Cooper made a big deal about possible coersion for waivers, right?

[Rose Siding]

Last week, Cooper said he finally agreed to testify because he had consent that was more certain than the waiver that had been orchestrated between the FBI and the WH. This article defines that "consent" from his source (Rove) as being a remark made by Luskin in a WSJ article- Luskin was emphatic that Cooper wasn't protecting Rove. hmmm...

Now: what did Cooper do to gain consent from Libby as a source when Cooper went before the grand jury last summer?:


Mr. Cooper's statements on Wednesday echoed his rationale for testifying last summer. "Mr. Libby," a statement issued by the magazine at the time said, "gave a personal waiver of confidentiality for Mr. Cooper to testify."
....
Mr. Cooper was one of four reporters who testified in the investigation last summer. All of them said they were satisfied that Mr. Libby had given them earnest and uncoerced permission to talk.

"I personally called Libby about a waiver," Mr. Cooper said, "and he said that if it was O.K. with his lawyer it was O.K. with him."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/politics/11time.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5090&en=0409937f47d06652&ex=1278734400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss


(Libby's lawyer throws some sand at this recounting of events, but put that aside for a moment)

Can it be concluded that this might have been Cooper's custom? -to reach out to the source for assurance that the waiver was actual permission?

Would he have called Rove in the same way? Suppose he did. Suppose he called to make sure that the signed waiver was sincere. And Rove said NO -maybe even challenging Cooper on journalistic principles. (just suppose)

Then how pissed/goaded/frustrated/chumped/mocked would Cooper feel to read Luskin in the WSJ?:


"If Matt Cooper is going to jail to protect a source," Mr. Luskin told The Journal, "it's not Karl he's protecting."


It's even accurate! He wasn't protecting Rove, but his own journalistic principles.

That's just really fun speculation, :evilgrin:, but I still think it's significant that Cooper was unambiguously specific in how he obtained permission from Libby.

Here's the link
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/politics/11time.html?ei=5090&en=0409937f47d06652&ex=1278734400&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1121093620-IjhIRaITX/0Quueibv48Og

Something else I'd missed before this article- although I remember a report that Ken Starr was representing the NYT during one phase of this case...

Time and Mr. Cooper replaced Mr. Abrams with a team led by Theodore B. Olson, a former United States solicitor general in the Bush administration who is now with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.

[KoKo]

1. I thought Olson was always working on the Cooper case, but that

Bennett (Clinton's lawyer and Holy Bill Bennett's brother) and Abram's (Dan Abram's father)were defending Judith Miller? So, I'm confused.

Once can imagine how "high profile" the Fitzgerald investigation is with the top lawyers in the US defending the reporters.

I was surprised DU'ers didn't pick up on these lawyers. Although I suppose Time and NYT's wanted the best Political Defense lawyers it still stunk to high heaven that there's so much inbreeding "keeping the secrets for the Government." It's all decided and negotiated behind closed doors out of the sights of the American People until the Big Guns decide how to get their stories coordinated. Disgusting :puke:

I am confused about Olson replacing Abrams though. :eyes:

[Rose Siding]

2. Atrios on Cooper being fed up with Rove's lawyer-

Burned

This New York Times article on the Rove case is typically clear as mud, but after reading it several times and consulting with a handful of liberal intellectuals, I've gained new respect for Matt Cooper. Basically, he got fed up with Rove's lawyer lying to the press, and figured that combined with the waiver he'd previously received and the emphasis Luskin placed on it, was enough.


In other words, Rove's lawyer, acting as an agent of Rove, mounted a too extreme PR campaign on behalf of his client, and sufficient deceptive remarks led Cooper to say fuck it. Luskin thought Cooper wouldn't testify no matter what he said, and he was wrong.

Good for Cooper.
-Atrios 11:08 AM

http://atrios.blogspot.com/