Matt Cooper of TIME on "Meet The Pravda"

Matt Cooper, the TIME magazine reporter caught up in the Plame leak investigation, was interviewed by Tim Russert on "Meet The Press".  [Here is Reuters coverage, and the transcript].

Highlights:

(a)  Cooper claims that he first learned that Wilson's wife first worked for the CIA in the WMD area from Karl Rove;

(b)  Cooper says that he told Cheney's Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, about the Wilson and wife connection.  Libby responded with something like, "I heard that, too", which Cooper took as confirmation.  (That is pretty similar to the "confirmation" that Rove reportedly gave Novak.)

(c)  Cooper hinted that perhaps there were other sources as well; he certainly did not flatly rule it out.

(d)  Cooper claimed to have a letter from Rove and his attorney specifically noting the general waiver.  (I was at a non-TiVo facility, and may not have followed that, but it seems to contradict what Luskin, Rove's attorney, said a few days ago).

[UPDATE:  From the transcript:

And so on the morning of that clip you just saw, my lawyer called me and had seen in The Wall Street Journal that morning Mr. Rove's lawyer saying, "Karl does not stand by any confidentiality with these conversations," or words to that effect, and then went on to say, "If Matt Cooper's going to jail, it's not for Karl Rove."  And at that point, at that point only, my lawyer contacted Mr. Rove's lawyer and said, you know, "Can we get a kind of personal waiver that applies to Matt?"  And Mr. Luskin and he worked out an agreement and we have a letter that says that "Mr. Rove waives confidentiality for conversations with Matt Cooper in July 2003."  So it's specific to me and it's personal, and that's why I felt comfortable, only at that point, going to testify before the grand jury.]

I don't think that is what Luskin said.  Bother.

(e)  "I've already said too much" - Rove ended the call with that cryptic comment.  But did it mean "I've got to go", or "I've gone over the line"?  Cooper is still not sure.  But as Russert probed, Cooper pointed out thathe did not publish until after Novak, so he was not worried about leaking (formerly) secret info.

Wel, I am sure of this - if Rove gave it to him on "double super secret background" and told him "I've already said too much", one has to wonder whether Rove really meant to see that tidbit splashed across TIME magazine.  Unless, of course, the forbidden tip smells sweeter.

Lowlights - Matt Cooper appeared as any other author promoting their latest effort - in this case, the latest TIME cover story - rather than as a journalist.  Any newsman would have had a few questions for Tim Russert.  After all, Russert was also subpoenaed, also worked out an accommodation with the Special Counsel, and also gave testimony.  We are all interested in his story - there are strong hints that what Russert told Libby was more important than what Libby told Russert, which has people thinking that Russert told Libby about Valerie Wilson.

However, Cooper wanted to promote his cover story, and Russert wanted to stand behind his official statement, so "Meet The Pravda" never went there.

Comments

[kim]

Isn't it a journalist's right not to incriminate himself?
===========================

[kate]

Right, their job is to incriminate othes, especially Republicans.

[TM]

First, Russert wouldn't be gulity of a rime.

Secondly, he can always "no comment", if ge doesn't like Cooper's questions.

My belief - this was a ground-rules agreement - it's Russert's show, he asks the questions.

Now, why a real newsmaan would agree to that, beats me. But since Cooper was on a promotional tour, hey, whatever.

[kim]

Alright, then, 'a right not to insinuate himself'.
==========================

[AJStrata]

I did record it (since I had to be out when it was on), what Cooper claims is actually accurate to Luskin. The one detail he included not know before was the exact comment they heard which caused Cooper's lawyer to contact Luskin. It was Luskin's comment that "if Matt Cooper is going to jail it is not because of Karl Rove". At least that is his claim. Cooper was caught lying on the courthouse steps in my opinion and is no longer deemed credible on his word alone. What he said then was he got a specific waiver naming Matt Cooper for conversations in July 2003. Russer mispoke about Luskin's claims - that is where you got off track. He claimed Luskin had claimed Cooper had the same waiver - that is not what he said. He said he had the same release from confidentiality (legal level).

[Steve Carr]

Tom, if a source gives you something "on background," that means you're free to print the substance of the conversation but not to quote the source by name, or in any way that would identify him/her. ("Double super secret" means "make sure there's no way this can be linked back to me.") If Rove hadn't wanted Cooper to use what he was giving him, he would have said "this is off the record," in which case nothing of what's said can be printed.

So, yes, if Rove gave it to him on background -- double super secret or not -- he wanted (or at least was not opposed to) it being splashed across the pages of Time magazine.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Russert tried gamely to make something out of this incredible shrinking scandal; Rove confirmed classified information to Novak. Unfortunately, the information came from another journalist, not because Rove has a security clearance. Mehlman ate Tim's lunch.

Anyone not blinded by W-hatred can see that Joe Wilson picked a fight with the Bush Administration, got his nose bloodied in return, and ran home to hide behind his wife's skirt. What a bunch of wimps in the press corps that they side with Wilson.

[kim]

So there should be a bloodstain on the skirt? Let's DNA profile it.
=============================

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

According to Novak's 7-14-03 column:

'The CIA report of Wilson's briefing remains classified.'

Meaning Wilson's leaks to Kristoff and Pincus, as well as his own NY Times Op-ed are probably part of Fitzgerald's investigation. If his wife really had covert status, Wilson's revealing classified information resulted in her cover being blown. That's much more serious than Karl Rove telling one reporter what other reporters had told him.

[SamAm]

Many details here look bad for Rove.

First, Cooper makes no mention of talking welfare reform in his call that day with Rove. Rove in the email to Hadley says they talked WR. Cooper says they went right to Wilson.

Rove didn't mention Wilson in his email to Hadley, when the subject had clearly come up.

Rove confirmed classified information to Cooper that Cooper had no knowledge of previously.

Rove said something along the lines of some information (the INR memo, I'd guess) will be declassified. Luskin says Rove never had anything to do with it. So how can Rove speak about it? This suggests more knowledge of the information about Wilson the White House put together, either the INR memo or something else. Is Rove going to claim he heard of the memo or its contents from journalists before he heard of it from his fellow WH officials? When Powell saw it, Cheney saw it (according to Fred Barned), Ari saw it. Not credible.

Furthermore, if Rove is speaking about classified information in general, that's not good for him.

[SamAm]

Also, "I've already said too much," in reference to something on the record suggests a strong desire to see it published.

Or a genuine slip of the tongue.

Either one, not good.

If Rove was just running late, he would have said something different, or something in addition, and he wouldn't have taken the time to email Hadley.

Can't explain that sentence away.

[Martin]

"I've already said too much"

That actually applies to the whole right wing spin machine as well.

[Seven Machos]

Matt Cooper is trying to save his own skin. Karl Rove is trying to save his own skin. The question is: whom do you believe? Who has more credibility? The Bush administration or Big Media?

For me, it's the Bush administration.

[richard mcenroe]

"I've already said too much" could just as easily mean he realized he shouldn't even have mentioned Wilson's wife, period. That, or he was running really late to catch his broom for his meeting with Lord Voldemort.

As for the rest:

1. "First, Cooper makes no mention of talking welfare reform in his call that day with Rove. " So?

2. "Rove didn't mention Wilson in his email to Hadley, when the subject had clearly come up." Again, so? Rove didn't leak every chance he got, therefore he is the leaker?

3. "Rove confirmed classified information to Cooper that Cooper had no knowledge of previously." As the lawyers put it, assumes a fact not in evidence. All we have for this is Cooper's statement with zero corroboration that he had no prior knowledge of Plame.

4. "Rove said something along the lines of some information (the INR memo, I'd guess) will be declassified." And yet again, so? The President's political adviser would know of this, even if he didn't know the details of the document.

[SamAm]

Now, why would Rove need to save his own skin? I thought there wasn't a crime here.

In any event, I'll trust the guy who doesn't have a lifetime of sleaze behind him. The same guy who wasn't called back 2 times to the GJ after testifying.

Also the guy who has less motive to lie.

[kim]

Joe Wilson doesn't need a motive to lie. He can't help it.
=============================

[Jim E.]

"The question is: whom do you believe? Who has more credibility?"

Well, Steven "The Special Prosecutor already said no crime has been committed" Machos certainly has no credibility.

[Jim E.]

"Right, their job is to incriminate othes, especially Republicans."

Yeah, that liberal media is at it again. That horrible Republican-hating liberal media that sat on this anti-Rove story all the way through a presidential election. Mmm-kay.

[SamAm]

He shouldn't have mentioned her, why? If he shouldn't have mentioned her, why did he know? If he shouldn't have mentioned her, why was the convo on background? Why call other reporters about it? Why confirm to Novak?

1) Cooper says they didn't talk about welfare reform. He says they launched right into Wilson when he was put through by the operator.

2) I find it odd that the subject was worthy a "I've said too much" but not worth a mention to Hadley. There are no exculpatory scenarios there.

3) What evidence suggests even the possibility that Cooper is lying, that he did in fact know before Rove told him (which is the opposite of how he testified and answered questions in his piece and on MtP, and unsubstantiated by any spin from the Rove camp)?

4) Not plausible of Rove was dishing details of the case to reporters. Rove knew at least some of what was in the memo. He also knew it was classified. He thought it would be declassifed, but was wrong.

Rove gave information he knew was classified to Cooper, info that Cooper had no prior knowledge of. Rove leaked classified information.

[Martin]

From Cooper's story in Time:

"As I told the grand jury--and we went over this in microscopic, excruciating detail, which may someday prove relevant--I recall calling Rove from my office at TIME magazine through the White House switchboard and being transferred to his office. I believe a woman answered the phone and said words to the effect that Rove wasn't there or was busy before going on vacation. But then, I recall, she said something like, "Hang on," and I was transferred to him."

"Microscopic, excruciating" detail. Transferred. He's not here. Oh wait.

Did someone scrub their phone records? What's with these details?

Also per Fineman's article in Newsweek today-Rove, according to his lawyer, didn't mention talking to Cooper in his initial FBI interview, but later testified about it.

Curiouser.

[Seven Machos]

Sammy -- Welcome back also. I thought you said that Rove is going to be indicted. Wouldn't a person under potential indictment be acting "to save his own skin"? Note that "to save your own skin" does not mean to lie, or do anything bad. Very often, consistently being truthful is the best way to "save your own skin."

Frankly, I've tried to be reasonable here. The fact is that a faction on the left thinks the Right is evil. Sammy and Marty and the Jukemeister are all part of this faction. For example, you say that Karl Rove has "a lifetime of sleaze behind him." That's ridiculous. Does James Carville similarly have "a lifetime of sleaze behind him." Does Paul Begala? Does Hillary Clinton?

The ability of the Left to hate people and consider them evil and sinister and criminal and guilty without any sort of trial just because of their beliefs or what political side they are on never ceases to amaze me. It reminds me of some odd combination of junior high and a bizarre religious cult.

[Martin]

hey. we're not the ones who call him Turd Blossom.

[Seven Machos]

"Did someone scrub their phone records?"

Marty, this is not Watergate. I have a serious question for you: let's suppose Tempest-in-a-Teapot Dome is a complete and total defeat for this right-wing cabal you speak of.

WHAT IS THE ABSOLUTE WORST THAT WILL HAPPEN?

Will Karl Rove not be able to work on President Bush's next presidential campaign? Will Vice President Cheney not be able to run for president? Will Scooter Libby be asked to resign?

[Martin]

Justice will be done.

That's enough for me.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

@ Steve Carr

Tom, if a source gives you something "on background," that means you're free to print the substance of the conversation but not to quote the source by name, or in any way that would identify him/her. ("Double super secret" means "make sure there's no way this can be linked back to me.") If Rove hadn't wanted Cooper to use what he was giving him, he would have said "this is off the record," in which case nothing of what's said can be printed.

So, yes, if Rove gave it to him on background -- double super secret or not -- he wanted (or at least was not opposed to) it being splashed across the pages of Time magazine.

Actually there is no hard or fast rule about that. Some people take the term "background" to mean for the education of the reporter only, and not for any publication at all. Some people believe, like you do, that it is available for publication, but without attribution.

However I'll point out that Rove also told Cooper, as outlined in Cooper's email, to find another source. Frankly I'd take that to mean the first definition and not the second. Particularly with Luskins later comments that Cooper "burned" Rove.

All things consdered I think Rove merely intended to education Cooper about the possible pitfalls in Wilson's story and didn't intend for it be published in any way.

Which of course makes him less evil and thus couldn't possibly be accepted for any sort of consideration.

[Martin]

S&M-so why did Fitzgerald go into "microscopic, excruciating" detail over the circumstances of Cooper's phone connection?

[ed]

Hmmmm.

@ SamAm

First, Cooper makes no mention of talking welfare reform in his call that day with Rove. Rove in the email to Hadley says they talked WR. Cooper says they went right to Wilson.

Completely false.

Are you repeating whatever nonsense someone told you? Or did you do any actual research on your own?

Cooper explicitly stated in his email that he first talked to Rove about welfare reform, and then shifted right away to Wilson.

I suggest you read up and learn something on the subject.

[Seven Machos]

That's lame, Marty. What is this justice you speak of? What will be the political outcome that is just? What will be the legal outcome that is just? Will someone get in actual trouble -- like, I don't know, say, just as a for-instance, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL SECURITY GURU SANDY BERGER?

That's just like the Left. "Justice will be done." If you are hoping for "justice," whatever that is, you are going to be sadly disappointed no matter what the outcome.

But just for fun, again: what would a just outcome look like? Come on, Marty. Help me out here. You know I don't understand what's really going on here. What would be an actual, concrete outcome that would please you?

[Martin]

Ed it is you who are wrong.

Here's Cooper in his Time Story:

A surprising line of questioning had to do with, of all things, welfare reform. The prosecutor asked if I had ever called Mr. Rove about the topic of welfare reform. Just the day before my grand jury testimony Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, had told journalists that when I telephoned Rove that July, it was about welfare reform and that I suddenly switched topics to the Wilson matter. After my grand jury appearance, I did go back and review my e-mails from that week, and it seems as if I was, at the beginning of the week, hoping to publish an article in TIME on lessons of the 1996 welfare-reform law, but the article got put aside, as often happens when news overtakes story plans. My welfare-reform story ran as a short item two months later, and I was asked about it extensively. To me this suggested that Rove may have testified that we had talked about welfare reform, and indeed earlier in the week, I may have left a message with his office asking if I could talk to him about welfare reform. But I can't find any record of talking about it with him on July 11, and I don't recall doing so."

[SamAm]

ed-

From Cooper in today's Time...
"A surprising line of questioning had to do with, of all things, welfare reform. The prosecutor asked if I had ever called Mr. Rove about the topic of welfare reform. Just the day before my grand jury testimony Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, had told journalists that when I telephoned Rove that July, it was about welfare reform and that I suddenly switched topics to the Wilson matter. After my grand jury appearance, I did go back and review my e-mails from that week, and it seems as if I was, at the beginning of the week, hoping to publish an article in TIME on lessons of the 1996 welfare-reform law, but the article got put aside, as often happens when news overtakes story plans. My welfare-reform story ran as a short item two months later, and I was asked about it extensively. To me this suggested that Rove may have testified that we had talked about welfare reform, and indeed earlier in the week, I may have left a message with his office asking if I could talk to him about welfare reform. But I can't find any record of talking about it with him on July 11, and I don't recall doing so."

[Martin]

So now we see why Luskin said that Cooper's "truthful testimony" would exonerate Rove.

Rove is now going to have to say Cooper is lying.
Did Cooper's wife authorize him to write the story?

[SamAm]

A quote so nice, you'll read it twice.

[Martin]

Don't worry Sam. I got your back ;)
although with "completely false" Ed it's probably better to spell it out twice.

[Seven Machos]

Still waiting for any response about the outcome. Is it possible that the Left doesn't care about the outcome, and only cares about scandal itself?

What's crazy is that NOBODY IS LISTENING. You cannot turn this thing into votes, which is what I suspect you really want, because the electorate doesn't care. When will the Left stop with the scandal and start worrying about real concerns in real peoples' lives? I hope it's not soon...

[kim]

So how was Rove to know that Welfare Reform was on Cooper's mind?
===============================

[Martin]

S&M-Did you notice on MTP when Mehlman was lalking 9lying and talking) about Bush's upcoming accomplishments, deficit down, energy bill, whatever, he never once mentioned social security?

The Dems aren't in power. Our triumph is containing Republican damage.

[Seven Machos]

Well, I guess the scandal is REALLY over now. The Left is back to Iraq-Blood-for-Oil-Bad AND Social-Security-Never-Change-Ever.

I am relieved.

[Martin]

The scandal hasn't even started.

[Seven Machos]

Still waiting on ANY answer about what a winning outcome would look like for the Left.

[kim]

Yes, but rather than widening into the White House, it is widening into the CIA and the MSM.
===============================

[Lesley]

As was pointed out in a previous comment thread, Bush with his MBA has a tendency to run things like a coporation, ie. he does not think like a bureaucrat. This Plame/Wilson jazz is an unwanted distraction to the coporate mind-set/goals. If Bush knew that someone in the WH leaked classified information, they would be fired. PERIOD. As I stated previously, had Rove leaked classified information, to which he had been privy, he is too smart a political operator not to have insisted on falling on his own sword and departed the administration.

No, I don't think Rove is the target.

Oh. And BTW, save the snarky connection/comments about Enron, Tyco, Adelphi, HealthSouth, Worldcom, etc. They are unfortunate exceptions, not the rule. Moreover, the issues were greed and lousy coporate governance. Overall, in my estimation, the Bush Administration practices good coporate governance, something non-business types in the press (and non-business types in the public for that matter) just don't get.

[Steve Carr]

Ed, it's just not true that there's real confusion about what "background" means, especially not with White House sources. "On background" means -- and the vast majority of reporters understand it to mean -- that you can use it, but not quote the person by name. Rove wanted this to be on "deep background," which means "make the attribution as vague as possible." He was not just trying to enlighten Cooper. He was giving him information that he would have liked to have been published.

Seven, I'm baffled by how you don't think having the President's right-hand man resign (or be fired) for disclosing the name of a CIA agent (if that is the eventual outcome) will have no impact on Bush or the Republicans in the future. The less credibility that Bush has with voters, the less power he has to push through his agenda. For a Democrat, that has to be a good result.

[kim]

Lesley: What they really resent is that Bush is the CEO of the world and adding value like crazy.
==============================

[Lesley]

Kim LOL. I actually spit coffee all over my keyboard on that one. Darn funny and darn insightful.

[Seven Machos]

Certainly, it hurt Bill Clinton when HIS Karl Rove was found to be an adulterer cavorting with ugly prostitutes.

I agree that if Fitzgerald could somehow convict Karl Rove under this obscure law, it would not be good for Republicans. However, I don't think it will resonate with voters, certainly not the way Democrats think it will.

[kim]

Oh Lesley, I'm funny but you're the insightful one.
==============================

[Lesley]

When I think of the outstanding members of the Bush Administration, two names come immediately to mind: Cheney and Rumsfield, both former CEOs. I believe one hallmark of greatness in leadership is the ability to rise above the "petty." I don't think either of these men have a petty bone in their bodies. Such thinking simply does not occur to either of them. The problem with Washington, and politics in general, is that it attracts the petty, encourages the snark, the small thinking of small men, the gotcha, the gossip, the dirt, the undermining, etc., however, I do understand that that's the nature of them game. But, I do think that is why we see so few great men or women in politics (Washington is full of politicians but few statesmen), because to surround oneself with such ugliness and pettiness is frankly beneath serious people. So why are Cheney and Rumsfield there? Duty, honor, country, their innate genius to lead, and their sincere belief they can make a difference.

I thank God for such men.

[Martin]

No wonder the FEC wants to regulate blogs.

[Seven Machos]

Marty -- Clearly, if the little people would simply talk less and work in the mills, and intellectual giants such as yourself could make decisions for everyone, we would all be better off. Right?

[Jim E.]

You folks are under the (irrelevent) understanding that Bush was a successful businessman prior to becoming governor? Are you being sarcastic?

It is sad that Steven Machos and others are so concerned about politics ("Still waiting on ANY answer about what a winning outcome would look like for the Left") and not law-and-order. I guess it's always the Republican party first, national security second with this crowd.