Powered by TypePad

« Now The Times Discovers Walter Pincus | Main | Defining Deviancy Down »

July 29, 2005

Comments

Black Jack

Don't forget Matt Cooper's wife, Mandy Grunwald. She worked in the Clinton War Room with Begala and Carville. Hillary gave her a big party in the White House.

I wonder if Val and Judy were invited.

Martin

Slarti still won't admit Bolton's answer to Congress was at a minimum inaccurate when even the State Dept. has admitted as much-so you see the orientation for his reason and logic.

Slartibartfast
Slarti still won't admit Bolton's answer to Congress was at a minimum inaccurate when even the State Dept. has admitted as much-so you see the orientation for his reason and logic.

Oh, is it me that you're pursuing with the OT questions? Well, that was never clear; I thought you were tossing those at boris. And given that the question is in fact OT, I don't see that an answer here is going to prove either your point or mine with regard to this thread.

Martin's point is the cogent one here. When will Republicans stop putting the good of their party ahead of the interests of our country?

Dunno, Etienne, but if you're referring to me, I'm not a Republican. If your idea of cogent is a relentless barrage of non sequitur, we need to align our dictionaries before any further discussion takes place.

Etienne

Slarti, you've got the bob and weave down pat. If you're not a Republican, you've missed your calling.

Martin

Slarti-are you at least capable of articulating any affirmative position whatsoever?

You spew sophistry on behalf of Republicans this whole thread, yet when we try to at least foundationalize you on that basis, you deny being a Republican.

You're nothing but a heckler.

Reason and logic are just tools; they are always subservient to an end. Your desired end is just to jape and belittle, you sad little fruitfly.

The body politic continues to be toxified by lies and corruption. Bolton, a man who just lied to Congress, may well be recessed into being our ambassador to the world.

Never mind the deceit, even the lapdog Pat Roberts has stated that the recess appointment itself will weaken the U.S.

Yet you can't be bothered to even express an opinion since my simple little question leaves you no room to heap scorn. Who is it you are really serving thereby?

boris

When will Republicans stop putting the good of their party ahead of the interests of our country?

When will Democrats stop projecting all their major flaws onto Republicans?

Jeff

boris - have you cleared up your confusion over Bolton's Disclosure Form and its accuracy?

Slartibartfast
Slarti-are you at least capable of articulating any affirmative position whatsoever?

Consider me firmly for logic and reason, and firmly opposed to idiocy. How's that? I think I've stated that a number of times in this very thread.

You're nothing but a heckler.

Sha. Now I know you're pulling my leg. What have you done with the real Martin?

Martin

-Consider me firmly for logic and reason, and firmly opposed to idiocy-

So why are you always defending Bush?

Slartibartfast
So why are you always defending Bush?

Always? I imagine you take my failure to constantly refer to Bush as a moron is an implicit defense of him, but...well, if you can point out that I defend Bush more than, say, a few percent of times I comment, then I'd be happy to explain those instances to you. If you're taking anti-idiocy to be a defense of Bush, though...again, I don't think that's where you want this to go.

Martin

No it was a ploy to get you to drop the "not on topic" defense.

There is no topic. So I ask again-was Bolton's answer to the SFAC accurate?

Slartibartfast

See that bit all the way up at the top of the page? I know you can...just keep scrolling. That, there, is the topic. This thing we've been discussing back and forth between us, this is the topic. Say we're having a discussion, a heated discussion, even, about something that happens to involve an area that I have some experience in, and one of us changes the subject rather abruptly, and insists on hauling the discussion over in that direction; one that I'm rather less well-acquainted with. I think I'm perfectly within my rights to decline to go along with subject change. Feel free to declare yourself victorious on the subject-change issue, Martin. I'll even go one step further: from my position of almost complete ignorance of that particular subject area, I declare: you're right! Your major award will be in the mail.

Martin

I agree! We'll just leave it at I'm right and be done with it.

Appalled Moderate

If we might return to the topic for a moment, I'd like to ask all the wise people -- what are your theories on Miller? Jail can't be fun, and Rove and Libby have signed waivers. So why is Miller clinging so tightly to priciple?

Possibilities:

1. She's just stubborn;

2. She's indulging in a little job protection. After all, you can't fire a media heroine, even if she did ensure that the NYT got the WMD story wrong.

3. She's taking a fall for someone else on the newspaper (Nick Kristoff)

4. She's covering up her own actions in outing Plame. If she, thereby, fails to confirm Libby's or Rove's story, that's an added bonus.

5. Any combination thereof.

Please be as reckless as you like. After all, we have very few facts to work with, so creativity is a plus. If you do a good enough job, Oliver Stone may base a film on your comment. Plus, if we exercise our collective imaginations, we may have more fun, and get far less irritable.

Plus, a prize (yet to be determined) of the first person who turns the Plame affair into an epic poem, a Faulkner parody, a limerick, or haiku.

TexasToast

I whispered about Valarie Plame
Who’s ID was more than her name
Can’t recall who told me
But now its a certainty
Joe Wilson is to blame!

boris

You are truly an idiot.

Why is Bolton going to amend his answer?

Boxer conceded it was possible that Bolton's answer was true when he gave it; he could have cooperated in the CIA leak case after he filled out the questionnaire in March. The Biden letter asked Rice if, and when, that cooperation occurred.

Boxer said she believes the special counsel had completed interviewing witnesses by March, and that even if Bolton's alleged cooperation came later, "ethics tells me you go and amend" the questionnaire.

Demonstrate some reading comprehension.

Martin

Thanks for confirming you're an idiot.

boris

I love it when you call me names.

Martin

A masochistic idiot at that.

Well I'm a sadist.

You're a genius.

kim

Jeez Louise, your eloquence, Etienne, slipped down the stormsewer and into the fever wetlands. It was an all day downpour, but we've had enough moisture, now, thanks. There was enough wind to bring all that precipitation in at a slant. With the help of all the manure from your friends we'll soon have a nice growth, concealing the rusting hulk, Joe Wilson.
==========================================

jukeboxgrad

SEVEN: "You don't really know if Rove or Libby has been ambiguous or straightforward"

For two years the White House told us Rove wasn't involved. Now we know he is involved. Cooper said so, and Luskin tacitly acknowledged that Cooper is correct. Nothing ambiguous or secret about this.

"Aren't you of the belief that Plame's true identity was a closely-guarded secret? How, then, would a mere political consultant or a lowly aide to the vice president confirm her identity?"

Novak was able to call the CIA and find out the CIA had a concern about Plame's identity being publicized. Are you claiming that Rove couldn't make the same phone call that Novak made?

By the way, Rove and Bush have known each other for thirty years. "Mere political consultant" my ass. Rove is undoubtedly one of the most powerful people in the White House.

"I'm not sure there is much of a difference between 'criminal' contempt and any other kind of contempt."

Criminal contempt is a significant escalation of the hot water Miller is in (link).">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/15/AR2005071502080.html&e=10401">link).

"She can be in jail only for as long as this particular Grand Jury for this particular case is in session."

That applies to civil contempt, but not criminal contempt. "Believe it or not, a criminal contempt charge carries a maximum penalty of life in prison" (link).

"How do you know that Fitzgerald believes that Judith Miller is any kind of lynchpin?"

Please let me know if you can remember the last time a federal prosecutor threw a reporter in jail.

"Miller has been sentenced ..."

Her current sentence is for civil contempt. If the charge is escalated to criminal contempt, her current sentence no longer means much.

jukeboxgrad

ARMIN: "If she's refusing to testify because she's the one who passed the information to the White House, when such testimony could exculpate everyone there, possible motives are obvious"

You're implying that if Rove heard it from a reporter, that means he's off the hook. In order to believe that, you have to ignore this: "Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information" (link).

I assume you will continue to do so.

jukeboxgrad

BORIS: "What ??? You mean this isn't the most ethical administration in history ??? Oh that's right. the most ethical administration in history was the co-presidency of BJ and Hil."

Ah, the impressive "maybe not much worse than Clinton" defense.

Boris, maybe you forgot that Bush promised to "restore honor and dignity to the White House" (link, also see this).

"Humvees ... The decision to armor them ... proceeded as fast as possible."

I guess we couldn't find the money to armor them on account of the hundreds of tons of cash we lost track of.

"there’s nothing that precludes anyone from identifying analytical officers"

You already brought this up, here, and I asked you some very reasonable questions, here, which of course you've ignored. If you're going to simply repeat yourself, maybe you could try to do it by reference.

"Boxer ... Bolton ... questionnaire ... Demonstrate some reading comprehension."

Jeff did a nice job here of demonstrating how utterly confused you are.

jukeboxgrad

STEVEN J:

Nice job with the list of lies, but I think this one belongs on the hit parade: brazenly lying about Pat Tillman's death.

Also, nice job bringing up another one of my favorites: "he wouldn't let them in." A lot of people don't remember that Sen. Roberts colluded with Bush in that nonsense (link). No surprise that Roberts is indulging in similar hackery now regarding Plame.

jukeboxgrad

SLART: "no one's come forth to confess guilt as yet in the Plame case ... You make an assumption that it was someone in the administration"

We know Rove told Cooper about Plame (Luskin has tacitly acknowledged this). We know the White House has been lying about this for a couple of years. Why is this not enough to demand some action?

Here you issue a vague denial of what I just asserted. Some specifics would be helpful.

"I really hate to have to bring you up to speed, but exactly how do you think Rove knew Plame was covert? ... how do you know that Rove knew about Plame's status?"

I really hate to have to bring you up to speed, but Rove had an obligation to ask, unless he was certain she was not covert. I've documented this in many places, such as here.

"Lots of people work at the CIA; few are covert"

I guess that depends on how you define "few:" "as many as one-third of the CIA's approximately 20,000 employees are undercover or have worked in that capacity at some point in their careers" (link).

"Normally, the names of covert officers aren't passed around as gossip."

Since you're ostensibly a fan of "logic and reason," do you have any proof that Plame's name was being "passed around as gossip?"

"we don't know anywhere near enough about the case"

You're not being clear about what you accept and what you deny. As far as I can tell, you're hanging your hat on the "Rove wasn't obliged to ask even though SF-312 explicitly requires him to do so" defense.

"Whether exposure of her identity meets the rather stringent criterion of being damaging to national security is a question for the courts."

We don't have to be convinced that Rove did something "damaging to national security" in order to be convinced that Rove and the White House acted unethically (in outing Plame, and in the subsequent coverup).

"Were those deaths due to not having enough armor?"

If you think our troops are well-equipped, consider this: "My partner and I have shelled out thousands on gear and we are still in need....," link. And yes, we're still relying on "hillbilly armor."

Nice to know that our troops are begging for donations, even though we managed to lose track of hundreds of tons of cash.

"There's no amount of armor that can keep soldiers in a Hummer alive, given arbitrary-sized IEDs"

Which means what? That it's OK that our troops want more armor, and they're not getting it?

"if it's impossible to defend against RPG or sniper or suicide bombers, keep everyone indoors"

A very large percentage of our casualties are by IED ("The Pentagon is not trying hard enough to defeat the makeshift roadside bombs that are the leading killer of U.S. troops in Iraq, the commander of American forces in the Middle East said;" link). Armor would help. Too bad we don't have enough, and too bad you don't seem to mind much.

"Oh, is it me that you're pursuing with the OT questions"

Martin does just fine without any help from me, but I happen to notice that here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here Martin asked the question in a way that made it pretty clear he was addressing you. (That list omits the times he seemed to have been addressing Boris.)

And speaking of "OT," I recall it was peapies, one of your ideological pals, who decided to toss poor innocent Bolton into this thread. So therefore I think it's a bit unfair of you to imply that Martin spontaneously changed the subject.

jukeboxgrad

JEFF: "I like how when boris gets something factual completely wrong, he's content to just move on to the next point."

Being a Republican means never having to say you're sorry: IOKIYAR.

Actually, he doesn't move on. He hammers himself into the ground by simply repeating the foolishness (here, here, here and here), even though you did a nice job of trying to get a simple concept through his thick skull.

jukeboxgrad

BLACK: "Don't forget Matt Cooper's wife, Mandy Grunwald"

You already raised this asinine point, here, and I answered you, here. If you're going to repeat yourself, please save innocent electrons and try to do it by reference. Also, it's poor form to repeat yourself without even making a pretense of dealing with responses that have already been made.

jukeboxgrad

AM: "Rove and Libby have signed waivers"

The blanket waiver signed long ago by Rove was not taken seriously by Cooper. Then at the last minute Luskin said this: "if Matt Cooper is going to jail to protect a source, it's not Karl he's protecting" (link). Then suddenly some interesting things happened, and Cooper avoided jail.

Why has Luskin never made the corresponding remark regarding Miller? In my opinion, this is a large clue that Miller is covering for Rove.

Why has Miller not pressed Luskin to make the corresponding remark regarding Miller? In my opinion, this is a large clue that Miller would rather stay in jail, if her only way out is to admit to the world that she's been covering for Rove all this time.

kim

Joe Wilson is to blame,
For outing Valarie Plame.
'Til death do us part,
Even though he's a fart.
He wants it, she doesn't. It's fame.
===============================================

kim

You're about to hear a story,
Full of blood and plenty gory.
The B and G, I think,
Is just a lot of ink.
It dries, it lies, it is perjory.
=================================================

kim

Fitzgerald is pitching a fit.
The press has us all in a snit.
Is Miller the Killer?
Fitz sure has a thriller.
Joe Wilson can't stand up or sit.
==================================================

kim

MSM has raised a ruckus,
Telling us that we're in luck, us.
Their house of cards,
For White House guards,
Is lies and don't mean bupkis.
============================================

kim

Joe took his grip on a trip uncommon.
Made up lies if he didn't hear 'em.
Valerie,
How are ye?
Does back of every man stand a woman?
==========================================

kim

Sifting and grilling's the place for our ace,
In the hot kitchen, he cuts to the chase.
If what Fitz bakes,
Ain't Yellow Cake,
The missing ingredient will be on my face.
===================================================

John

Juke, you're kidding right?

Signing a waiver of confidentiality--putting pen to paper and waiving whatever confidentiality you had is not enough, but when your lawyer says that a reporter is not going to jail for the client that makes all the difference in the world?? Come on.

The prosecutor knows the source already and probably whatever the source has to say about his/her conversation(s) with miller. already. And since you've been following this, I'm sure you know that Miller's source is very likely not Rove anyway.

Miller is not in jail because of her source. She's there because for whatever reason she choses to be in jail.

jukeboxgrad

"but when your lawyer says that a reporter is not going to jail for the client that makes all the difference in the world"

You're kidding, right? Please inform yourself before putting your foot in your mouth and wasting our time. It wasn't Luskin's statement alone that made "all the difference in the world." Luskin's statement set in a motion a series of events that did indeed make "all the difference in the world" (at least as far as the question of whether Cooper was going to talk and avoid jail, or not talk and not avoid jail).

This is Cooper's lawyer describing that series of events: "I read the account in the Wall Street Journal ... right at the end of the article about this matter is the following statement: 'Mr. Rove hasn't asked any reporter to treat him as a confidential source in the matter,' Mr. Luskin said, who I understand is Mr. Rove's lawyer. 'So if Matt Cooper is going to jail to protect a source, it's not Karl he's protecting.' I immediately called Matt from the plane and said, 'You ought to take a look at this comment. I think it is interesting and I think we should give a shot of calling Mr. Luskin and seeing if we could get a specific waiver,' which Matt authorized me to do.... I put in a call to Mr. Luskin and asked him for a specific waiver ... he dictated to me a letter that he would be willing to agree to, which I typed up and sent to him.... I just want to make clear the specificity that Matt especially wanted in the letter. If you recall, Matt has made the point that the general waivers were things that he could not and did not want to rely on. So I asked Mr. Luskin if he would agree to the following language, which he did, that: 'Consistent with his written waiver of confidentiality he previously executed, Mr. Rove affirms his waiver of any claim of confidentiality he may have concerning any conversation he may have had with Matthew Cooper of Time magazine during the month of July 2003.' Matt and I discussed that once we got this letter. We felt that this was sufficiently personal to Matt. It was sufficient, in Matt's estimation, to cover precisely the conversation that he and Mr. Rove had concerning the article that he published. And we subsequently came into court. Matt made his statement. In the reliance of this express and personal waiver from Mr. Rove through his attorney, Matt went and testified in the grand jury today."

Luskin put his foot in his mouth in a big way, in other words. And as I've said, it's interesting that he hasn't made a corresponding statement with regard to Miller. If Miller is not covering for Rove, it's hard to understand why Luskin has not simply made a statement such as this: "Mr. Rove hasn't asked any reporter to treat him as a confidential source in the matter. So if Judy Miller is staying in jail to protect a source, it's not Karl she's protecting."

I think the answer is pretty obvious: Luskin got caught with his pants down when he made this statement regarding Cooper, and Luskin is not foolish enough to make this same mistake twice (although it's quite remarkable that he was foolish enough to make the mistake even once).

I think another difference between the Cooper situation and the Miller situation is that while the latter is not eager to be in jail, she's even less eager for the world to find out she's been covering for Rove. Cooper didn't mind finally admitting that (because unlike Miller he doesn't have a long track record of being a shill for the White House). That's why Cooper did not mind jumping on Rove to get a specific waiver, while Miller seems to be in no rush to do such a thing.

"I'm sure you know that Miller's source is very likely not Rove anyway."

Nice job not offering a shred of fact and/or reasoning to back this up.

boris
I think the answer is pretty obvious: Luskin got caught with his pants down when he made this statement regarding Cooper, and Luskin is not foolish enough to make this same mistake twice (although it's quite remarkable that he was foolish enough to make the mistake even once).

Oh I see ... Your (obvious) theory is: nothing is as it appears because Luskin is foolish.

Uh huh ... ok then this ...

Nice job not offering a shred of fact and/or reasoning to back this up.

Oh the IRONY ! It is to laugh. BWAHAHAHAHA

kim

So why didn't Cooper's lawyer ask for a specific waiver sooner than at the jailhouse door? Was there a well-developed sense of drama or something else?
==================================================

John

Juke are you really that naive? Cooper was looking for an excuse to avoid jail. He used the statement of Rove's lawyer to change his position and testify. There was no real or significant change of position by Rove or his lawyer in the public comments.

Juke's analysis: Cooper and his lawyer say something and Juke regurgitates.

Do you agree that the porsecutor knows who Miller's source is and that he has likely taken testimony for that source including whatever the source said to Miller?

Go read the Talk left thread at the top for a good analysis.

jukeboxgrad

KIM: "why didn't Cooper's lawyer ask for a specific waiver sooner than at the jailhouse door?"

First of all, Cooper didn't start seriously considering that be might not have to go to jail until Pearlstine, against Cooper's wishes, released Cooper's notes (once the cat was that far out of the bag, the idea of Cooper sitting in jail to protect his source made that much less sense, although Cooper still felt some constraint because of his commitment to his source). That didn't happen until 7/1. The Luskin/Sauber conversation which resulted in Rove granting Cooper a specific waiver happened only a few days later, on 7/6. (This was a period of Friday to Wednesday, with a holiday weekend in-between.)

Also, Sauber has said "Cooper ... never asked ... Rove [for a specific waiver] because Cooper's attorney believed that any conversation between the two men could be construed as obstruction of justice. 'I forbid Matt to call him. I cringed at the idea. These two witnesses would have to explain their discussion before the grand jury.'"

But when Sauber saw Luskin's eye-popping remark in the WSJ, Sauber figured that maybe this created an opening to keep his client out of jail.

By the way, your question applies equally to Luskin. Why did he wait until (approximately) 7/6 to say "if Matt Cooper is going to jail to protect a source, it's not Karl he's protecting?" And why has Luskin never made the corresponding remark regarding Miller?

By the way, anyone who would like to claim that Cooper had any eagerness to out Rove (perhaps because Cooper is married to an active Democrat) needs to explain why Cooper didn't out Rove on some occasion prior to 11/2/04.

jukeboxgrad

JOHN:

Here's something Luskin said: "Mr. Luskin said he had only reaffirmed the blanket waiver."

Here's something you said: "He [Cooper] used the statement of Rove's lawyer to change his position and testify. There was no real or significant change of position by Rove or his lawyer in the public comments."

Wrong. You are the one who is regurgitating Luskin, without checking on the facts. Cooper didn't use "the statement of Rove's lawyer to change his position and testify." Sauber read Luskin's statement and decided to call Luskin. This led to Luskin providing something Rove had not previously provided: an express personal waiver. You and Luskin would like to pretend this never happened, but it did: "Sauber released a copy of Rove's waiver letter on Wednesday following the court hearing. The letter clearly shows that he sought the waiver from Rove through his attorney, Robert D. Luskin. In a letter dated July 6, 2005, the date of Miller and Cooper's contempt of court hearing, Sauber writes: 'This is to confirm our telephone conversation of this afternoon at 12:30 p.m. You have consulted with your client Karl Rove, who has authorized you to represent to me and to my client, Matthew Cooper, the following statement: Consistent with his written waiver of confidentiality he previously executed, Mr. Rove affirms his waiver of any claim of confidentiality he may have concerning any conversation he may have had with Matthew Cooper of Time Magazine during the month of July, 2003.'"

Referring to Cooper by name, as well as the other specifics, was not part of the original blanket waiver. So your claim that "there was no real or significant change of position by Rove" is simply false.

"Do you agree that the porsecutor knows who Miller's source is"

Yes.

"and that he has likely taken testimony for that source including whatever the source said to Miller?"

Yes, except a more careful way to write that sentence would be "including whatever the source _claims to have_ said to Miller."

By the way, Rove has been formally interviewed by the FBI twice, and testified before the grand jury three times. Fitz knows what Rove has said. Fitz wants to hear Miller's version.

kim

Mahvellous, JBG, you answered my question without a link and I understood it. Thanks.
===================================================

kim

However, Sauber and Luskin should have been able to speak to each other without explaining themselves to the Grand Jury, and even if they were called to testify, they'd ought not to have anything to hide.
================================================

jukeboxgrad

"Sauber and Luskin should have been able to speak to each other without explaining themselves to the Grand Jury"

I see your point. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not in position to expertly evaluate Sauber's statement on this topic ("'I forbid Matt to call him").

My sense is that Cooper, out of integrity, and out of a desire to protect his ability to be an effective journalist, was very strongly inclined to lean in the direction of protecting his source, even if it meant going to jail, and even if it meant protecting someone (Rove) that perhaps Cooper doesn't like very much.

Therefore I think that during the period prior to 7/05, Cooper was not thinking in terms of leaning on Rove to get an express personal release. I think Cooper was concerned that one way or another this might cause future sources to have less confidence in him (simple reality: journalists starve if they don't have sources).

Once Pearlstine released Cooper's notes, I think this understandably caused somewhat of a shift in Cooper's attitude. And then finally when Luskin's statement appeared ("if Matt Cooper is going to jail to protect a source, it's not Karl he's protecting"), I think Cooper finally decided enough is enough. I would think that Luskin's statement would make Cooper very angry. Luskin's statement seems like an obvious bluff and a lie, so it's understandable that Cooper would call Luskin's bluff. Luskin was playing a kind of poker and he miscalculated.

kim

What is the certainty that it was Cooper's testimony about Rove, and only that, that Fitzgerald wanted from him?
============================================

jukeboxgrad

"What is the certainty that it was Cooper's testimony about Rove, and only that, that Fitzgerald wanted from him?"

I think probably Fitz was also interested in what Cooper had to say about Libby. Cooper's account of his own testimony is all about Rove and Libby, so it's reasonable to believe that Cooper's testimony was all about Rove and Libby, and it's reasonable to believe that Fitz called Cooper in order to hear Cooper talk about Rove and Libby.

Probably Fitz was more interested in Rove, though. "Fitzgerald asked several times whether Rove had indicated how he knew Plame worked at the CIA; Cooper said he did not;" link.

Fitz's intense curiosity about Rove is also indicated by the fact that Rove has been formally interviewed by the FBI twice, and has been before the grand jury three times.

kim

Your key words which may point to an assumption you can't support: "Cooper's account of his own testimony...".

You pretend Cooper is a disinterested observer. He lost that status a while ago.

And a prosecutor can be just as interested in establishing someone's innocence as their guilt. Or should be, and there is no evidence to question Fitz's ethics.
==============================================

John

Juke, first I'd probably have to have previously read that statement from Luskin to regurgitate it.

What I was referring to was this statement among others from Cooper's lawyer which you quote above: "Consistent with his written waiver of confidentiality he previously executed, Mr. Rove affirms his waiver of any claim of confidentiality . . ."

Sounds to me like there was no change at all so far.

Your point seems to be that adding the following to the quote above makes all the difference to you: "he may have concerning any conversation he may have had with Matthew Cooper of Time Magazine during the month of July, 2003." Your point as I take it is that now it is no longer a general waiver, now it's a specific, personal waiver. Well, so what. it was already a waiver. I don't see a big difference.

And if it was so important to get a specific, personal waiver, why didn't he ask for one before?

It seems to me you come up short in answering this question above when Kim asked it. If Cooper wanted a specific waiver, but was afraid of an obstruction of justice charge all he had to do was tell Fitzgerald or have his lawyer tell Fitzgerald that he would only testify if he got a specific personal waiver from his source. Fitzgerald already knew who the source was (as he knows who Miller's source is). Fizgerald goes to Rove and Luskin and asks for a specific waiver. If you have any evidence that any of this happened or that Rove or Luskin previously refused to give a specific waiver to Cooper I may believe your theory.

And I'm not all that impressed with Cooper's integrity (I'm not all excited about Rove's either). It seems to me that he misrepresented Rove when he wrote his article using Rove as a confidential source.

jukeboxgrad

KIM: "You pretend Cooper is a disinterested observer. He lost that status a while ago."

You've failed to explain, or even hint at, why Cooper would have any motivation to not simply be telling the whole truth.

If it's your claim that Cooper is trying the impress the Democrat to whom he is married, please explain why Cooper didn't out Rove in the period preceding 11/2/04.

You've also failed to explain, or even hint at, the manner in which you think Cooper's account varies from the truth.

"an assumption you can't support: 'Cooper's account of his own testimony...'."

You're also being vague about what you're questioning. Are you questioning Cooper's testimony, or his account of his testimony? Maybe both. Either way, you have a problem with the fact that Luskin has tacitly acknoweldged that what Cooper said is true (at least with regard to the essential matter, which is that Rove told Cooper about Plame). This is evident from Luskin's own words (see Luskin's remarks here, for example).

This is also evident from reports such as this: "Cooper then told the grand jury that Rove was the first administration official to tip him off that Plame worked for the CIA. It is not clear whether Rove's tip violated the law, and his attorney has said he was only trying to warn Cooper off of information being peddled by Wilson. Rove has at some point testified that he passed on information about Plame to Cooper, according to two lawyers involved in the case. Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, declined to say when Rove gave this testimony."

Here's a sentence that is remarkably absent from the above report: "Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said that Rove did not tell Cooper about Plame." Or "Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, said that Rove did not testify that he passed on information about Plame to Cooper." By the way, I think the odds are extremely high that one of the "two lawyers" mentioned in the previous paragraph is Luskin.

Luskin has been anything but reticent. If he was in a position to claim that Rove did not tell Cooper about Plame, Luskin would undoubtedly be making that claim. Instead, he's tacitly aknowledging that it happened, and he's trying to spin it as something innocent ("he was only trying to warn Cooper off of information being peddled by Wilson," or, Rove never imagined that Cooper would actually print what Rove was saying; Luskin makes this absurd point here).

Speaking of Luskin, a very interesting article about him can be found here. This article is by Ryan Lizza and was touted by Kaus here. The original article is subscription-restricted but the link I provided is not. This article explains very clearly how Cooper stayed out of jail as a result (in part) of Luskin putting his foot in his mouth.

jukeboxgrad

JOHN: "first I'd probably have to have previously read that statement from Luskin to regurgitate it."

Uh, no, because the specious argument presented by both you and Luskin (the idea that Rove did not grant Cooper a last-minute personal waiver) has also been spread (in one form or another) by the usual suspects, such as here. So maybe you just read it on a blog somewhere. But you're indeed carelessly regurgitating something that ultimately started with Luskin/Rove, whether you realize it or not.

So if your point is that you're mindlessly repeating stuff without even being aware of where it came from, that's not impressive.

"Your point as I take it is that now it is no longer a general waiver, now it's a specific, personal waiver. Well, so what. it was already a waiver. I don't see a big difference."

It doesn't matter that you "don't see a big difference." It also doesn't matter if I think there's a big difference. What matters is that it made a difference to Cooper. This is understandable, because he is concerned about how the situation might be viewed by his potential future sources. It's easy to imagine a situation where a source's employer (like the government, for example) might coerce a source to sign a blanket, general waiver (which, for example, does not refer to any reporter by name). Cooper, by his recent behavior, has effectively communicated to his potential future sources that even if they are coerced to sign such a blanket waiver (as Rove did a long time ago), that Cooper would still be willing to go to jail in order to protect them. Only if they sign a more specific and personal waiver (with regard to names and dates), such as the waiver Rove granted at the last minute, then Cooper would consider this to be a genuine, uncoerced release.

Cooper is assessing that this distinction might help certain potential future sources have more confidence in him. It's his right to make this assessment, and you're not particularly in a position to question it.

"all he had to do was tell Fitzgerald ... "

You're not addressing what I said about Pearlstine's release of Cooper's notes. Until this happened (and it happened very close to the end), I think Cooper was strongly inclined to avoid doing anything that might create the appearance that he was pressuring Rove for a release. Pearlstine's decision went a long way in taking the matter out of Cooper's hands. Luskin's WSJ statement a few days later was another strong influence on Cooper's attitude. In a way, Cooper has sent this message to his potential future sources: "you can count on me to go to jail for you, and I will not even ask you for a personal release, unless both of the following conditions are true: my boss releases my notes without my permission, and your lawyer makes public statements that I find patently insulting and dishonest."

"It seems to me that he [Cooper] misrepresented Rove when he wrote his article using Rove as a confidential source."

Nice job repeating more righty spin without an ounce of evidence to back it up.

Slartibartfast
as many as one-third of the CIA's approximately 20,000 employees are undercover or have worked in that capacity at some point in their careers

Which says nothing about how many are covert at any given time. Nice try, though.

You're not being clear about what you accept and what you deny.

Well, that's easy: I accept those things that have been shown to be true; I deny those things that have been shown to be untrue, and everything else is in limbo.

As far as I can tell, you're hanging your hat on the "Rove wasn't obliged to ask even though SF-312 explicitly requires him to do so" defense.

Not exactly; that's just one of the many possible scenarios in which Rove isn't the lying, traitorous scumbag you're painting him to be.

jukeboxgrad

"Which says nothing about how many are covert at any given time."

That's an overstatement. It doesn't say "nothing" about that. On the contrary. While it doesn't answer the question directly, it gives us a strong clue in that direction. If someone works for the CIA, there's more than a trivial chance that they're undercover. This is obvious given any reasonable interpretation of the "one-third" number I cited. If Rove wasn't sure, he had a duty to ask.

By the way, if someone was undercover in the past (and yes, this group is included in the one-third figure) it stands to reason that the Agency might contemplate using them again that way in the future. Therefore, by any reasonable analysis there are thousands of CIA employees where the Agency has reason to be sensitive about identities being protected.

By the way, Rove apparently knew that Plame's area was WMD. Given that this is a strategic and sensitive area, it increases the possibility that Plame was covert. If Rove wasn't sure, he had a duty to ask (although there's good reason to speculate that he was well-aware of her status, and acted intentionally and with malice, based on the assumption that he would never get caught).

"I accept those things that have been shown to be true; I deny those things that have been shown to be untrue, and everything else is in limbo."

Here you implied that Plame's identity was already being "passed around as gossip." I wonder if this one of "those things that have been shown to be true," or if this is just a case of you passing around some gossip yourself. I already asked you this, here. Maybe you didn't notice.

By the way, do you accept that it has "been shown to be true" that Rove told Cooper about Plame, even though this is contrary to what the White House told us for a couple of years?

"one of the many possible scenarios in which Rove isn't the lying, traitorous scumbag ... "

If there are "many" such scenarios, how odd that the number you've attempted to describe seems to be one, and the number you've described that make sense seems to be zero (as I pointed out here).

kim

Naw, I'm simply saying that Fitz may have asked Cooper about other things besides Rove. You, and others have obsessed about Rove, there appears to have been a media campaign against Rove; now it appears the focus may be elsewhere. And don't you think Fitz would have asked Cooper not to talk about his testimony? It just doesn't all add up.

The assumption of yours that I challenge is that Cooper has been both accurate and complete(the whole truth, so to speak) in his public descriptions of his testimony. However, I have as little evidence that he hasn't been, as you have that he has.
=================================================

Slartibartfast
It doesn't say "nothing" about that.

Gosh, let me correct myself: it says little about it. Surely you can see there's a teeny bit of difference between current status and having at some time held that status?

If someone works for the CIA, there's more than a trivial chance that they're undercover.

Now you're responding to arguments I haven't made. Still, you have no idea what percentage of CIA agents are covert (sure, you know it's less than or equal to 25%, but you don't know where in that range the number lies), and still less of an idea what the odds are that you'd be able to happen across an agent's covert identity.

By the way, Rove apparently knew that Plame's area was WMD. Given that this is a strategic and sensitive area, it increases the possibility that Plame was covert.

Now you're simply making statements that have no basis at all. Can I start making things up, too?

Therefore, by any reasonable analysis there are thousands of CIA employees where the Agency has reason to be sensitive about identities being protected.

True. I don't think anyone's claiming that no CIA employees have protected identities.

Here you implied that Plame's identity was already being "passed around as gossip." I wonder if this one of "those things that have been shown to be true," or if this is just a case of you passing around some gossip yourself. I already asked you this, here. Maybe you didn't notice.

Well, since it's a matter of testimony, I'd say that it's at least on the record, which means that it's a great deal more useful in this case than your various speculations.

If there are "many" such scenarios, how odd that the number you've attempted to describe seems to be one, and the number you've described that make sense seems to be zero (as I pointed out here).

Making up a scenario and insisting it applies in this particular case isn't a compelling case for zero, JBG. But let's have it your way for just a moment: let's assume that Karl Rove is absolutely guilty of either negligent or deliberate disclosure of highly sensitive intelligence information. Why isn't he in receipt of a target letter? Why isn't he in federal custody? Let's compare this with the Sandy Berger case (not because I think there's anything comparable about these two cases, politically): Berger has been tried already, within a year of the crime. Not sentenced, sure, but he's been tried and pled guilty. This is the difference between having possession of the facts and not having much in the way of fact.

Slartibartfast
It doesn't say "nothing" about that.

Gosh, let me correct myself: it says little about it. Surely you can see there's a teeny bit of difference between current status and having at some time held that status?

If someone works for the CIA, there's more than a trivial chance that they're undercover.

Now you're responding to arguments I haven't made. Still, you have no idea what percentage of CIA agents are covert (sure, you know it's less than or equal to 25%, but you don't know where in that range the number lies), and still less of an idea what the odds are that you'd be able to happen across an agent's covert identity.

By the way, Rove apparently knew that Plame's area was WMD. Given that this is a strategic and sensitive area, it increases the possibility that Plame was covert.

Now you're simply making statements that have no basis at all. Can I start making things up, too?

Therefore, by any reasonable analysis there are thousands of CIA employees where the Agency has reason to be sensitive about identities being protected.

True. I don't think anyone's claiming that no CIA employees have protected identities.

Here you implied that Plame's identity was already being "passed around as gossip." I wonder if this one of "those things that have been shown to be true," or if this is just a case of you passing around some gossip yourself. I already asked you this, here. Maybe you didn't notice.

Well, since it's a matter of testimony, I'd say that it's at least on the record, which means that it's a great deal more useful in this case than your various speculations.

If there are "many" such scenarios, how odd that the number you've attempted to describe seems to be one, and the number you've described that make sense seems to be zero (as I pointed out here).

Making up a scenario and insisting it applies in this particular case isn't a compelling case for zero, JBG. But let's have it your way for just a moment: let's assume that Karl Rove is absolutely guilty of either negligent or deliberate disclosure of highly sensitive intelligence information. Why isn't he in receipt of a target letter? Why isn't he in federal custody? Let's compare this with the Sandy Berger case (not because I think there's anything comparable about these two cases, politically): Berger has been tried already, within a year of the crime. Not sentenced, sure, but he's been tried and pled guilty. This is the difference between having possession of the facts and not having much in the way of fact.

jukeboxgrad

KIM: "there appears to have been a media campaign against Rove"

I guess you're talking about how reporters such as Cooper went out of their way to out Rove in the period prior to 11/2/04.

"now it appears the focus may be elsewhere"

I haven't seen anything to suggest that Rove is off the hook. I've seen things to suggest that Rove might be dealing with a variety of hooks (e.g., perjury and obstruction of justice). I've also seen things to suggest that Rove and Libby (and perhaps others) might end up sharing a hook or two. I realize the usual suspects are making a valiant effort to spin this into the idea that Rove is off the hook.

"don't you think Fitz would have asked Cooper not to talk about his testimony"

Who knows, and so what. I'm sure Fitz was well-aware that Cooper had the right to talk about his own testimony. I also have a feeling that the fact that Cooper took advantage of this right did not come as a huge surprise to Fitz.

"The assumption of yours that I challenge is that Cooper has been both accurate and complete(the whole truth, so to speak) in his public descriptions of his testimony"

It would interest me to hear you speculate on his reasons for being less than wholly truthful, and also the manner in which he is ostensibly being less than wholly truthful. This is the second time I'm asking. In other words, I think it's interesting that you're sort of saying "he's lying," but you're not saying what you think the lie is, and you're not saying why he would even have a reason to lie.

jukeboxgrad

SLART: "Surely you can see there's a teeny bit of difference between current status and having at some time held that status?"

There's more than a "teeny bit of difference." But if both of those groups together add up to one-third of 20,000, then it stands to reason that each of those groups separately probably contains a non-trivial number of people.

I said: "If someone works for the CIA, there's more than a trivial chance that they're undercover."

Then you said : "Now you're responding to arguments I haven't made."

I think you've argued that Rove was safe to assume that Plame was not covert. Do you deny that you've made this argument, or do you deny that my statement ("If someone works for the CIA, there's more than a trivial chance that they're undercover") is a legitimate response to your argument?

"you have no idea what percentage of CIA agents are covert"

"No idea" is another exaggeration. I do have an idea. I have good reason to believe it's some number significantly greater than zero. And sufficiently greater than zero that it justified Rove putting a dime in the phone to find out before he blabbed.

"you know it's less than or equal to 25%"

You mean 33% ("one-third").

"still less of an idea what the odds are that you'd be able to happen across an agent's covert identity."

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Rove didn't need "to happen across an agent's covert identity," whatever that means. He said Plame works for CIA. That was sufficient to make trouble.

I said: "Rove apparently knew that Plame's area was WMD. Given that this is a strategic and sensitive area, it increases the possibility that Plame was covert."

Then you said: "Now you're simply making statements that have no basis at all"

Actually, I made three statements (in the two sentences to which you responded), and it's not helpful that you're not being specific about what you're denying. All three? The first part is clear from Cooper's email. Are you questioning that?

"I don't think anyone's claiming that no CIA employees have protected identities."

I'm claiming more than that. I'm claiming that thousands of CIA employees have "protected identities." I'm currently confused about whether you accept this or not.

"it's a matter of testimony [that Plame's identity was already being 'passed around as gossip'] ... it's at least on the record"

I have no idea what "testimony" you're talking about. Also, I didn't realize that any "testimony" was public, unless you're talking about statements people have made about their testimony, which is a little bit different than "testimony." Then again, you might be talking about anonymous leaks via people who are talking about other people's testimony, which is even further removed from "testimony" (and perhaps more like gossip). Anyway, maybe you'd be willing to be more specific.

"Making up a scenario and insisting it applies in this particular case isn't a compelling case for zero"

I didn't make up a "scenario," or anything else. The "compelling case for zero" simply consists of pointing out that Rove's SF-312 requires him to ask first, if he's not certain. This is a basic reality that you're inclined to deny, as I pointed out here.

"Why isn't he in receipt of a target letter?"

How do you know he's not? Luskin's statement (paraphrase) "Rove's only a subject, not a target" is based on a statement Fitz made a long time ago, if I remember correctly.

And if he's not ("in receipt of a target letter"), so what? Fitz has his own reasons for doing things in a certain order.

"Why isn't he in federal custody?"

In my opinion, because Fitz would like to take another stab at cracking Miller.

"This is the difference between having possession of the facts and not having much in the way of fact."

You're making the point that the Berger case moved more quickly. So what? It's easy to see how the facts here are more complicated and potentially involving more people.

By the way, although there are obviously things we still don't know, we already know enough to understand that Rove told Cooper about Plame, and then the White House covered this up for a couple of years.

kim

And you, JBG, have yet to support your assumption that Fitz was only interested in what Cooper had to say about Rove.
====================================================

jukeboxgrad

"you, JBG, have yet to support your assumption that Fitz was only interested in what Cooper had to say about Rove."

You're the one making assumptions here because I never said "that Fitz was only interested in what Cooper had to say about Rove."

By the way, it's hysterically funny to hear you of all people talk about the importance of providing "support" for assumptions, since it was you who recently bragged about your willingness to make "sweeping declarations" that are typically unencumbered by any shred of proof.

By the way, you have yet to support your apparent assumption that Fitz was interested in anything other than what Cooper had to say about Rove and Libby.

kim

You still miss the tongue in my cheek and 'sweeping declarations' is your locution and self apt. I have bragged that intuition is a better guide through this than the dribbling of facts du jour.

You don't know what Fitz is up to and neither do I.
================================================

jukeboxgrad

"You still miss the tongue in my cheek"

I think it's more like foot in mouth.

"'sweeping declarations' is your locution"

The term is all yours, not mine, and I strenuously object to your attempt to claim otherwise.

"I have bragged that intuition is a better guide through this than the dribbling of facts du jour."

I think the other way you stated this was more entertaining: "If you can't accept my sweeping declarations as truth, despite repitition, then I'll hope you can change."

"You don't know what Fitz is up to and neither do I."

I guess you're approximately half right, which is above average for you.

kim

Sorry, JBG, but 'sweeping declarations' comes from your 1:26 AM comment on 7/28 on the Congressional Hearing post. Your deceptive linking is dishonest.

Your wonderfully marshalled arguments have degenerated into snark at my style. Whassa matta big boy, had enough?
=================================================

jukeboxgrad

"'sweeping declarations' comes from your 1:26 AM comment on 7/28"

I did use that phrase, here, and then you used the phrase, here. I notice you didn't bother with quote marks. In other words, if you want to give me credit for inspiring you to say something, that's fine, but that doesn't give you a free pass to suggest you didn't say something that you actually said.

By the way, I shouldn't have said the term is "all" yours. That was lazy writing on my part, and an overstatement, because it's true that I used the term first, to describe your contribution. And then you did the same. The bottom line is that I'm glad we can find this common ground of agreement: I pointed out, and you acknowledged, your reliance on "sweeping declarations" that are unencumbered by evidence.

"big boy"

Since you know nothing about my gender or mass, you're just doing a good job of emphasizing your fact-free approach to this process.

kim

Jeez, you still don't get the joke, or worse, refuse to acknowledge it.

and 'big boy' is generic.

And while I'm at it, that attempt to yet pin your locution on me is pitiful.
============================================

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame