If Dems hope to catch Rove on this , they are crazy. Rove is too smart to get his hands dirty in the cookie jars. My guess is that Rove and his gang probably never mentioned Wilson's wife by name when they called up Cooper and other reporters. All they had to do was saying Wilson's wife work for the CIA. It would not be too hard to figure out what she does through other sources.
Secondly, Fitzgerald WILL whitewash the whole thing, and you hear it here first. Keep in mind, Fitzgerald is a Repub and has higher asperations possibly as the FBI chief. Clearing Rove and other suspects will help his cause big time. As we have witnessed, and Fitzgerald has witnessed, Bush treated loyal employees real well by promoting them regardless of their misdeeds.
If Fitzgerlad is serious, he would pursue obstruction of justice charge against Bush, Cheney and others but he won't. It is over. Fitzgerald will file a report saying Rove and others did not know Plame was undercover, case closed.
Posted by john at July 4, 2005 11:25 AMGreat summation of what's what. The more I read about this case, the more I believe O'Donnell got a little too hasty with the scoop. It appears to me that while he knew Rove's name would be revealed in Cooper's notes, O'Donnell didn't know much more than that. He pretends to know when he says Luskin is lying, but I think all he's doing is trying to get a bigger name for himself. And he never said Rove's the leaker, he said Rove is Cooper's source.
Why Cooper still refused to reveal his source seems the central mystery at this point, since Rove gave him the waiver. As you reminded us in the Treasongate thread: One Senior Administration Official said that before Novak's column came out, TWO top White House Officials called reporters outing Plame.
If I had any faith in the justice department, I'd think Fitz was angling for bigger fish, but this Newsweek article is beginning to look red herring-ish to me.
Posted by iamcoyote at July 4, 2005 12:29 PMO'Donnell has more to say - he parses Luskins use of the word "knowing"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/featuredposts.html#a003637
Posted by bz at July 4, 2005 01:06 PMO'Donnell's a liar. Almost as much of one as Joe Wilson. I can't wait to see his credibility exploded once again.
Posted by Toby Petzold at July 4, 2005 02:26 PMrove's not the big fish. even if he was the source, he wasn't in a position to know in the first place. who told rove?
Posted by benjoya at July 4, 2005 02:56 PMpoppy bush called wilson a hero. but then again, he trusted traitors like general scowcroft. fortunately, the republican party has wised up and no longer listens to the military.
Posted by benjoya at July 4, 2005 02:59 PMO'Donnell's a liar. Almost as much of one as Joe Wilson.
Joe Wilson a liar? Good one! Maybe you have an example?
If Joe Wilson is a liar, what possible word could be used to describe Bush?
Posted by Repack Rider at July 4, 2005 03:01 PMRove's not the big fish? Huh???
What would be your definition of a big fish?
Posted by Bones at July 4, 2005 03:56 PMRepack:
Joe Wilson a liar? Good one! Maybe you have an example?
Yeah. Why did he deny that his wife got him the assignment to Niger?
Posted by Toby Petzold at July 4, 2005 03:57 PMI read a cool article on MSNBC Newsweek that details some of the back story to the White House leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Here is a list of the most pertinent details:
1) The Time reporter Mathew Cooper aswell as an NY Times journalist is refusing to testify inspite of the decision to hand over the documents pertaining to the investigation by Time Inc. editor in chief Norman Pearlstine. They potentially face a jail sentence.
2) The ascribed motivation for the leak, which I didn't fully grasp beforehand, was to undermine the credibility of Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger. Plame was based there, and it was implied that her nepotism lead to Wilson's employ, and in turn, damages the validity of his findings. His findings were that there was no evidence to support the assertion that Iraq purchased enriched Uranium from Niger.
3) It seems that Bob Novak has made some kind of deal with Special Council Fitzgerald, as he is not being aggressively held to account like the Time and NY TImes reporters are. This is very strange.
4) Mathew Cooper has divulged that one of his sources was a top aide to Dick Cheney. He provided this information when said aide gave him permission to do so.
5) Rove's interaction with Cooper took place almost a week before the Novak article outed Plame.
6) Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin has made two interesting statements about what Rove did not say to Cooper in his coversation. Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA," according to the Newsweek article. The first statement implies that Rove did pass on classfied information, but just wasn't aware that he was doing so. The second implies that Rove DID discuss Valerie Plame with Cooper but simply didn't make reference to the fact that she was a CIA operative.
My assessment of this would be that Rove told Cooper that Valerie Plame worked in Niger and got Wilson, her husband, the job there. This is a pretty wild estimation, but I feel pretty confident this is the case.
7) According the Newsweek, a couple of days after Novak's column was published, Rove called Chris Mathews and told him that Wilson's wife was "fair game." OUCH!!!
The problem is that the story is complicated, the stakes are difficult to condense into a soundbite, and the extent to which the story will become a topic of conversation amongst the general public is difficult to assess. A lot of evidence is leading towards serious misconduct by the White House senior political advisor. I don't understand why this isn't a bigger story. It's obviously because most news organisations are treading very carefully because of the severity of the implications.
Posted by Graham Christopher at July 4, 2005 03:57 PMEven though Rove may have given Cooper permission to talk to the Grand Jury about their conversations, other sources may not have given Cooper such permission. If Cooper chooses to testify before the Grand Jury, however, he cannot assert ANY privileges or constitutional refusals to answer some questions but not others. In other words, if Cooper talks about one source, he has to talk about all of the sources.
I suspect that there is a form of "three card monty" going on here between Cooper, Miller, and the White House sources (Rove and others). They were all feeding and receiving information amongst themselves. Rove's magnanimous gesture for Cooper to "tell all" was an empty gesture, because none of the three can tell the truth -- to do so would open them up to perjury, obstruction of justice, war crimes, and violation of the Intelligence Acts protecting undercover spys.
We understand Rove's contemptible nature, and Miller was single-handedly the biggest lever that got us into this war -- both of these two wanted the war and the accolades that came from being so far out front of everyone else. What I don't get, yet, is what Cooper expected to reap from this evil compact. Any guesses?
Posted by Analytical Liberal at July 4, 2005 04:05 PMToby, i'm surprised you're still showing your "face" around here after the thrashing you took at Eschaton.
Man, you must still got the redass.
Posted by Teaser at July 4, 2005 04:07 PMChristopher:
The ascribed motivation for the leak, which I didn't fully grasp beforehand, was to undermine the credibility of Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger.
Maybe you didn't fully grasp it before because you are not yet a barking moonbat who thinks that such a rationale makes any sense whatsoever.
Plame was based there,
That's news to me. If she was based there, why didn't she do the investigation?
and it was implied that her nepotism lead to Wilson's employ
But that is what happened. And he denies it!
and in turn, damages the validity of his findings.
He didn't do anything to find out jack. He rubbed elbows and drank tea.
His findings were that there was no evidence to support the assertion that Iraq purchased enriched Uranium from Niger.
Which is not only false, but contradicts what he put in his own report. If you people were to actually read the facts of this case, you wouldn't be sticking up for Wilson. Or, at least, you'd stop championing his cause. Unless you're simply too far gone into the anti-war lunacy.
Hullabaloo has a good article on Rove also.
Posted by at July 4, 2005 04:18 PMTeaser:
Toby, i'm surprised you're still showing your "face" around here after the thrashing you took at Eschaton.
That never happened. I was banned because Duncan Black got tired of me exposing his groupies as a bunch of vulgar-minded drones who don't know how to rebut me.
Posted by Toby Petzold at July 4, 2005 04:18 PMTeaser, well it's not as if he is macho or ahem man enough and willing to stand up and risk his life for his principles and join the military for a stint in Iraq. This is much easier for him. What the most that might happen is a broken fingernail or something worse, maybe the dreaded carpal tunnel syndrome.... Oh the humanity. He's just a blowhard and pretty harmless but thinks he is something special. It's worth ignoring him over here too. He loves the attention (negative and positive), don't give him it.
Posted by at July 4, 2005 04:19 PMJoe Wilson a liar? Good one! Maybe you have an example?
Yeah. Why did he deny that his wife got him the assignment to Niger?
Because she was not in a position to do so, which means she didn't. Of course, as the former ambassador to Niger, as well as the ambassador to Iraq, he was the best qualified for the job.
See how easy it is?
Posted by Repack Rider at July 4, 2005 07:31 PMTobytroll, you represent a minority, and a shrinking one at that. Your opinions and thoughts have been shown to be wrong, misguided, plain lies, and above all, pure baloney. Get away...and take your 42% loser president with you.
Posted by T2 at July 4, 2005 07:32 PMIf, as Luskin says, Rove has signed a "waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their about their conversations with him," (Dave J has also pointed this out) then why would Matt Cooper refuse to testify to the grand jury? Well, for one thing, it may be because Cooper had more than one source for his article. But even if that were to be the case, why would he not testify to the grand jury about conversations he had with Karl Rove? This is puzzling to me. (Perhaps some lawyer-readers/bloggers could comment?)
Both Miller and Cooper are refusing to testify about sources that have waived confidentiality in writing. (Fitzgerald's court filings confirm that he already has a waiver from Miller's source - details and links in the update to this post. Why, I don't know. Their thinking must be that "once I promise a source confidentiality, I am bound to honor that promise, even if the promisee decides to waive it." Misguided, IMHO, especially since we're talking about a federal crime here. The other possibility is that Miller and Cooper believe that the waivers were signed under "duress," and are therefore legally invalid. But that call, of course, is not theirs to make. (Of course, that hasn't stopped them yet in this tiresome matter.)
Posted by David at July 5, 2005 07:54 PM