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 » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
sabra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:36 AM
Original message
'NY Times' Says Source Who Gave Matt Cooper Waiver Was Karl Rove
<<SNIP>>
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_di...

'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.

<</SNIP>>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jojo54 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
1. "but that did not mean that he was the key source in question"
Well, guess what KKKarl's lawyer?? He's connected and there ain't nothing you can do about it!!! The sanctimonious train is leaving the station and all connected to the Plame ousting will miss it this time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dalloway Donating Member (744 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
2. this directly contradicts something else I read this am
I think it was Rove's lawyer who said it was NOT Rove who released Cooper from his confidentiality. I'm looking for the link, but can't remember where I just read this. I'll look some more.


The thing is, it is not something a lawyer can spin. Either it was Rove or it wasn't, yes? (Unless "express, personal waiver" meant a written waiver from Karl via Federal EXPRESS and then his lawyer called Cooper to tell him it was coming...)." I'm trying to reconcile these two accounts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dalloway Donating Member (744 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
3. dupe deleted
Edited on Thu Jul-07-05 09:48 AM by dalloway
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rob H. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
4. Apologies if this has been asked before, but...
Edited on Thu Jul-07-05 11:00 AM by Rob H.
if Rove wasn't Cooper's and/or Miller's source, what would keep them from issuing a statement that simply says Rove wasn't their source? Would it fall under "protecting their sources" to not come out and say, "For the record, no, it wasn't him"?

:shrug:


Edit: Maybe being willing to admit someone is not a source could lead to a fishing expedition ("What about him, then? No? Okay, how about her?"), but with Rove's name being bandied about as a suspect, wouldn't they be hindering the investigation by not helping investigators eliminate him as a suspect if he isn't the source?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
5. Who was in the position to get the information in the
first place? I knew Rove was involved, but I thought he was not the one who obtained this information. Someone high up obtained it and pass it around. This must be Miller's informant and if it is who I think it is. She will rot before he would come forward....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
6. Please! No more talk of this Plame/Rove business.
Terrorists have attacked London.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PATRICK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
7. Not all speculations are this dumb
Edited on Thu Jul-07-05 10:37 AM by PATRICK
The NYT gossipy approach I mean. Of course Rove didn't beg Cooper to talk. There were two sources and this is yet another painful attempt to deflect attention away from Rove and for Cooper to look "cooperative".

it has been better speculated that the sequence of required testimony would likely need the painful course of Cooper and miller both coming to resolution somehow on Rove.

To get to square one. You need to be a legal expert to detect the strategies. it is plain what Rove and his lawyer must do whatever the extent of the crime. the reporters are helping him as they did when they abetted treason in the first place. How can you threaten them or offer them deals to match THEIR guys in power who can pardon and make heroes out of them? Rich heroes.

This is not a sure thing until some evidence can pin the right words on Rove and THEN justice and "in"justice duke it out in the crazy world on internal tapdancing. I don't see how anything must happen or be easy unless some shattering smoking nuke WITH media support against spin backs up the shreds of law still clinging in tatters to DC's lambent corpse.
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 Sat Dec 20th 2014, 11:10 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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