As I read it, both of these stories are saying that Rove got Plame's NAME from a reporter. They don't say Rove got everything he knew about "Miller's wife" from a reporter. Slippery, that.
More importantly, though, the Times story specifically says that Rove confirmed knowledge of Plame to Novak.
Posted by Jonathan at July 15, 2005 02:36 AMAh, OK. As I read the WP story now, Rove was indeed claiming he got tipped off to Valerie Plame by a "journalist".
The WP notes that, if Rove can make a convincing case that he never knew Plame was undercover, then he wouldn't have committed a crime under that particular statute.
The bottom line, though, is that Rove should have checked on the status of the information. It's reasonable to conclude that such information was likely classified, or at least could have been. Rove was reckless; he spread classified info around for political purposes, then lied about it.
Posted by Jonathan at July 15, 2005 03:05 AMI say beware of a trap.
Rove and Bu$hCo have a way of getting out of things by dropping the bottom out of stories when high expectations aren't met (see National Guard docs, bad debates, lying about Iraq).
Let's not take the first piece of bait that is dangled at us...we must always be wary of who is pulling the strings and how information gets out and is presented (and by whom).
We have to remember Lakoff's writings/speeches about FRAMING issues, and make sure that we play this game on our turf (with our frames).
Let's not let the GOP off easily, and grant that some other official in the White House had the information first, told someone else, who told Novak, etc...Allowing them to stratify blame and de-centralize culpability has long been their greatest ploy.
We need to be focused, fight smartly, and be PRO-ACTIVE not RE-ACTIVE on this one. It's like a final exam.
-Loyal Dem Strategist
Posted by Loyal Dem Strategist at July 15, 2005 04:00 AMwell that sure clears investigation up...i sure am relieved that pumpkinhead had ansolutely nothing to do with outing plame...and that his veracity and integrity remain wholly intact..makes you feel good to know the kind of people in charge of the country..kinda gives you that warm fuzzy safe feeling
Posted by dennis at July 15, 2005 04:00 AMDennis, if true Rove still told Cooper. And when he told Cooper, he knew by then that the information was pertaining to a CIA Agent and should not be divulged. There goes "I didn't know she was CIA" bullshit defense, because Novak told him. Does that make sense?
Posted by Judith at July 15, 2005 04:30 AMI think Judith Miller should be kept in jail until she talks. She may be the key to the WH in this whole sordid story.
Posted by Judith at July 15, 2005 04:33 AMIf none of this is true, then I would think it would prove to Fitzgerald that these people are spinning the truth. That should really piss him off.
Posted by Judith at July 15, 2005 04:42 AMWith the WH being especially cautious about commenting directly or indirectly, or even abstractly, regarding the ongoingcriminalinvestigation, someone in the legal profession (well, until they get caught leaking grand jury testimony) confidentially tells the AP all about Rove's testimony thereby possibly prejudicing the proceedings.
Now, I think McClelland is free to talk all he wants about the matter. If Fitzgerald can't keep the lid on testimony from his side of the fence, why should the White House?
Posted by obelus at July 15, 2005 05:13 AMjudith...the only things that make sense to me about this whole affair is that they are all a pack of liars..all of them.snakes in the grass..rove novak..cheney...after wilson's story appeared in the nyt there was a conspiracy to destroy him..thats obvious..and seeing as how there were no wmd and no nuclear reconstitution by iraq...who does it appear was lieing?..there is a big conspiracy here..about wilson and about manufactured evidence for war...
Posted by dennis at July 15, 2005 05:23 AMWhat this means is that Judy Miller is using her trip to jail as, well, let's call it "plea laundering." She is, herself, guilty of espionage, but being the martyr she is, she's going to prison for 3 months in the name of the First Amendment.
I guess everybody is banking on the prosecutor being unable to find who told Judy through any other means, and assuming that the IIPA, having been the original charge referred for prosecution, is still the only thing Fitz has got. If that's the case, we need to prepare ourselves for a really, really unpleasant October. The GOP triumphalism, insisting there was never anything there at all, will make us angry and nauseous.
If, however, these "subjects" of the investigation are operating under a fundamental misunderstanding of what Fitzgerald knows, and what he thinks he can prove, they are in for a world of hurt probably never before seen in presidential politics.
Posted by Matt Davis at July 15, 2005 05:29 AMYawn. More great economic news out this morning. Inflation disappearing. Looks like another up day in the stock markets. People who vote Republican care more about than news that this pathetic "Rovegate" story. by the way, don't you think it is time to drop the ___gate stuff?
Posted by at July 15, 2005 05:49 AMI doubt we'll have to wait 'til October for the triumphalism, to tell you the truth. The paid punditry got their scripts last night, we should be inundated with "he's innocent" in no time.
Posted by iamcoyote at July 15, 2005 05:51 AMThere was a quote that Digby had the other day about what Novak said in July 22,2003 Newsday interview with them. Some key graphs below.
Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."
Wilson and others said such a disclosure would be a violation of the law by the officials, not the columnist.
Novak reported that his "two senior administration officials" told him that it was Plame who suggested sending her husband, Wilson, to Niger.
That inteview took place within a week after Bob's original Plame Outing article. So we have a discrepancy here or did someone need to gently coerce errr I mean jog and correct Novak's memory?
Posted by emal at July 15, 2005 05:54 AMBingo.
Posted by iamcoyote at July 15, 2005 05:56 AMUnfortunately I see nothing of any benefit whatsoever to the Democrats resulting from this entire affair. There was a lot of talking about classified things that should not have been talked about. Knowingly or unknowingly. The administration clearly sought, and still seeks, to discredit Joe Wilson. That's clear to anyone not wearing GOP colored glasses. But I don't see Rove going to jail. I don't even see him losing his job. It will be just another example cast onto the growing mound of discarded outrages produced by this administration. The honor and integrity restorers. Right!
Krugman pretty much sums up my feelings these days.
Posted by muckcat at July 15, 2005 05:56 AMThis sounds like a post hoc story concocted by Rove and Novak---and if true, how could Novak be off the hook?
I guess we'll just have to rely on the grand jury to conclude this very neatly arranged Rove story just doesn't pass the smell test. But don't invest yourselves too much emotionally in this one, the criminal law is very imperfect, and the evildoers have lots of clever lawyers who know exactly how to throw sand into the grand jury process----which is what is being done with today's leak, supposedly by some lawyer in the know. sigh..........
Posted by euzoius at July 15, 2005 06:04 AMI'd be curious to know if Scotty suddenly finds that he can comment on an ongoing investigation. Who's minding the gaggle today?
Posted by iamcoyote at July 15, 2005 06:06 AMI doubt we'll have to wait 'til October for the triumphalism, to tell you the truth.
No amount of crowing "he's innocent" now will help them if indictments come down in August. It's all about indictments; nothing else means anything.
Posted by Matt Davis at July 15, 2005 06:10 AMand there will be indictments...and if nothing else..dings are appearing in their armor little by little...they really truly are the scum of the earth...and for you who gloat on phoney economic news...i hope the parents of all the children who died and were maimed in this war these repulsive people got us into...are as happy as you are hearing about a deficit reduction
Posted by dennis at July 15, 2005 06:19 AMI wonder if Judy was on Air Force One for that African trip, and rifled through Powell's papers?
Posted by iamcoyote at July 15, 2005 06:23 AMI think it is time to move on...move on Washington that is. Anybody got a million pitchforks handy? 'Think I'll head on over to the local Tractor Supply.
Posted by obelus at July 15, 2005 06:29 AMDoes anybody know the best way to whip up a good torch to go with all those pitchforks?
Posted by Matt Davis at July 15, 2005 06:39 AMThe thing is, if Rove just passed along info and didn't initiate the leak, why wait this long to say so? The White House is now using the "we pulled a dirty trick, but it wasn't illegal and we didn't lie under oath, like Clinton" defense. The GOPers would love to have this focus on Rove, because as I wrote yesterday, there is a conspiracy at work here,and I believe it is based on all parties knowing exactly what line each crossed. Rove walked right up to the line and may/may not have illegally crossed it. But someone did, and it is that *second* Senior Admin official that is now being hidden in all this mess. Who's that, Fitz?
Posted by T2 at July 15, 2005 06:45 AMthe real prince of darkness..dick cheney..through his mouthpiece scooter libby?
Posted by dennis at July 15, 2005 07:02 AMGo read Jeralyn Merritt at Talk Left and Bill Scher at Liberal Oasis (I posted a link to their posts last night on the debunking page). There's more to this than meets the eye (namely, about whether Rove really learnt about Plame's identity from a reporter).
Posted by eriposte at July 15, 2005 07:06 AMI would guess the only thing(s) left to ask (not) is who's gonna' be the fall guy?
Judith Miller, always thought she was "taking one for the team" but, this big a one? Skooter Libby? Scott McClellan? He's kinda' baggage he has little credability or respect with anyone even the press, but that goes along with the job.
Just knew they'de get Rove off, the WH silence had a smug gottcha quality about it and they've had two years to spin heck they've had time to weave an entire tapesty.
As far as keeping track of GOP quotes... thank the RNC for doing part of the job for us...
http://www.gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=5627
Ram away.
Posted by TimW at July 15, 2005 07:29 AMKate, the "spin" you speak of is a Conspiracy, and one that involves the President. We haven't even begun to see the Real Spin on this crime.
Posted by T2 at July 15, 2005 07:30 AMAnyone who thinks that inflation has disappeared hasen't bought gas lately.
Posted by at July 15, 2005 07:48 AMI just want to point out that David Sanger's NYT story today uses a not-all-that-subtle technique of making multiple references to the (single) anonymous source spinning the story for Rove as a "person."
In newspaper-speak, a "person" is not a government official. Here are some (among many) examples from Sanger's piece:
"The previously undisclosed telephone conversation, which took place on July 8, 2003, was initiated by Mr. Novak, the person who has been briefed on the matter said."
* * *
"The person who provided the information about Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak declined to be identified, citing requests by Mr. Fitzgerald that no one discuss the case. The person discussed the matter in the belief that Mr. Rove was truthful in saying that he had not disclosed Ms. Wilson's identity."
* * *
"That second source was Mr. Rove, the person briefed on the matter said."
So, who is the "person"? I think the field is pretty well limited to Rove's attorney team -- Luskin or a surrogate lawyer from it -- or WH press secretary Scott McClellan. I eliminate Ken Mehlman because he's already gone public with the same dissembling story.
Moreover, in a widely-used journalist signal, both Luskin and McClellan are named later in the same article, but only in a historical context describing previously published facts. This often is a reporter's way of tipping the real identity of the anonymous source, particularly where he can bury it in a small group of other plausibles.
McClellan has access to the press, of course, and motive -- he needs to reestablish his personal credibility with the WH press corps to get the heat off. His past statements make him a central enough figure to warrant the unusual front page, single-source treatment. (What news value, after all, would there be if the source was, say, a low-level lawyer in Fitzgerald's office?) And, he may be under heat from Rove to pitch in with the others who are manning Rove's fire bucket brigade.
To be sure, Luskin et al. is favored by some other blogs I've seen because the "person" seems to know what Rove testified before the Grand Jury. But in fact little more is said about that in Sanger's article than has been claimed or published in the past.
Of the two leading candidates, I favor McClellan. I think he struck a special deal to have Sanger use the more remote "person" rather than "high official" or "spokesman." Probably, he whined about how he was being personally cut up and embarrassed and needed to go on deep background to protect his personhood, rather than as the usual 'spokesman' describing a semi-official position.
This would mean Sanger agreed to extend a 'professional courtesy' and mislead readers in the process. Other reporters figured it out and they, too, struck the same deal with McClellan.
Another dark day for journalist ethics at the New York Times.
Posted by larre at July 15, 2005 08:03 AMThe articles in NY Times, Washington Post, and AP were leaked by Rove or his surrogates for this was leaked to DRUDGE REPORT before placed on the web in NY Times, WP, or AP thus someone simpathetic to Rove wanted this out. Today the RNC already has talking points that state that Rove is innocent since he got it from reporters. Hello, everyone...this is another dirty trick and possibly false information to help take the heat off Rove. This "new" information was probably losely based on his grand jury testimony so they are NOT the whole story. This was leaked to try to get Rove off the hook and the blame on Novak. They were not leaked by Fitzgerald's team for NO leaks have ever come from his office.
Posted by Drdemocrat at July 15, 2005 08:11 AMThe two sources will be Rove and Bolton (in the State Dept.). It is too bad that Bolton was not confirmed because he is going down.
Just imagine Bolton as the Ambassador to the UN?
The relationship between Bolton and Rove is one that lets the imagination run wild. What else have these two cooked up? Now we know why Bu$h fought so hard for that UN appointment. Talk about the Axis of Evil!
It's been a dark day in journalism and in our society for a while. The mere fact that it was reported that at least 6 journalists had been contacted with information on Plame over 2 years ago and only just recently, due to threats of jail time did it finally get revealed Rove was involved in this. Don't any of them just have a moral conscience that goes above any of this. Just one of them needs to say, enough! To hell with these games! The American people deserve to know the truth. I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear, Americans and the World deserve to know the truth and here it is... this guy/girl told me this and this is why they said it. These people running the country and those reporting/ informing the American people about it) aren't and never have been interested in protecting anyone except their own butts.
The moral fabric of this country is just epitomized by this whole story. It just takes one person to do the right thing and expose this whole farce....But I guess these days that is just asking and expecting too much from an individual. How sad is that.
Posted by emal at July 15, 2005 08:23 AMthe real prince of darkness..dick cheney..through his mouthpiece scooter libby?
You've hit the nail on the head here Dennis.
Posted by patriot at July 15, 2005 08:28 AMRove "heard" it when it came out his friggin' mouth.
Posted by Flamethrower at July 15, 2005 08:57 AMDoes anybody know the best way to whip up a good torch to go with all those pitchforks?
Cue the mob: "rabble, rabble rabble"
Toothless old crone: "Burn the monster! Burn the evil Dr. Rovenstein and his ungodly reanimated creation, Rovenstein!"
Rovenstein's Monster: "Arrrrghhhh! Fire bad! It burn like noo...nuka...nooku..nuke-you-leeyer fire!"
Dr. Rovenstein (under his breath): "Good God! While I was at it, I wish I would have transplanted the Broca's and Wernicke's area of the brain from that cadaver." He turns to his creature and peers into his eyes with a look of sexual longing: "Run my beautiful creation, run! I'll toss a flaming bucket of Novak on them while you make your excape!"
Posted by phidipides at July 15, 2005 10:01 AMAre we at last at a point in these daily revelations where we can now consider the Bush administration COMPLICIT in these terror attacks?
THEY HAVE BENEFITTED NO ONE BUT THE ADMINISTRATION AND ITS CORPORATE CRONYS.
From 9/11 itself to date, these ARE ALL PLANNED BLACK BAG OPERATIONS INTENDED TO CREATE THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THE CURTAILING (DESTRUCTION) OF CIVIL LIBERTIES, THE UNLEASHING OF THE WAR MACHINE AND THE IMPOVERISHMENT AND DESTRUCTION OF THE MIDDLE CLASS.
See who these pricks are for yourselves:
http://www.newamericancentury.org
Posted by marblex at July 15, 2005 11:08 AMtrolls are quiet..what does that tell ya
Posted by dennis at July 15, 2005 11:30 AMtrolls are quiet..what does that tell ya
They're listening to Rush and interjecting "Ditto" at the appropriate point. They are some real free thinkers, that lot.
Posted by phidipides at July 15, 2005 11:48 AMrush..given his predilictions that's quite a name isn't it?..what exactly is a dittohead anyway..i never got that
Posted by dennis at July 15, 2005 11:59 AMI tried ditto once in college, it didn't give me a rush, it just made me feel stupid and fearful.
Have a good weekend and don't do ditto!
Posted by the confessor at July 15, 2005 01:37 PMYep. Judy Miller is exactly where she ought to be.
Posted by Toby Petzold at July 15, 2005 03:05 PMTrolls aren't quiet just sick of listening to you hypocritical idiots wailing away at your latest conspiracy theory! Only you could possibly believe in this day and age that the wife of an Ambassador could pose as a "Covert CIA Operative"! I should have known that "Mr and Mrs Smith" would provide another lame brain scheme for you losers. But I shouldn't be surprised, Rove is the main culprit responsible for the fetal position that your party finds itself in now!
Posted by Dave at July 15, 2005 07:22 PMgood grief!
Posted by Dave at July 15, 2005 07:29 PMFor an administration that prides itself on "plain speaking", there was a lot of word mincing this week. There will be more to come.
Posted by rlprather at July 15, 2005 08:45 PMrush..given his predilictions that's quite a name isn't it?..what exactly is a dittohead anyway..i never got that
Back when he got his start Rush the Lush was big on the deficit ruining America. "Ditto" meant the listener agreed with the financial premise, and being a "Dittohead" indicated "I agree with everything Rush says." As in all forms of cult indoctrination, you get the person nodding "yes" to a logical premise and start twisting the story to include all sorts of stuff. The exact same thing terrorist organizers do to get compliance in the form of suicide bombing. Have you ever known a Rush follower to concoct any coherent thought on their own? Nope. Dittohead = Nazis during WWII. They follow blindly. If Rush said, "My friends, America is in peril. Strap on a bomb and save us from (insert your favorite threat here)," you would see a massive response from his followers.
Posted by phidipides at July 16, 2005 09:45 AM