Matt Cooper And Karl Rove

Newsweek gives us snippets from the e-mails Time reporter Matt Cooper sent to his editors - Special Counsel Fitzgerald found them interesting enough to insist on getting direct testimony from Matt Cooper himself, so we are interested, too.  Here are the key bits:

It was 11:07 on a Friday morning, July 11, 2003, and Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper was tapping out an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. "Subject: Rove/P&C," (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation ..." Cooper proceeded to spell out some guidance on a story that was beginning to roil Washington. He finished, "please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]" and suggested another reporter check with the CIA.

In a brief conversation with Rove, Cooper asked what to make of the flap over Wilson's criticisms. NEWSWEEK obtained a copy of the e-mail that Cooper sent his bureau chief after speaking to Rove. (The e-mail was authenticated by a source intimately familiar with Time's editorial handling of the Wilson story, but who has asked not to be identified because of the magazine's corporate decision not to disclose its contents.) Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger ... "

Nothing in the Cooper e-mail suggests that Rove used Plame's name or knew she was a covert operative. Nonetheless, it is significant that Rove was speaking to Cooper before Novak's column appeared; in other words, before Plame's identity had been published.

First, I am firmly aligned with Kevin Drum when he declares that "much is still murky".  This Newsweek revelation may create some political heat for Karl, but it is far from clear that, if these notes accurately describe the conversation, Karl Rove had the intent and knowledge that are also elements of a crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.  Mickey Kaus firmly straddles this point; Pejman and John H. of Powerline are bolder in asserting that Karl is in the clear.

Let me grab a red pen and play editor for a moment.  First, for Mike Isikoff of Newsweek, let's get some corporate synergy going - your very own WaPo parent reported last November that Novak's column went out on the wire on Friday, July 11, the same day that Cooper and Rove talked.  Editor & Publisher also picked up on this (and both articles appeared in my still-useful timeline).  Good job by Hunter at DKos for noting this:

Cooper talked to Rove at 11:07am, according to Newsweek. You can bet Fitzgerald has already determined precisely when Novak's column hit the wires.

Someone alert Josh Marshall, Kevin Drum, and David Corn to this point as well.  But could Novak have tipped Rove, or someone else, as to the content of his column even before it hit the wire?  (And lest you doubt the July 11 timing, a careful reading of Novak's column makes it painfully obvious that he was unaware of Tenet's climbdown on the "16 Words", which occurred later on Friday, July 11.  Novak did reference this July 7 press gaggle, however, as "a belated admission of error last Monday".

We can provide more assistance for Josh Marshall, who wonders about this:

So Novak knew she was covert.  And that pretty clearly means his sources knew too.  How else would he have found out?

Hmm, maybe by talking to his CIA press contact? 

This INR memo (later described in the Senate Intelligence Committee report) mentions Wilson's wife's involvement in selecting him for the mission, but (per later reporting) does not mention her covert status.  We have also been told that Fitzgerald is very interested in this memo.  All of this would be consistent with the knowledge displayed by Rove as described by Cooper's e-mail.

Or maybe Novak heard about Ms. Wilson's CIA connection from other reporters - that was what Matt Cooper told Lewis Libby on July 12, the day after he spoke with Rove.

During a July 12, 2003, conversation, according to a source involved in the investigation, Time reporter Matthew Cooper told Libby that he had been informed by other reporters that Wilson's wife was a CIA employee. Libby, the source said, replied that he had heard the same thing, also from the press corps.

Eventually, an enterprising reporter will ask Matt Cooper whether some of the sources he is shielding are other journalists; his answer may provoke a bit more head-scratching.

Well.  Let's accept that this news of his involvement may spell political trouble for Karl Rove.  One part of the Republican response will be to point to Fitzgerald's investigation, invoke grand jury secrecy, and say "time will tell".  It has been reported that Fitzgerald can elect to make a final report as a supplement to any indictments he may deliver, so this tack may not keep the White House role secret forever.

So the second course will be to re-fight the "War of the 16 Words".  It certainly appears that Rove's quick conversation with Cooper was part of a coordinated push-back against Wilson - Rove's three points were that (1) Wilson's trip was not authorized by Cheney or Tenet; (2) Wilson's wife was involved (Cooper uses the word "authorized" in his e-mail, but not in his final story); and (3) the Saddam/uranium/Africa story still had legs.

Two of those three talking points match up well with the message delivered by Tenet on July 11, by Ari Fleischer on July 12, and by Condi Rice on July 13. 

As to the involvement of Wilson's wife, Howard Fineman delivered a more refined spin in October, setting her involvement in the context of an ongoing factional tussle between the CIA and the neocons:

The CIA sends Wilson to check it [the Niger stories] out. On the surface, he would seem to be a logical choice: he’d spent years in Africa, knew French, knew the Saddam regime. But there were other things about him that Cheney’s office might not have liked. Wilson had close ties to the Democrats, having worked for them on the Hill and on Clinton’s national security staff; he was close to Democratic Sen. John Kerry and some other former NSC people who are now allies of the senator. Plus, he contributed to Al Gore’s campaign in 2000. Just as important, his wife was a CIA analyst who specialized in assessing WMD risks—and the CIA was not leading the charge to attack Iraq. In fact, the agency was doing just the opposite: In a report and testimony, CIA Director George Tenet argued that attacking Iraq would do more to create a generation of terrorists than eliminate one. What did Valerie Plame think of the seriousness of Saddam’s WMD capability? Sooner or later, we’ll find out—because it bears on what Wilson probably thought before he ever got to Niger to ask questions.

So, despite his impressive and seemingly objective resume, Wilson was arguably in bed with a CIA faction that opposed the war.  Novak, for one, insisted that he considered that to be relevant to the story.

And, assessing this after the fact, was Wilson actually part of a factional tussle?  Kevin Drum speculated that Wilson timed his leaks to an internal review at the CIA which concluded that Saddam had not attempted to acquire uranium from Africa.  Wow.

If the Administration was pushing back hard, it was also because Wilson had created a lot of confusion with his misleading leaks and his inaccurate NY Times op-ed.  Among his anonymous leaks was this whopper to Nick Kristof on May 6, 2003:

I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade. In addition, the Niger mining program was structured so that the uranium diversion had been impossible. The envoy's debunking of the forgery was passed around the administration and seemed to be accepted — except that President Bush and the State Department kept citing it anyway. "It's disingenuous for the State Department people to say they were bamboozled because they knew about this for a year," one insider said.

We eventually learned from George Tenet that "unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged" meant "There was no mention in the report of forged documents -- or any suggestion of the existence of documents at all.

...this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad...".  And the Senate Report backed Tenet.

From Walter Pincus, June 12:

After returning to the United States, the envoy reported to the CIA that the uranium-purchase story was false, the sources said. Among the envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong," the former U.S. government official said.

The Senate Report singled this out for special ridicule, and Wilson offered a brave defense - "Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters."

Later, Wilson decided that he was a soul whose intentions were good, but when he spoke to reporters he was misunderstood.

And here is Wolf Blitzer on July 13, showing how deeply the misinformation had taken hold:

BLITZER: But 11 months earlier, you, the Bush administration, had sent Joe Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador to Niger, to find out whether it was true. He came back, reported to the CIA, reported to the State Department, it wasn't true, it was bogus. The whole issue was bogus. And supposedly, you never got word of his report.

There was clearly a lot of work for the White House to do.  And a year later, the NY Times admitted that maybe Bush was right.

My guess - earnest lefties can focus on the existence of the White House Iraq Group and the high probability that a push-back against Wilson was discussed to argue in favor of a conspiracy by the Bush Brute Squad.

Others will note that discussing Wilson was entirely reasonable, since his leaks were prompting questions on the Sunday talk shows and merited rebutting.

Comments

[SamAm]

"There was clearly a lot of work for the White House to do."

No, I think by then they'd done quite enough.

I eagerly await Rove's resignation.

[kim]

For what? Discussing a political attack? Think again.
===============================

[Jason Smith]

sorry about the multiple trackbacks... kept getting an error.

[Jon H]

It's Lewis Libby, not Libby Lewis.

He's also known as "Scooter" Libbby, if that makes it easier to remember.

[thad]

What people keep losing sight of is that Wilson, in his original NYT op-ed, strongly implied that he had been sent - ultimately - by Vice President Cheney to Africa.

Remove the references to the Vice President from Wilson’s original op-ed and it ceases to be newsworthy. Wilson probably couldn’t have gotten it published.

The intended upshot of Wilson's op-ed was that the White House was ignoring a report they themselves commissioned because it didn't reach the desired conclusions. Without that news hook, the story would never have gotten off the ground.

Link: http://senderfreies.com/?p=35

Thad McArthur

[martin]

Mr. Maguire-no matter what happens in this case-you are always prepared to show nothing happened.

Although I'm sure your previous sophistry showed Rove could not have been Cooper's source, you accomodate the new reality pretty well. Yes, we're at war with Eurasia this week, and always have been, etc.

So let's lay out some benchmarks please:

1. What do you think actually happened here based on current statements from the White House and your timeline?

2. What information could,just conceivably, be revealed that would convince you you have been lied to?

3. or are you so partisan, e.g. Powerline, that you could in fact NOT be lied to by the White House?

[Quilly Mammoth]

The biggest problem with this whole mess,and the one that should be focused on, is that Wilson is a habitual liar. He lied in his book about his wife's involvement. He has lied repeatedly to the press. I think it is fair to say he lied to the Senate.

Wilson has spread so much disinformation so wide, and so think that the actual truth will always be obscured.

[TexasToast]

Seems frog marching has become a much better bet, eh?

[TM]

He's also known as "Scooter" Libbby, if that makes it easier to remember.

I am *so* blocking on that name, although I am making progress - in some old post, I was sure that "Scooter" was a she.

And me a Phil Rizzuto fan.

So let's lay out some benchmarks please:

1. What do you think actually happened here based on current statements from the White House and your timeline?

2. What information could,just conceivably, be revealed that would convince you you have been lied to?...

Interesting. While I think about that, why don't you tell us what info might convince you that (a) the Admin has been cooperating with an aggressive, fair investigation by the DoJ; and (b) Wilson has been duplicitous on many points.

And feel free to guess at what it would take to convince Josh Marshall of that.

[Appalled Moderate]

An illustration of the problems Rove now faces:

Q Scott, earlier this week you told us that neither Karl Rove, Elliot Abrams nor Lewis Libby disclosed any classified information with regard to the leak. I wondered if you could tell us more specifically whether any of them told any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA?

MR. McCLELLAN: Those individuals -- I talked -- I spoke with those individuals, as I pointed out, and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this. And that's where it stands.

MR. McCLELLAN: They assured me that they were not involved in this.

Q Can I follow up on that?

Q They were not involved in what?

MR. McCLELLAN: The leaking of classified information.

Q Did you undertake that on your own volition, or were you instructed to go to these --

MR. McCLELLAN: I spoke to those individuals myself.

Link

Q Yesterday we were told that Karl Rove had no role in it --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q -- have you talked to Karl and do you have confidence in him --

THE PRESIDENT: Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing.

And again I repeat, you know, Washington is a town where there's all kinds of allegations. You've heard much of the allegations. And if people have got solid information, please come forward with it. And that would be people inside the information who are the so-called anonymous sources, or people outside the information -- outside the administration. And we can clarify this thing very quickly if people who have got solid evidence would come forward and speak out. And I would hope they would.

And then we'll get to the bottom of this and move on. But I want to tell you something -- leaks of classified information are a bad thing. And we've had them -- there's too much leaking in Washington. That's just the way it is. And we've had leaks out of the administrative branch, had leaks out of the legislative branch, and out of the executive branch and the legislative branch, and I've spoken out consistently against them and I want to know who the leakers are.

Link.

Then, there is this, where we gt all sorts of assurances Rove was not involved.

And, finally:

Q Scott, you have said that you, personally, went to Scooter Libby, Karl Rove and Elliot Abrams to ask them if they were the leakers. Is that what happened? Why did you do that, and can you describe the conversations you had with them? What was the question you asked?

MR. McCLELLAN: Unfortunately, in Washington, D.C., at a time like this, there are a lot of rumors and innuendo. There are unsubstantiated accusations that are made. And that's exactly what happened in the case of these three individuals. They're good individuals, they're important members of our White House team, and that's why I spoke with them, so that I could come back to you and say that they were not involved. I had no doubt of that in the beginning, but I like to check my information to make sure it's accurate before I report back to you, and that's exactly what I did.

Q So you're saying -- you're saying categorically those three individuals were not the leakers or did not authorize the leaks; is that what you're saying?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's correct. I've spoken with them.

LINK

[ArminTamzarian]

$20 bets on whether Rove will be indicted for violating 50 USC 421 still being offered.

[richard mcenroe]

So what we have here so far is, Rove told a reporter something that we already know from other reporters was common knowledge among the Washington press corps and even the Washington social scene generally.

Yep. Fetch a rope, boys, they's justice t'be done,,,

[AJStrata]

Nice work, but some holes need filling. For one, Plame's employer was an open secret in the social circles of DC's power elite. This was confirmed yesterday by Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC and posted on Powerline by Scott. So there is no way this investigation has to do with outing Plame - she was out. Fitzgerald new this early on (if he is worth a dime as Federal Prosecutor). Next we have Plame who was a roque CIA employee against the war in Iraq. She and her husband probably cooked this up to get celebrity status and a key position in the Kerry administration (which was working until the truth came out on Wilson's report). Plame selected Wilson for this, did not say a thing when his obviously flawed and bogus report came back in, and said nothing when he went public in his Op-Ed piece (which is border line release of classified information since Saddam's nuclear intentions are classified, whether Wilson was right or wrong).

Clearly this is the true crime. Use of Federal resources to misinform the government and public on the critical national security issue of Saddam's nuclear intentions. Plus they probably released sensitive or classified information in the Op-Ed piece.

Those are serious crimes. More here.

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/258

As for Powell's memo and Hunter's timeline stuff they miss the point. For Plame to send Wilson she would need to coordinate that with State. That is why Powell was called in, to understand who asked for permission to send Wilson (betchya it was Plame). Also, it would bring the entire trip up to the NSC level since CIA and State were coordinating an important fact finding mission. Which is why Rove and many others knew about the trip, the results and the players....

Simple really.

[Martin]

-"why don't you tell us what info might convince you that (a) the Admin has been cooperating with an aggressive, fair investigation by the DoJ"-

Umm..The fact that the DOJ is in fact aggressively investigating IS proof that the Admin is not cooperating. If the Admin cooperated fully what would be left to investigate?-it would be either indict or close shop as all the facts would be on the table.

What is Fitzgerald doing that Bush could not do better? Fitzgerald is beating up reporters to shake loose their Admin sources; whereas Bush could eliminate the middleman and beat up the sources themselves to reveal all.

[IceCold]

Yikes, we're so safe and coddled back in CONUS that this non-story is STILL playing out and captivating the elite masses? I don't mean the crushingly dull issues surrounding the Plame covert status stuff -- that'll play out and be of no consequence in the larger picture.

But the underlying "non-story" -- dissed thusly by some of us at the time it "broke" -- has attained a special status: a non-story even its own terms, which terms themselves turn out to be fraudulent. Don't know the word for that, but it's probably some synonym for "b.s.".

The SOTU didn't refer to Niger, the 16 words were validated as accurate the instant the Brits nodded and confirmed them, the assessed Iraqi WMD threat was inherent in the particular facts of the situation and didn't depend to any degree on one specific uranium ore initiative, and on and on. No "there" there.

And then the subsequent investigations showed that Wilson's uninteresting and non-material comments were themselves inconsistent with the inconsequential report he provided to CIA. In other words, a tangential matter about which a less than tangential figure lied.

That the mediocre minds in media and the blogs frequently mentioned here didn't see the essential emptiness of this tempestuous teacup is no surprise. That reasonably competent people at the WH didn't immediately frame things intelligently -- and still haven't -- has always been surprising and disturbing.

[robert0]

So, I'm sitting there with my wife and some guy I don't really like from down the block. He says to me, "Hey, was that chubby girl blowing you last night in the pool room? Cause she says she was blowing you. And she's teller her firends that she was blowing you. Was she blowing you?"

So I lied. Entirely reasonable.

[Ralph]

Martin,

"aggressive investigation"

You're still hung up on the concept that the leak MUST have come from the White House. That MAY be the final conclusion, but none of us "on the outside" have data to prove that yet. The fact is that a federal prosecutor has much more in the way of resources to carry on a full investigation, and his charge is to find out IF a leak occurrred (whether from the White House, or some other source), and to determine if a crime has been committed.

Even if the leak is from the White House, the Administration would be in no credible position to determine whether or not a crime has been committed. They would still have to refer the matter to the DOJ for that determination.

The only credible way for the case to be investigated and the TRUTH (not just what one side or the other politically wants it to be) to be determined is by the investigation by a Federal Prosecutor, who does have te power to indict.

[Appalled Moderate]

Beyond the simple question of there being any laws violated -- we have a lot of assurances back in 2003 that Rove was not involved in the leaking. Now it's still possible he was not Novak's source, and it was in this context all the bs was being dished in 2003. But let's just say that the statements made in September, October 2003 about Rove's involvement in leaking are hard to harmonize with what we know today with respect to Cooper.

[Martin]

Ralph (and Mr. Maguire)-note from todays NYT:

"Ms. Miller has been jailed for refusing to cooperate with a grand jury subpoena directing her to testify about "a specified executive branch official" whose identity is known to the special prosecutor in the case, according to court papers. But Ms. Miller refuses to rely on the waiver the source signed or the sort of assurances that have satisfied other reporters."

So Fitzgerald knows who the Admin official is-but apparently not what (s)he told Miller.

If the White House is "fully cooperating" why won't the specified executive branch official just tell Fitzgerald what (s)he told (or learned) from Miller?

[ArminTamzarian]

Martin:

There are no stupid questions, only stupid people.

[SCSIwuzzy]

Martin,
She could also be protecting her other sources. If she admits she asked question B, and got answer C, a decent investigator would ask about A, the thing that led to asking B.
So if she asked her source if Plame was behind Wilson's trip, and the answer was yes, how did Miller know about it to get confirmation?
And if Fitzgerald knows who the source is, and the source has waivered Miller, why hasn't he asked the source? He may have, but the NYT article you lovingly quote does not tell us either way.
Independent investigations go not imply guilt. If the WH did its own investigation, many people would not believe the answers (I suspect you are one of them), even if they were damning. And an aggressive investigation does not mean there is resistance at the White House, either. It just mean Fitzgerald takes his job seriously, and wants a thorough and timely investigation.

[ArminTamzarian]

SCSIwuzzy:

You, on the other hand, are thinking too much. It's not that complicated.

Prosecutor: Mrs. W, for the 34th time, what did Mr. D tell you?

Mr. D: Oh, Mr. Prosecutor, that won't be necessary. I just talked to her about the Mets and her daughter's graduation. Nothing incriminating, I assure you.

Prosecutor: I see, well that clears everything up entirely. Mrs. W, I don't need you any more. You're free to go.

[vnjagvet]

OK, Apalled Moderate and Martin. Based on the Cooper email, and any other evidence to which you want to direct the assembeled masses here, specifically what "classified information" was leaked on or around July 10, 2003 by Karl Rove?

[David Walser]

[W]e have a lot of assurances back in 2003 that Rove was not involved in the leaking. ... But let's just say that the statements made in September, October 2003 about Rove's involvement in leaking are hard to harmonize with what we know today with respect to Cooper." - Appalled Moderate

Hard to harmonize? Not really. So far, we know that Rove, without naming Plame, told one or more reporters that Wilson had been sent to Niger on the recommendation of his wife. Since Novak used Plame's name, it would not be unreasonable for Rove to conclude that he was NOT Novak's source.

[TM]

If the Admin cooperated fully what would be left to investigate?

Well, the prosecutor seems to be trying to verify their statements by chatting with uncooperative reporters.

Anyway, I mocked the notion that Bush should investigate this years ago - in short, how many Dems would take it seriously if Bush announced that he had interviewed his staff, looked them in the eye, and was sacking two unknowns? Wouldn't Chuck Schumer, Marshall, et al scream "cover-up"? Of course they would, and they would demand an independent counsel to investigate. Which we have.

So Fitzgerald knows who the Admin official is-but apparently not what (s)he told Miller.

If the White House is "fully cooperating" why won't the specified executive branch official just tell Fitzgerald what (s)he told (or learned) from Miller?

Is there any reason th think they have not? If we believe all the WaPo reporting (whiuch they don't seem to be trumpeting today),Miller was subpoenaed along with four others to testify about Libby. The other four have spoken, as has Libby; Ms. Miller does not take at face value the general waivers Cooper accepted.

Very principled, but not a strong hint that Libby has not cooperated.

[TM]

Appalled - it sure look like McClellan was not in on the spin and parsing.

Someone has dragged up an old Rove comment to CNN where he denies giving Ms. Plame's name to anyone. Cute. But somone should have tipped Scott.

And there are at least three hints that Rove did not leak to Novak:

(1) Novak said source was not a partisan gun-slinger. Not real credible, but there it is.

(2) Luskin, Rove's attorney, says Rove only had one conversation, which apparently was with Cooper.

(3) In his e-mail, Cooper says that Rove said Ms. Plame "authorized" Wilson's trip.

But Novak reported that sr. admin officials told him "Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger".

Suggested, authorized - who knows?

[cathyf]

So Fitzgerald knows who the Admin official is-but apparently not what (s)he told Miller.

If the White House is "fully cooperating" why won't the specified executive branch official just tell Fitzgerald what (s)he told (or learned) from Miller?

Well if Fitzgerald wants testimony under oath from all parties to all of the conversations, then the testimony of the people who talked to Miller only does part of the job.

The other piece of this that is interesting is to wonder whether Miller had any discussions with the NYT op-ed staff as to Joe Wilson's credibility. I don't think that it's a crime to knowingly publish lies, so Miller can't take the 5th if Fitzgerald asks her. And this is a grand jury hearing, not a courtroom, so there is no defense attorney to object that the question is immaterial and no judge to rule that she doesn't have to answer it.

So imagine that Fitzgerald gets Miller under oath. He finds out what the "administration sources" told her about Wilson. He then pursues the question of who else Miller discussed the info with. It turns out that Miller talked about it with her NYT bosses. Fitzgerald includes a full discussion of this non-crime in his final report. What's left of the NYT's credibility goes down the toilet.

Or Miller holds out, gamely, if bizziarely, claiming that she is "protecting her source" even though the person who is claimed to be the source has released her from all agreements. Fitzgerald eventually gives in, using Martin's logic that he's heard everything he needs to hear from the sources. Miller goes free, and the NYT escapes the humiliation.

Alternative theory is that Miller has multiple sources. All but one of those sources have cooperated with Fitzgerald, released her from confidentiality agreements, etc. Then there is one more source, who Fitzgerald doesn't know anything about, who really did break the law and out Plame. Imagine that Miller has a source who is another member of the CIA Iraq/WMD team. Who is intimately knowledgeable about the circumstances of Joe Wilson's sedition and appalled by it. Who has fed Miller massive amounts of valuable intelligence info over a period of years. Yeah, that would be a source willing to go to jail for...

cathy :-)

[David Walser]

It's helpful to try to keep this in the proper perspective. The original controversy was based on Wilson's allegation that the White House leaked classified information in an attempt to PUNISH him by putting his wife in danger. Instead, it appears (from the Cooper emails and other sources) the motive for the leak was to DISCREDIT Wilson. Absent any legal violations, which even the NY Times now admits most likely did not occur, how much controversy would there have been over the Administration's attempts to defend itself from Wilson's misleading and politically motivated charges? Wilson's claims got play because he asserted the White House was so reckless and so bent on revenge that they were willing to endanger a CIA agent. If, as now appears to be the case, there was no attempt at revenge nor any intent to endanger Plame, would we have cared who Novak's source was? I doubt it.

[Ralph]

Martin,

"If the White House is "fully cooperating" why won't the specified executive branch official just tell Fitzgerald what (s)he told (or learned) from Miller?"

This has been addressed TM and others, but I want to add my two cents worth.

In your apparent determination to fit the facts to your conclusion, you're ignoring the fact that the prosecutor is INVESTIGATING. Let's assume that the White House employee in question (and even that is an assumption, since we don't KNOW Miller's source, we're only assuming that it is the same as Cooper's) has, indeed, testified and told the grand jury "the truth." The prosecutor needs to find out if what the person who testified is the TRUTH, or only his/her version of it. It's elementary investigative procedure to get the testimony of the person on the other side of the conversation. Fitzgerald is professional, and doing his job.

Even you should notice that there have been no claims of "executive privilege" or other ploys to restrict the people at the White House from testifying. IF Fitzgerald felt he was being obstructed that would at least have come out from actions he'd have had to file in court.

Fitzgerald is, by all accounts, very PROFESSIONAL. He MUST to gather ALL of the facts, and seek to corroborate all testimony, or rather at least all CRITICAL testimony, if his investigation is to be done to professional standards.

Given the bent of your arguments, I doubt that this will convince you, but it is a FACT that you have produced NO proof of any unwillingness of the White House to fully cooperate. It's only reporters that have been the subject of contempt of court rulings.

In contrast, the Clinton White House, was frequently the subject of significant "comtempt of court" penalties. One might argue that they were only the result of "misunderstandings," but the FACT that those penalties were assessed at least provides an argument for an attempt by the White House to obstruct those investigations.

[Appalled Moderate]

The problem here is that there were repeated assertions coming out of the White House in 2003 that Rove was "not involved". My guess is that if Rove had come semi-clean at that time, he would have been forced to go by the outcry.

Now that a year and a half hase gone by, Rove will probably be able to remain, as long as there is no continued drip drip drip of stories. I don't know where any qadditional drips will come from, as long as Miller hangs tough.

I dislike this. It illustrates that sometimes the best thing you can do for yourself in Washington is flat-out lie to the Public (but not to investigators). It saved Clinton (who salvaged himself in early '98 by denying relations with "that woman" and only coming clean later, when folks had gotten used to the idea of having an adulterer in chief. Now it's saving Rove.

[Martin]

Well just one more question and I'll let you guys get back to your Kool-Aid.

When did President Bush first learn Rove told Cooper about Mrs. Wilson?

[TexasToast]

AM

As we are seeing here, “cover ups” (and I’m using the term loosely) work more often than people care to admit – that’s why they remain so enduringly popular. It’s actually quite entertaining to see a guy who calls his political opponents “traitors” sweat a bit on a potential espionage rap. It’s downright poetic – or, at least, worthy of a Clancy plot line. It’s also entertaining to see our friends on the right defend the deep cover mole in the White House – especially on a charge like this one. Can you imaging the histrionics if this were some Democratic political strategist leaking the name of a covert operative for political purposes – or, using Karl’s apparent defense, not her name, but her husband’s name? “Traitor” would be mild.

I actually am considering proposing a new axiom (similar to Godwin’s Law) for JOM posts. The longer the post, the more parsing and jivin’, the shakier Tom’s position. This one, when you put it together with the last several on the very same topic, must be some sort of record.

I guess, like Scott M, Tom isn’t on the memo list for the, apparently evolving, “facts”.

[TM]

I dislike this. It illustrates that sometimes the best thing you can do for yourself in Washington is flat-out lie to the Public (but not to investigators).

I think it was in Woodward's book "Shadow" that he describes how the tactic of hiding everything with the grand jury investigation until the storms blows past has been an evolving.

In Iran-Contra, remember, Congress held hearings were quite informative, but ruined the prosecutions. So now, COngress doesn't even have hearings.

Except that sometimes, the behavior is bad, but not criminal, and hearings are the way to go.

Well, maybe the Dems could never have gotten a Rep chairman to look at this anyway.

[Cecil Turner]

"The problem here is that there were repeated assertions coming out of the White House in 2003 that Rove was "not involved"."

ISTM the subject in each case was: "The leaking of classified information." (Though Luskin has now apparently qualified that with "knowingly.") If he got the information from the INR memo, and it wasn't marked as classified . . .

"Novak said source was not a partisan gun-slinger."

That was the main reason I didn't think Rove was the leaker, since a bald-faced lie would destroy Novak's credibility forever . . . but I'm starting to waver. He'd probably feel justified in putting in a bit of disinformation to mask his source (a la Woodward's "heavy smoker" misdirection concerning Felt). Occam's Razor would suggest no second leaker (or one connected with Rove).

"Plame's employer was an open secret in the social circles of DC's power elite."

That doesn't appear to meet the standard:

It is a defense to a prosecution under section 421 of this title that before the commission of the offense with which the defendant is charged, the United States had publicly acknowledged or revealed the intelligence relationship to the United States of the individual the disclosure of whose intelligence relationship to the United States is the basis for the prosecution. [emphasis added]

[vnjagvet]

AM and Martin:

"not involved" = "not involved in leaking classified information". My question to you guys still stands. Specifically what "classified information" was leaked by Rove or anyone else in the White House?

[mark]

If anyone is being sought for prosecution, would it not be the source at the CIA?

Rove is at the tailend of any liability, whereas the co-worker(?) who gave out the info, should be at the center of the investigation.

[mark]

If anyone is being sought for prosecution, would it not be the source at the CIA?

Rove is at the tailend of any liability, whereas the co-worker(?) who gave out the info, should be at the center of the investigation.

[Appalled Moderate]

vnjagvet:

Ever hear of the phrase "close enough for government work"?

It applies here. I don't care if Rove's defenders committed perjury or not. I do care if they intentionally misled me.

So, in answer to your question, I certainly do not know whether Rove knowingly passed on classified info. I do know he allowed others to leave the impression he had nothing to do with any of this.

Thought we left existential questions about the meaning of "is" with the end of the last administration.

[Cooper]

Pejman and John H. of Powerline are bolder in asserting that Karl is in the clear.

I think if Rove admitted that he knew about Plame's covert status, John Hinderaker would still say Rove was in the clear. Pejman might as well. Those two are complete hacks. . . .

[Martin]

Hey Appalled Moderate-you have to check out today's afternoon press briefing with McClellan.

It's just so embarassing for those of us who still have the capacity for that emotion.

[cathyf]

I think if Rove admitted that he knew about Plame's covert status, John Hinderaker would still say Rove was in the clear. Pejman might as well. Those two are complete hacks. . . .
So we should consider if Pejman and Hindraker are hacks when we are evaluating their credibility, but no one is allowed to pass along factual, non-secret information when it comes to evaluating Joe Wilson's credibility?

Oh, and by the way, your name-calling is not persuasive. So you'll need to come up with some actual data which supports your accusation of hackery. And when you do, we'll sic a special prosecutor on you for outting spies. And if your defense is that what you said had nothing to do with spies, then we'll claim, "Aha! He had has admitted that he talked! Frog march off with him!"

cathy :-)

[mark]

Since a lot of people are throwing out the 'covert' label...any sources that she was a 'covert operative' available?

Aside from Larry Johnson's, 'I knew her and she was a covert operative for 3 decades' statement, and of course the 'reputable' Joe Wilson's claim(s)...

[Appalled Moderate]

Martin:

Thanks for the tip. This was painful. In fairness, the fault is with Rove, who seems to have lied to the President's press secratary.

[S.M. Dixon]

Karl Rove will not be prosecuted for outing Valerie Plame; the IIPA gives him too much wiggle room.

However, he CAN be prosecuted for giving false information to federal investigators.

July 11, 2003:
Rove talked to Time magazine's Matt Cooper about Plame.

July 14, 2003:
Bob Novak's story ("Mission to Niger") is published, in which he outs Valerie Plame.

October 2003:
Rove told the FBI, which was investigating the leak of Plame's name, that he had not spoken to any reporters about Plame until after Novak's column came out.

The maximum penalty for giving false information to a federal agent is 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

And if Rove told the same story to the grand jury, he's guilty of perjury, too.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'The original controversy was based on Wilson's allegation that the White House leaked classified information in an attempt to PUNISH him by putting his wife in danger. Instead, it appears (from the Cooper emails and other sources) the motive for the leak was to DISCREDIT Wilson.'

But, in and of itself, his wife's recommending him doesn't do that. It's perfectly logical that she would say something like, 'Niger? My husband has lots of contacts there, why don't we send him to nose around.' Why would a smart guy like Rove think that would discredit him?

It's only Wilson's odd reaction that suggests he's got something to hide.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'Rove told the FBI, which was investigating the leak of Plame's name, that he had not spoken to any reporters about Plame until after Novak's column came out.'

You're not keeping up with the time line. Novak's column was available July 11.

[chill winston chill]

Slow down Dixon, take the time to read the post. From above "Let me grab a red pen and play editor for a moment. First, for Mike Isikoff of Newsweek, let's get some corporate synergy going - your very own WaPo parent reported last November that Novak's column went out on the wire on Friday, July 11, the same day that Cooper and Rove talked. Editor & Publisher also picked up on this (and both articles appeared in my still-useful timeline). Good job by Hunter at DKos for noting this:

Cooper talked to Rove at 11:07am, according to Newsweek. You can bet Fitzgerald has already determined precisely when Novak's column hit the wires." Really, if you think Rove is dumb enough to lie the FBI and a Grand Jury you oughta take a couple asprins and lay down.

[Martin]

Of course Rove is dumb. You can see it in his face.

Didn't one of the first guys to leave the administration characterize the whole lot as "Mayberry Machiavellis"?

And although that was way before Plamegate, it perfectly captures this carnival of lies of deceit.

[Martin]

Ok-I googled. That was former domestic policy adviser John DiIulio. His quotes to Esquire in January 2003 are extremely prophetic:

"There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus," DiIulio tells Esquire. "What you've got is everything--and I mean everything--being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis."

DiIulio: "Karl is enormously powerful, maybe the single most powerful person in the modern, post-Hoover era ever to occupy a political advisor post near the Oval Office."

* DiIulio: "When policy analysis is just backfill, to back up a political maneuver, you'll get a lot of ooops."

Prophetic.

[jukeboxgrad]

Someone called Hinderaker a "hack." cathyf said "you'll need to come up with some actual data which supports your accusation of hackery."

All the data you need is readily apparent at the Power Line site itself, but since you have some trouble seeing it for what it is, you can get some help here, here, here, here and here.

I'm going to paraphrase various arguments that some have presented in a lame attempt to paint Rove as something other than a dangerous traitor. By the way, I'm not that interested (at the moment) in showing that Rove will be convicted of anything. I'm interested in showing that he did something very wrong.

"She wasn't a covert operative."

It doesn't matter, unless you can show that Rove knew for sure that she wasn't a covert operative (and I haven't seen any indication that Rove is in a position to make such a claim). Before speaking about her to a reporter, Rove had a moral obligation to make sure he wasn't outing an agent.

"Rove didn't know she was a covert operative."

It doesn't matter. Before speaking about her to a reporter, Rove had a moral obligation to make sure he wasn't outing an agent. Rove obviously knew she worked for the CIA. Many (but of course not all) of the people who work at the CIA are covert operatives. Therefore, Rove knew that there was at least a chance that she was a covert operative. At best, therefore, he did something highly reckless and negligent.

"Other people knew, like Andrea Mitchell"

It doesn't matter if other folks in Washington knew, or were saying, that Plame was a covert operative (unless one can show that it was such common knowledge that it had already been published, and obviously that's not the case). Two wrongs don't make a right. What Rove did was still wrong.

"Rove didn't say her name."

That argument is so absurd, that the fact that it is even raised at all is an indication of how much trouble Rove is in. There are many ways to positively identify someone without using their name. If I mentioned the sociopathically cunning pseudo-Texan currently squatting in the White House (link), it's hard to imagine anyone arguing that it made any difference that I didn't use his name.

"The motive was merely to discredit Wilson, not to punish him by endangering his wife."

It doesn't matter what the motive was. It was still wrong.

"It's [merely] a top aide providing truthful information to journalists in response to lies told to embarrass the administration and our government"

(Of course that's not a paraphrase; it's straight from Power Line. And here are some variations on that argument: "Wilson claimed Cheney sent him, and that's not true, Plame sent him ... Saddam really was trying to get uranium from Africa, after all ... Wilson was arguably in bed with a CIA faction that opposed the war.")

It doesn't matter (with regard to Rove's behavior, that is) whether or not Plame and/or Wilson are creeps and/or liars, and it doesn't matter if they were trying "to embarrass the administration and our government." And it doesn't matter (with regard to Rove's behavior, that is) if Wilson was sent by Plame, and if Saddam really was trying to get uranium from Africa, and if "Wilson was arguably in bed with a CIA faction that opposed the war." All of this is nothing but pathetic misdirection.

There will always be creeps and liars who are going to try "to embarrass the administration and our government." The administration needs to counter this by speaking openly and truthfully, in plain sight, and there are many opportunities for the government to do so. If Rove wanted to make a case that Wilson was making statements that were wrong, Rove needed to find a way to do that which didn't involve secretly telling a reporter (on "double super secret background") any information about anyone who might even possibly be a covert operative. It's as simple as that. Instead, Rove put politics ahead of national security.

(For example, if Rove wanted to send the message "Cheney didn't send Wilson," Rove should simply have said "Cheney didn't send Wilson." Mentioning Plame as a way to communicate this point proved nothing, and was not necessary.)

The fact that Rove had to resort to such a step in order to defend Bush from those who ostensibly were trying "to embarrass the administration and our government," tends to create the impression that Rove knew the facts were not on his side. If the facts were on his side, that's what he should have used. Instead, he stooped to outing an agent. Scum.

Olbermann summed it all up pretty well a few hours ago: "Rove is a liability in the war on terror" (link).

chill said: "Cooper talked to Rove at 11:07am"

Not exactly. This was an error by Hunter, which he corrected in the comments, I think. 11:07 is not the time of the conversation with Rove. 11:07 is the time Cooper sent the email. Therefore Cooper and Rove spoke some time earlier than 11:07. Cooper needed at least a few minutes (and possibly more) to get off the phone with Rove, collect his thoughts, and compose the email.

At some point I think we're all going to find out exactly what time Novak's story hit the wires. For now, it's still hard for me to understand why Rove said to Cooper the material was "double super secret background," if it was already widely available via the Creators Syndicate newswire. That doesn't add up.