Chilly Posted July 2, 2005 Posted July 2, 2005 Interesting read http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/articl...t_id=1000972839 MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Documents Reveal Karl Rove as Source in Plame Case By Greg Mitchell Published: July 01, 2005 11:30 PM ET updated 1:00 PM Saturday NEW YORK Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Friday night, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove. Today, O'Donnell went further, writing a brief entry at the Huffington Post blog: "I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's e-mails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury. "McLaughlin is seen in some markets on Friday night, so some websites have picked it up, including Drudge, but I don't expect it to have much impact because McLaughlin is not considered a news show and it will be pre-empted in the big markets on Sunday because of tennis. "Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow." Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's McLaughlin Group remarks: "What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury--the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is. "I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury." Other panelists then joined in discussing whether, if true, this would suggest a perjury rap for Rove, if he told the grand jury he did not leak to Cooper. Besides his career at a TV journalist, O'Donnell has served as a producer and writer for the series "The West Wing." According to published reports, Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the case, has interviewed President Bush and Vice President Cheney and called Karl Rove, among others, to testify before the grand jury. "The breadth of Fitzgerald's inquiry has led to speculation that it has evolved into an investigation of a conspiracy to leak Plame's identity," the Chicago Tribune observed on Friday, "or of an attempt to cover up White House involvement in the leak." Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller, held in contempt for refusing to name sources, tried Friday to stay out of jail by arguing for home detention instead after Time Inc. surrendered its reporter's notes to a prosecutor. Miller argued that it was pointless to imprison her because she will never talk. She submitted letters from soldiers and military officers with whom she was embedded during the war in Iraq attesting to that. (Miller's pre-war coverage of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction has drawn much criticism.) She asked the judge for "very restrictive home detention," if confined at all, including an electronic bracelet and excluding Internet access and cellular phones. As an alternative, she asked to be sent to the federal prison camp for women in Danbury, Conn. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said Friday that several unidentified Senate Republicans had placed a hold on a proposed resolution declaring support for Miller and Cooper. ``Cowards!'' Lautenberg said of the Republicans. ``Under the rules, they have a right to refuse to reveal who they are. Sound familiar?'' Lautenberg's resolution is co-sponsored by Sens. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) It says no purpose is served by imprisoning Miller and Cooper and that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press.
Ghost of BiB Posted July 2, 2005 Posted July 2, 2005 Interesting read http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/articl...t_id=1000972839 373736[/snapback] Whoever it is is going to be toast. I've been slightly following TIME's decision to turn over notes. I didn't think it was a smooth move then, and don't think it is a smooth move now. I don't think it impacted on a lot, overall - but politically it was dumb. Wasn't necessary.
Terry Tate Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 I was watching the McLaughlin Group when O'Donnell said that. In their brief discussion of the topic, it was suggested that if Rove was in fact the source of the leak, that: 1. Rove (or whoever) is probably not criminally liable for 'outing' a covert agent, since Valerie Plame wasn't actually an active covert agent. (Don't ask me, just passing along what was discussed. There was one dissenter on the panel. She used the "chill in the air" line, but later admitted she knows little to nothing on domestic politics. If you disagreed with her take on Iran, though - she'd eat your lunch). 2. If Rove (or whoever) testified under oath that it wasn't him, and they find it was, he's facing a perjury charge. 3. The President is going to be pretty upset with whoever it was. There was actually more discussion on whether or not there should be a federal shield law for reporters, like the states (I believe someone said 49 out of 50) and DC have. Nearly all were in agreement there should be; the lone dissenter (conservative this time) on the panel pointed out (and I believe all agreed) that a shield law would not have had an effect on this particular case even if it were already in place. In this instance, if there was a criminal act in revealing a covert agent, the reporter was directly involved in the act, and a shield law would not protect him from having to reveal the source. The shield laws are geared towards not compelling reporters to reveal sources, so that "whistleblowers" are able to come forward without fear of persecution - which brings transparency to government. For TIME's part, they fought the battle, lost in court, obeyed the court's order. Even Matt Cooper was satisfied they did right by him. Of course, they probably just saved him from going to jail, so who knows.
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 If Rove goes to prison, he may also change his views on gay marriage. I bet he quickly marries the biggest con in the joint or he will have a full dance card.
EC-Bills Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 Interesting read http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/articl...t_id=1000972839 373736[/snapback] Be interesting to see if whomever it was (should it turn out not to be Rove) will be held accountable under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act
ExiledInIllinois Posted July 3, 2005 Posted July 3, 2005 If it is true which I am VERY skeptical... What is about 2nd terms and the their undoing?
Buftex Posted July 4, 2005 Posted July 4, 2005 If it is true which I am VERY skeptical... What is about 2nd terms and the their undoing? 374140[/snapback] If it was Rove, I don't think anyone would be shocked. It seems that this has been the prevailing opinion for a while now. Not saying I believe it, but the more Rove is around, the more smarmy he seems. As far as George W Bush goes, somehow, I think he will go unscathed. His administration has had its' fair share of ethical questions raised, yet everyone still seems to think of him as a generally honest person. His intelligence, or awareness will always be questioned, but not his ethics. Not sure why that is, but he seems to connect with a lot of people. He (or is it Rove?) are masters of changing the subject when the heat is on.
blzrul Posted July 4, 2005 Posted July 4, 2005 If it is true which I am VERY skeptical... What is about 2nd terms and the their undoing? 374140[/snapback] Rove's not an elected official...not approved by Congress....and unless Bush fires him he'll stick to his usual "up yours, what's it to you" modus operendi. Unless he's charged with treason of course.
Ghost of BiB Posted July 4, 2005 Posted July 4, 2005 Rove's not an elected official...not approved by Congress....and unless Bush fires him he'll stick to his usual "up yours, what's it to you" modus operendi. Unless he's charged with treason of course. 374470[/snapback] I don't know that it is chargeable as treason, but it is a criminal offense. I have to wonder why the reporters in question decided to become martyrs. Surely they must have known things would come down to a contempt of court. The whole thing is not that important in the grand scheme of things, but rules are rules.
stuckincincy Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 How soon we forget about Torricelli... http://www.nationalreview.com/script/print...00310010843.asp
blzrul Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 I don't know that it is chargeable as treason, but it is a criminal offense. I have to wonder why the reporters in question decided to become martyrs. Surely they must have known things would come down to a contempt of court. The whole thing is not that important in the grand scheme of things, but rules are rules. 374487[/snapback] Because they can never promise a "confidential source" confidentiality any more. Which in the long run will make it harder for them. Let's just consider what it takes to dig up and corraborate facts on these sorts of things (unless you're a Bushista, then you don't worry about facts, soundbites, slogans and the like are enough but everyone else MUST have ironclad proof with at least 57 eye witnesses....but I digress....) Of course they knew it would become contempt of court. Actually at this time though the one guy would only serve about 4 months because that's all that's left to run on the grand jury's session. But still.... Time Magazine's turning over the notes now means that no Time reporter can ever promise confidentiality either.
Ghost of BiB Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 Because they can never promise a "confidential source" confidentiality any more. Which in the long run will make it harder for them. Let's just consider what it takes to dig up and corraborate facts on these sorts of things (unless you're a Bushista, then you don't worry about facts, soundbites, slogans and the like are enough but everyone else MUST have ironclad proof with at least 57 eye witnesses....but I digress....) Of course they knew it would become contempt of court. Actually at this time though the one guy would only serve about 4 months because that's all that's left to run on the grand jury's session. But still.... Time Magazine's turning over the notes now means that no Time reporter can ever promise confidentiality either. 374960[/snapback] You miss my point. The entire situation involving the CIA outing is a non-event in the grand sceme of things. Surely, the reporters weren't naive enough to expect it would go for a lot of big play. Fight the battles worth fighting.
OGTEleven Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 Surely, the reporters weren't naive enough to....... 374966[/snapback] Never start a sentence with those words, because your sentence will always be wrong. BTW Blz, My eye doctor and I are suing you. Cut it out. Seriously.
blzrul Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 You miss my point. The entire situation involving the CIA outing is a non-event in the grand sceme of things. Surely, the reporters weren't naive enough to expect it would go for a lot of big play. Fight the battles worth fighting. 374966[/snapback] Agreed but for one thing: The principle of it. I realize "politics" and "principles" don't mix, but the sheer viciousness of outing someone who'd by all accounts served her country well, because one takes exception to the spouse's politics, smells to high heaven. I thought Nixon was bad but he's starting to look real good compared to these slimeballs.
Wacka Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 Rush brought up a good point about this today. The leak happened before the election. If Rove was really the leak, do you really think the liberal press would sit on it? Of course not. They would have been screaming it from the rooftops.
Reuben Gant Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 Rush brought up a good point about this today. The leak happened before the election. If Rove was really the leak, do you really think the liberal press would sit on it? Of course not. They would have been screaming it from the rooftops. 374986[/snapback] The press had to be muzzled about it because confidentiality was at stake. Time Warner blew it. The typical play is to plead guilty and let a judge suspend the sentence. Also, who do you think controls access to the President? Rove. Piss him off and you have bitten the hand that feeds you.
Johnny Coli Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 Rush brought up a good point about this today. 374986[/snapback]
Ghost of BiB Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 None of this really makes sense. I guess it could be Rove, but he's more shrewd than that. I remember when this first came up - trying to figure out where the gain was. There isn't any. That's what makes this suspect to me at least. Unless it came from some junior staffer who didn't and should have known better, I don't see this coming out of the White House just prior to an election. More likely to me, it came out of a personal bone-pick from some other area of government, or perhaps even academia. There was no tactical advantage to making her CIA connection known. It really didn't hurt anything, but that's not the point. It is entirely possible that many of the people talking to her were already aware of her connections, and she was more of a back channel communications conduit. more than one. Who knows. I think TIME is well aware they don't have a smoking gun, at least not one risking an entire news enterprise for. Another non-story, perhaps?
SilverNRed Posted July 5, 2005 Posted July 5, 2005 None of this really makes sense. I guess it could be Rove, but he's more shrewd than that. I remember when this first came up - trying to figure out where the gain was. There isn't any. That's what makes this suspect to me at least. Unless it came from some junior staffer who didn't and should have known better, I don't see this coming out of the White House just prior to an election. More likely to me, it came out of a personal bone-pick from some other area of government, or perhaps even academia. There was no tactical advantage to making her CIA connection known. It really didn't hurt anything, but that's not the point. It is entirely possible that many of the people talking to her were already aware of her connections, and she was more of a back channel communications conduit. more than one. Who knows. I think TIME is well aware they don't have a smoking gun, at least not one risking an entire news enterprise for. Another non-story, perhaps? 375056[/snapback] Rove is the Boogey-Man. He has been and will be blamed for everything that liberals don't like (Ted Rall is currently comparing him to Osama Bin Laden). He's also a guy who knows how to win and get things done and since this "outing" didn't help him in any way, I have a tough time seeing why he would be the mystery man responsible. And there's no way reporters would go to jail to protect him. Karl Rove outing undercover CIA operatives because he doesn't like them is the Watergate sequel the mainstream media has been trying to make since, uh, Watergate. EDIT: Here's Valerie Plame. Link Probably more evidence that Darth Rove isn't the person who tried to destroy these people - they're still in pretty good shape. Let's also keep in mind that Lawrence O'Donnell is the person pushing this story. And he's basically a retard, so who cares?
Recommended Posts