if the trail led right back to guess who? My theory is the Wilsons themselves. I could be wrong, but I won't be one bit surprised. That is why I look forward to them having to testify under oath.

At the very least, the Wilsons are simply not the horse that Democrats are going to ride to victory. Your side should have figured this out long ago.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jul, 2006 12:08 pm
Fitzgerald already knows this okie. As do most thinking people.

It wasn't the identification that is the problem in finding a culprit. It is being able to prove someone knew it was classified and revealed it anyway.

I have no problem with the Wilsons testifying under oath.

It should be you worried about Cheney, Libby and Rove having to testify under oath. They already have a record of testimony to Fitzgerald. They can't change that testimony now without risking perjury charges. The news reports of testimony to Fitzgerald is the basis of their lawsuit.

If Fitzgerald thinks it was a concerted effort to punish the Wilson's I doubt it will take more than what was told to Fitzgerald to convince 7 of 12 jurors of the same. Civil suits usually don't require everyone on the jury to agree and they have a lower standard of judgement then a criminal trial.

This won't have any effect on the coming election. Depositions probably won't start for months. Maybe not til next year. I am sure the Bush administration will try to argue several factors of why the suit can't go forward.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Novak-Rove, who's telling the truth?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 12:12:35