Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

'NY Times' Says Source Who Gave Matt Cooper Waiver Was Karl Rove

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
tuvor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:33 AM
Original message
'NY Times' Says Source Who Gave Matt Cooper Waiver Was Karl Rove
By E&P Staff

Published: July 07, 2005 8:45 AM ET

NEW YORK "A short time ago, in somewhat dramatic fashion, I received an express, personal release from my source," Matt Cooper of Time magazine told a federal judge yesterday, in dramatic fashion, just before being sentenced to jail. "It's with a bit of surprise and no small amount of relief that I will comply with this subpoena."

But who was this source? According to The New York Times today, "Cooper's decision to drop his refusal to testify followed discussions on Wednesday morning among lawyers representing Mr. Cooper and Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser, according to a person who has been officially briefed on the case."

Rove's lawyer had confirmed over the weekend that his client had turned up as a source in Cooper's documents, which Time turned over to the special prosecutor on Friday, but that did not mean that he was the key source in question.

Recent discussions, the Times reported, "centered on whether a legal release signed by Mr. Rove last year was meant to apply specifically to Mr. Cooper, who by its terms would be released from any pledge of confidentiality he had made to Mr. Rove, the person said. Mr. Cooper said in court that he had agreed to testify only after he had received an explicit waiver from his source.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_di...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
1. And it continues...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:41 AM
Response to Original message
2. Smells bad
If Rove gave him permission then it must be either because

1. It would be yet another crime to allow an innocent go to jail for his crime (advise from lawyer), or

2. He knows he's going to get away with it.

My gut tells me it's 2.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. sadly I think you are correct :-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
On the Road Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #2
21. Or #3:
To protect a separate leaker in the administration who may have spoken to Judith Miller.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Separate Sources Is Right
And we can well suppose they are different, since Cooper's source released him, but Miller's source did not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FourStarDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #22
33. This is Disinformation on the part of Miller and the NY Times
There is NO evidence that Miller has not been 'released' from confidentiality to her sources. That's what she'd like everyone to believe. In fact, in this June 30th article from WaPo, Judeg Hogan, who sentenced Miller said publicly that Miller's sources already have come forth and presented themselves to the Grand Jury:

...Cooper and Miller both did some reporting on the issue, though Miller never wrote a story.

(Judge)Hogan postponed the penalty as the reporters appealed. On Monday, those appeals ran out when the Supreme Court refused to hear their case. The jail term is set to last for the four months remaining in the current grand jury session.

Yesterday, Hogan questioned the reporters' assertions that they are keeping a promise not to identify a confidential source. In appellate court filings, Fitzgerald has indicated that he knows the identity of Miller's source and that the official has voluntarily come forward.

"The sources have waived their confidentiality," Hogan said. "They're not relying on the promises of the reporters. . . . It's getting curiouser and curiouser."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theoldgeezer Donating Member (57 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-05 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #33
62. Now THAT is interesting
Especially Novak's comments about people who claim to know.

I'm wondering...

If you're really good, and can patch unrelated bits of information together to find out who someone is, who is undercover... and if the press prints it...who broke the law?

I'm not sure. But the more I read this, the more I become convinced that it might be a "nobody" or else nobody publicly considered. If a "nobody", it means that digging and analyzing bits of data from here and there led some people to the facts without any deliberate "leak" from anyone. Of course, that's just a suspicion... We have to wait and see...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chi Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #2
24. Or #4
His conversation with Cooper does not involve anything that proves Rove's intent.
Miller, on the other hand.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #24
38. Yes, always a possibility. I got no horse in the race except
to weigh these possibilities. I'm not saying that Miller and NYT are not lying, I just think it's more likely to be the way I've expressed below.

In which case you get a number of sources and a conspirator (Rove) which is also at least one of the sources. A lawyer's feast!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voltaire99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
40. Mine, too. We shall have to settle for Judith Miller in a jumpsuit.
Alas! While it's nice to see the odious handmaiden of war get her due, it would be so much better to see the top banana get his.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoSheep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #2
44. Yes, dear person. Thank you!!!!!
:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
46. Except, a felony was committed by Rove, Cooper,....
...Miller, and whoever else was involved in revealing the name and occupation of Valerie Plame.

My gut tells me that the law is very clear in this matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theoldgeezer Donating Member (57 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 02:59 AM
Response to Reply #2
51. You are overlooking a likely possibility
Everyone is focused on the idea of Rove, et al, of "outing" someone, except that I've read that Plame's "outing" was really quite some time earlier - that many many people knew of it previous to even the Bush administration.

Many questions have been asked about the why's of various moves on the part of the investigation - some of them in accusatory tones of "coverup". I'm not so certain. It seems more and more logical to suspect that the blowing of Plame's cover was done before the present flap, and that part of why there's some seeming confusion on the part of being able to analyze what's going on, is that it becomes all but impossible to chase down "old" leaks.

I suspect we're going to see more legal grayness.. .and maybe some "gotcha" journalism, where I suspect that rumors were put forth and somewhere, someone inadvertently confirmed them. This is never going to be "cut and dried", instead it's going to end up a point of partisan contention, with the objective truth just ignored - with wild accusations of evil intentions flung in every direction...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #51
52. "I've read that Plame's "outing" was really quite some time earlier"
Care to provide some sources?

This would be news to everyone. Until you have evidence her identity was priorly leaked, that kind of statement is a rumor in and of itself.

The investigation is dealing in facts.

And it looks like someone in the Admin is going to pay. It's just a question of who.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theoldgeezer Donating Member (57 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-05 05:34 AM
Response to Reply #52
60. Yeah, I'll see if I can find it
However, it was quite some time ago I read it. The article referenced her picture being published in a magazine or newspaper, as I recall, and some reference to her as working for the government.

Maybe someone here with a more detailed memory can recall this... Frankly, I don't bookmark everything I read, and I don't keep bookmarks past about 6 months anyway. I just absorb the facts, and if I'm convinved they're credible, I take it as credible, until proven otherwise.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theoldgeezer Donating Member (57 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-05 05:56 AM
Response to Reply #60
61. I can't.
The keywords that got me good information back when now get me boatloads of blogs and other stuff that's not what I was orginally looking for.

Here's something of interest...

http://www.politicsoftruth.com/articles/WAP_ContemptWin...

This gets you a Washington Post article without having to sign in.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Booster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #51
54. Just as I thought....Clinton did it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theoldgeezer Donating Member (57 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-05 06:03 AM
Response to Reply #54
63. What leads you to think that?
Besides, I'm pretty sure that NO president will "out" operatives.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bitchkitty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #2
53. You're absolutely correct -
It is #2. Nothing ever happens to this people. That's a hard truth to bear, and it almost drove me to suicide.

Fortunately, I do believe in an afterlife and I believe in karma - and they will get what they deserve in the end. Even the devil's contracts have an expiration date.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rocktivity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
4. Toro turd!
Edited on Thu Jul-07-05 08:56 AM by rocknation
I don't believe a word of it. Either Cooper make it clear to Time magazine that he wasn't going to jail, or Time told him they weren't going to pay his fines. So they came up with this plan to turn over his notes and for him get "released" by his source, giving everyone an "honorable" way out. And what can Cooper's source do about it--deny it?

As for Judith Miller, the only reason I can think of for the New York Times to hold on to her is because she can make things too unpleasant for them if she were fired.

:headbang:
rocknation
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dArKeR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:50 AM
Response to Original message
5. Why did Franken say he thought Cooper was released by the source
long before this "dramatic phone call"? I had company and couldn't listen to the whole scoop. (yesterday)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. I didn't hear Franken, but I thought Rove told them all to sing long ago
and if you read the statement, Cooper says he received an "explicit waiver" from the source. So, they were not going to testify when Rove just said "hey, you reporters should be honest and forthright wink wink, nudge nudge. That's what the president told me I had to say."

The bigger question is did Miller get the "explicit waiver" too? If so, why isn't she testifying. If she were protecting herself she could take the 5th so she's protecting someone else of having her 15 minutes.

Four months in jail is long enough for her to write a book about the whole thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dArKeR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. I'm 100% I heard Franken say that but I'm not sure exactly which day
with all the guests and celebrations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hamlette Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. it was reported again recently, with this news on Cooper et al
wish I could remember where I saw it, my guess is Olberman as I don't watch much other news. Maybe Arron Brown. Since Stewart has been reruns throughout, it wasn't there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IdaBriggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. You can't take the 5th in front of a Grand Jury. You can refuse to
testify if you are the 'accused' but not otherwise. (At least, that is what I've learned from Law & Order!) :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LifeDuringWartime Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. of course you can take the 5th
you can always use the right to not incriminate yourself, but you do not have the right to not incriminate others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr_Spock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #20
28. That's what the previous poster said!
lol - you just repeated his post in other words :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprobate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #20
29. Sorry, but Part 2 of your statement is just wrong.


The purpose of a Grand Jury is to ascertain whether there is sufficient grounds to indict. Therefore, it is your obligation to testify as to what you know about the subject under investigation.

Certainly you can refuse to testify, but if you do the GJ and prosecutor can offer limited imunity for your testimony. If you still refuse to testify and pull a Miller, you'll join her in jail.

And that's the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wallwriter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #29
47. We need something like the nuclear war doomsday clock,
except it should not measure how close we are to nuclear war, but rather how close we are to Rove in jail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #9
23. Miller compared to Cooper: Seperate Sources
is most logical explanation.

Meaning someone might have coordinated separate calls by multiple administrative personel! Cheney to his contacts, Rove to his, Libby to his, W. to his, Rice to hers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
6. Yeah? And who was the source on that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SeekerofTruth Donating Member (145 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #6
31. LOL
Thanks for the smile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam the dawg Donating Member (60 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
7. no one will notice
Geeze, no one will notice this since the terrorist struck in london.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tuvor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Welcome to DU, sam!
I think I'll refrain from addressing you by your initials, though. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #7
26. Welcome to DU!
Glad you're with us! Now roll up yer sleeves and get busy!

If WE THE PEOPLE make a big enough stink (with our reps AND with the media), then this story will not die, anymore than the DSM story was allowed to stay buried.

It could also be that this is how rove's feet are held to the fire - if enough people start yelling and screaming and lobbying and aggitating for JUSTICE.

On the other hand, if we just sit back and watch, and "hope" that somebody will do the correct thing with this story, we'll be waiting FOREVER. And we will be waiting while feeling MOST unsatisfied. And kkkarl's chances of getting away with it are all the stronger.

Frankly, I don't want to see that happen...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tsiyu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
10. If Rove did give the A-OK
he THINKS he will be protected. Perhaps he is correct. But history in the making is a fickle thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Logiola Donating Member (379 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Or since he needs two witnesses to be indicted for treason,
he knows that Miller will not talk so with just Cooper he knows he will not be charged with the most damaging charge and feels he can get away with perjury..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tsiyu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. A charge of treason bears a high standard of proof
Edited on Thu Jul-07-05 10:03 AM by buddyhollysghost
but the standard of proof to be PERCEIVED as a traitor is much lower...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #14
18. tokyo rove will be viewed as a traitor for the rest of bush's term and
long beyond the icy grip of bushco.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprobate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #18
30. "Tokyo Rove". I love it. And officially adopt it. Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deacon2 Donating Member (396 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #18
36. "Tokyo Rove" - you have a winner!
I'm hoping for the photoshop brigade to get busy on this one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeunderdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #14
25. Charging him with treason/terrorism is a win-win.
If he beats it, it's only after a stream of pundits talk about the dangers of throwing around these terms willy-nilly. IF the prosecuters meet the burden, then Bushco will be married to these terms forever more.

The outing of the agent was not a crime against a person, it was the destruction of an operation that was designed to protect all US citizens and government operations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Not_Giving_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:13 AM
Response to Original message
16. Don't listen to this....
Look! London was bombed! Has anyone considered that they couldn't do a terra attack in the US again because too many people suspected them for the first one...So, this time it was London?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemsUnited Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
17. Strange -- WP reports today his lawyer denies it was Rove
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

<snip>
One of the government officials Cooper talked to during that period was Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, according to Cooper's notes and Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin. Luskin has said that Rove did not identify Plame to Cooper and did nothing wrong.

In an interview yesterday, he said Rove was not the source who called Cooper yesterday morning and personally waived the confidentiality agreement.

"Karl has not asked anybody to treat him as a confidential source with regard to this story," Luskin said.
<snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rrkent Donating Member (4 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
19. . . . and now, orange alert.
What an extraordinary coincidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tandem5 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #19
27. I don't care if they drag rove out with no media attention...
just drag him out!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hayduke Donating Member (15 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
32. Looks like Rove is going to let the girl rot in jail...
while he bails out Cooper. Very chivalrous of him!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #32
49. But it seems she's always liked covering for them. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
34. Likely Separate Sources! Cooper's released him, Miller's didn't.
Edited on Thu Jul-07-05 01:37 PM by skip fox
Before you boil over (since it seems at least slightly less likely to paint Rove into a corner), consider this.

Six reporters were contacted. Including Novak, Cooper, & Miller, that's three more. At least a few say there were at least two sources. At least five calls.

Wouldn't it be likely for someone out to discredit Wilson to get a number of different people to call, each their own contact(s), which will then flood others of the group for conformation(s)?

Who would have done that . . . but the man who was the President's Chief Political Analyst and advisor and who has been well known to engage in precisely such tactics? Karl Rove. He may have only contacted one or two himself, but orchestrated the entire phonebank in order to make Wilson's motives suspect. (And where have I heard of this going for the throat method so much before?)

So . . . we may have several in the pot (Cheney, Libby, W., Rove) AND Rove as the chief conspirator!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scout1071 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Don't forget Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and Ari Fleisher.
They seem good phone bank operators as well....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. Oh, yes! Their name is legion.
Think of the possibilities!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
u2spirit Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #34
58. Is it possible that Chalabi got the info from The
Veeps office and then told Miller? Chalabi certainly wouldn't bail Judy out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McIntyre Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 03:00 PM
Response to Original message
39. I'm all for journalists protecting sources...
but this wasn't a news story to begin with. Karl Rove (or anyone else) whispering in a reporter's ear "BTW, Valerie Plame is a CIA operative", doesn't rise to the level of legitimate news (requiring source protection) but it does rise to the level of a crime (requiring prosecution). So Rove's the alleged perpetrator, Miller, Cooper, Novak, etc., are accessories to the crime by obstructing justice, right?

I really don't see this as a journalist/source argument at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. I agree; this was retaliation against Wilson
Rove probably hoped that Plame would be killed, thus sending a message to other would be whistleblowers. Outing a CIA operative is treason against America, not "news".

And Welcome to DU! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McIntyre Donating Member (21 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #42
45. Yes, nothing more chilling than...
a dead body to get your point across.

Thanks for the welcome Lorien!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 04:31 PM
Response to Original message
41. More thinking on multiple sources, "Rove's Phonebank!"
When Wilson's Op Ed appeared in the NY Times, someone with clearance (or in-the-know) probably told others (esp. Rove since such knowledge played to his speciality and he is expert in killing-the-messanger) the Wilson's wife, Valery Plame worked for the CIA and was instrumental in getting Wilson assigned to investigate the Niger-yellow-cake matter. Rove, and perhaps his source, probably immediately realized the power of this knowledge. They could imply Plame and Wilson had an agenda to discredit the admistration and played it out through his selection.

The likely next step was for Rove to formulate a plan whereby this information was leaked. Since we know 6 reporters were contacted and at least 3 had multiple sources, the smallest number of initial calls would be 6 and at least 3 return calls (as follow-up administration official return calls as confirmation sources). Perhaps there were as many as 12 calls altogther and not just 9.

At any rate, there were a number. This and the apparent fact that Cooper's and Miller's sources are different (since Cooper's source revealed him but Miller's did not) implies that there were at least two initial callers (initial/primary sources).

Taking this fact and knowing Rove's procedure, the likely supposition is that Rove had DIFFERENT administrative officials (including himself) call their own contact reporters, knowing those reporters (like Novak) would verify by calling another in the administrative phonebank.

Therefore, there is likely to be multiple indictments including one for Rove for revealing Plame's name and one for him orchestrating the release of classified information (her name).

Think of the possibilities: Cheney, Libby, Rice, etc., etc.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RobinA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #41
56. Cheney, Rice, Rove
making treasonous calls to reporters??? I just don't buy it. Don't these people have flunkies to do this kind of work? Why wouldn't they delegate this?

Plus, Rove gives Cooper the OK to talk? Something's fishy about all these "Rove is the leaker" scenarios. There's an ironclad catch somewhere. More ironclad than "Miller won't talk."

Ring, Ring... "Hello this is Karl Rove from the White House calling. You are one of six reporters I/we of the Bush administration are calling to commit treason to by telling you the name of a CIA operative working undercover on issues concerning nuclear weapons and the Middle East." Heck, this crowd uses surrogates to smear presdidential candidates they don't like, why would they suddenly have Cheney on the phone to the New York Times?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Samantha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 05:25 PM
Response to Original message
43. Wait a minute
Edited on Thu Jul-07-05 05:42 PM by Samantha
Re-read this sentence:

"Recent discussions, the Times reported, "centered on whether a legal release signed by Mr. Rove last year was meant to apply specifically to Mr. Cooper, who by its terms would be released from any pledge of confidentiality he had made to Mr. Rove, the person said."

Shortly after the investigation commenced, I believe I read a story which said all possible White House personnel (within the inner circle, I guess that would be "Senior White House" officials) were asked to sign a waiver by the prosecutor. There was some hemming and throat clearing for some time while it was decided whether each asked would in fact sign. I believe they all did. That would have included Rove. That signature on that release at that time could be the one referenced in the quoted sentence above.

On the other hand, perhaps the person who spoke to Judith Miller was not a signatory to the original release. Just to give a few off-the wall examples, George Bush.* We all know he doesn't condescend to speak to reporters, though, so we might eliminate him. Could have been his father, who has tried to smooth some troubled waters for his boy. Could have been Orin Hatch, who has publicly declared Miller has done some wonderful work on the WMD issue. Could have been Frist, the Majority Leader, and one-time presumed to be the next Republican President of the United States (and couldn't he give Miller some wonderful stories if that happened and she had protected him).

I think there is a reason why Cooper and Miller went down separate paths when push came to shove. All we have to do is figure that logical reason out. I too believe there is a much bigger crime involved and jailing one or both of them for the purpose of unearthing evidence of that crime is very plausible (very Sirrica-like).

I think the judges are going after the gold ... Bush and Cheney. It's entirely possible that Miller's specialty, WMD, incorporated notes she took from a source that buttress the facts the intelligence was fixed. She couldn't voluntarily reveal that, much less the source, without ending her career. The source fixed the intelligence; she fixed the story. Over the long haul, take a little jail time and salvage the career. The New York Times would HAVE to terminate her if it became known she voluntarily submitted stories which were untrue. And if you think "Mockingbird", perhaps the New York Times has its own undercover agents to protect....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #43
55. Rove's PhoneBank = Multiple Indictments
I like your thinking and agree with some. Especially that part about thinking it out logically. Here' what I've come up with:

The situation strongly implies that there were at least 2 different primary sources (Cooper's specifically released him, Wilson's apparently did not do the same for her) and reason maintains there were at least 6 initial calls (the 6 reporters contacted: Novak, Cooper, Wilson, and 3 others), and 3 follow-up calls (Novak, Wilson, Cooper). This is the minimum.

In order to make sure this story leaked properly, in order to discredit Wilson's Niger yellow-cake findings and to imply he and his wife had an agenda against the president from the beginning one person would have to coordinate the calling. (Of course he could have made calls as well.) Neither of the 2 or more should call the other's initial contact (that would seem too eager, perhaps a dirty trick). In addition, 4-5 others would have to know the story was true in order to confirm it, and they had to be encouraged to do so.

Who better than the master of such odious activity, Karl Rove? Perhaps Cheney (who would have felt responsibility in such a matter since it was the behest of his office that the CIA sent Wilson to Niger) used his clearance to discover this information and brought it to Rove at a meeting of the White House Iraq Group (see snippy's beautiful post in DU, link at bottom of this post). Then Rove would go into high gear, doing what he does best (I mean worst). He coordinated the callings, made sure there were the requisite secondary sources ready and willing to confirm (perhaps each having different details or a different slant).

Therefore, Rove may well be both a conspirator (a little RICO, anybody), and the leaker of illegal information, AND we may have at least one other indictment handed down. Think of the possibilities! Rice, Cheney, Libby, Hughes (why the hell did she retire before?), Matalin, etc. Maybe even W.

But think about the above and then read snippy's lovely item backed up by a Washington Post article:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #43
57. Still have a gut feel Karen Hughes is involved somehow
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cosmicdot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
48. a Sunday LA Times article re Rove
"tattle"? the corporate press must think this is some Jr. High prank vs treason ... 'tattle' sounds so tabloid ...
note: Tennis made the front page ... this was on page A20-something ...


July 3, 2005 latimes.com

THE NATION

Rove Talked But Did Not Tattle, Attorney Says

The Bush advisor spoke with a Time reporter days before a CIA operative was outed.

By Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON Karl Rove, one of President Bush's closest advisors, spoke with a Time magazine reporter days before the name of a CIA operative surfaced in the press, but did not leak the confidential information, a lawyer for Rove said Saturday in a new admission in the case.

Rove spoke to Time reporter Matthew Cooper in July 2003, before a syndicated column revealed the identity of operative Valerie Plame, the wife of Bush administration critic and former U.S. Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.

Cooper is one of two reporters who has been held in contempt of court for not cooperating with a federal investigation into who leaked Plame's identity. Although Wilson once said he suspected that Rove had played a role in destroying his wife's CIA cover, the White House dismissed questions about Rove's actions as "totally ridiculous."

In confirming the conversation between Rove and Cooper, Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, emphasized that the presidential advisor did not reveal any secrets. But the disclosure raised new questions about Rove and the precise role of the White House in the apparent national security breach as Cooper and another reporter, Judith Miller of the New York Times, faced imminent jail terms.

~snip~

Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald is investigating the alleged outing of Plame by Robert Novak, a columnist and CNN pundit, on July 14, 2003. Some suspect that the White House leaked her name in retaliation for a July 6, 2003, op-ed piece in the New York Times written by Wilson, her husband. He accused the administration of twisting intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq.

~snip~

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhiteTara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
50. Karl Rove to the Hague
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jazzjunkysue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 09:24 PM
Response to Original message
59. Typical 4th grade defense: "I wasn't the only one who beat up Tommy."
I hear this shit 181 days a year. Now, instead of hearing this from my 4th graders, I'm getting it from the sanctimonious white house chief advisor.

Culture of Loaf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Moderator DU Moderator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-05 06:14 AM
Response to Original message
64. Lock
This thread is from Thursday. New information here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Sep 01st 2014, 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC