Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« The Incredible Shrinking Scandal | Main | "White Men" Pester LA Times »

July 17, 2005

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.

Lesley

Jim, you are correct. Bush's early ventures in the "awl bidness" were not successful. All I am suggesting is that I think he uses a corporate model to run the WH.

Steve Carr

Lesley is just an obnoxious liberal satirizing the other side, right? No American citizen could (or should be) be that worshipful of a politician.

I also love the idea that Dick Cheney, of all people, doesn't have a petty bone in his body. Yes, when he told Pat Leahy "go fuck yourself," that was really rising above the fray.

RiverRat

Ah Yes Martin; self-proclaimed intellectual elitist guardian of truth and justice.

Is it just possible that his anti-Bush anti-American screed are reflective of a personality similar in all major aspects to that of Mohammed, the pedophile poetic voice of the one true god of 6th century modernity?

Nah! More likely he's just an average braindead dupe of the Transnational Social-Fascist Oligarchy.

Steve Carr

Let's get it straight. You can be anti-Bush and pro-American. George Bush is an elected official. He's not king. He's not the symbol of the United States. He is the employee of American voters, and any American is perfectly justified in criticizing those parts of our employee's performance that we find dissatisfying.

There is no room in a democracy for citizens to be slavishly obedient to people in power. Stop bending your knees and act like Americans.

Lesley

Steve you may find me obnoxious, but I do sincerely admire Cheney and Rumsfield precisely because I perceive them more as statesmen than politicians. Serious times require serious people. As far as Cheney's remark to Leahy, intemperate yes, petty, no.

RiverRat

And there is no room for traitors and/or political opportunists on foreign policy matters in a time of war.

Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt knew it and worked successfully to prevent it. It's too bad that the political left in this country doesn't know it given their self-proclaimed intellectual superiority.

Enemies of nations know that often the only way to victory is to divide the opponent politically. It is exactly what terror as a tactic is intended to accomplish.

If Chamberlainesqe cowardly appeasers become the majority the war is lost and in time the nation.

The anti-Bush anti-war left in this country is playing political games at their and the nation's peril.

They were useful fools of the Soviet Union during the Vietnam conflict and they and their progeny are useful fools of islamofascists today.

jukeboxgrad

Jim said: "You folks are under the (irrelevent) understanding that Bush was a successful businessman prior to becoming governor?"

I guess some of them are. They never saw this: "I'm basically a media creation ... I've never done anything" (link).

Steve said: "Lesley is just an obnoxious liberal satirizing the other side, right?"

Something like that. She was secretly sent here by the Soros/Moore cabal to create the impression that people on the right are fools.

"George Bush is an elected official. He's not king"

Maybe you haven't seen this.

"Stop bending your knees and act like Americans."

Some people have a hard time understanding that there's a difference between being loyal to one's government, as compared with being loyal to one's country. Jefferson said "dissent is the highest form of patriotism." He must have been a nasty liberal.

Martin

Can we get back to Plamegate b/c Rove's story is changing again:

"A lawyer familiar with Rove's grand jury testimony said Sunday that Rove learned about the CIA officer either from the media or from someone in government who said the information came from a journalist."

kim

Yep, just can't stand that ROE v WADE. Return On Equity versus Why Are Democrats Enervated. And Green with Envy at the demonstration of corporate and political competence.
================================

kim

Look, Marty, we know everyone was talking to everyone about it back then. It was a secret, right?
=============================

jukeboxgrad

TM

"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"

Nice try. After all, Rove is a babe in the woods when it comes to dealing with the press. After all, that hasn't been a central part of his job for practically his whole life. He would be shocked, shocked, to discover that reporters are in the business of reserving the right to print every single thing they hear, unless specifically instructed otherwise (and sometimes even then).

Hey Tom, if Rove didn't want Cooper to print "Wilson's wife works for the CIA," Rove needed to say "hey Cooper, I said Wilson's wife works for the CIA, but don't print that."

Admittedly, there's some confusion about terms such as "on background" and "off the record." However, I think if you look around you'll find the typical interpretation is that the former means "feel free to publish what I tell you, but don't let anyone know it was me who told you," while the latter means "you might find it useful to know this, but don't write it." Rove said the former, and some people (like you) are trying to pretend he said the latter. Nice try.

In any event, if Rove didn't want Cooper to print something, the burden was on Rove to be crystal-clear about that, rather than being conveniently ambiguous.

By the way, even if Rove had said "Wilson's wife works for the CIA, but if you ever print that I'll behead you," he was still outing Plame, even if only to Cooper.

Steve Carr already did a nice job of explaining most of this.

Martin

From Cooper's Time article:

"In fact, I told the grand jury, Rove told me the conversation was on "deep background." I explained to the grand jury that I take the term to mean that I can use the material but not quote it, and that I must keep the identity of my source confidential."

Martin

of course that was Rove's understanding as well.

kim

Not content to edit Powerline, he is now press-agenting Rove. Your world Juke, and welcome to it.
=============================

Martin

In fact, Juke I think we might switch sides and defend Rove for awhile.

The more facts that are revealed the less the quality of Rove's defense, a direct reflection of his heretofore defenders' intellectual alacrity.

e.g. somebody upthread brings up Vietnam. Now. Now. It's not that desperate...yet.

jukeboxgrad

PATRICK

"Unfortunately, the information came from another journalist, not because Rove has a security clearance."

Still trying to claim it matters where Rove got it. Wrong: "Information remains classified until it has been officially declassified ... before disseminating the information elsewhere or confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, further dissemination of the information or confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure" (pdf).">http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/52001ph1_0500/p5200ph1.pdf">pdf).

More: "Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information" (link).

"Meaning Wilson's leaks to Kristoff and Pincus, as well as his own NY Times Op-ed are probably part of Fitzgerald's investigation"

I guess that's why Wilson and Plame are among the few people in DC who haven't been grilled by Fitz.

"That's much more serious than Karl Rove telling one reporter what other reporters had told him."

Number of times Rove has appeared before the grand jury: 3.
Number of times Wilson has appeared before the grand jury: 0.

Keep trying.

SEVEN

"whom do you believe"

You're suggesting that Rove has made some claim that is at odds with what Cooper has said. Really? Luskin hasn't exactly been silent recently. When did he claim the Cooper email wasn't correct? In fact, when has he made any claim that is at odds with anything Cooper has said? (Unless you're referring to a couple of years ago, when the White House repeatedly told us Rove wasn't involved. I think those statements would now be considered inoperative, to use a genteel term for "lie.")

"you say that Karl Rove has 'a lifetime of sleaze behind him.' That's ridiculous."

The McCains adopted an orphan from Bangladesh. This was turned into the idea that McCain had fathered a black bastard (link). Let us know if you can think of a better example to illustrate the word "sleaze." Also, let us know about something equally vile heading in the other direction.

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

Once you make a practice of sidestepping questions you don't like, people start to figure out that your questions are not to be taken seriously.

RICHARD

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

Luskin's been claiming that Cooper started the conversation on that other subject.

"All we have for this is Cooper's statement with zero corroboration that he had no prior knowledge of Plame."

It doesn't matter much, even if Cooper already knew. Rove was still making an authorized disclosure, as he did when he confirmed for Novak. Refer to my citation above regarding "confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source."

boy michael

What is up with Russert's inclusion of Berstein and Woodward?

LOL

Taking advantage of a book sale, (something they have been pushing for ages...), to provide some subtle association to the Plame-Wilson Fraud?

Mr. Bernstein tried to sell the idea of 'context'. He suggests important issues are not really about small facts, but about the overall context?

Berstein actually referenced WMDs!

So fun...

Mr. Russert builds the folly, asking how to apply the lessons of Watergate to today?

As a reporter, covering 'these' (Republican Slandering) events today, how would you handle it Bob Woodward?

Woodward of course makes certain to reference Karl Rove, in his closing comments.

Well done, another unethical performance for a lifetime!

Now they need a 'REAL' scandal...

One, which actually doesn't involve a Clinton.

Martin

Did Sullivan really say that Rove got it from a journalist?

Luskin nixed that defense today. Rove got it from another government official who got it from the journalist.

Gotta keep up people.

Lesley

I'm sorry I ever brought up any of this. One thing I refuse to do is engage in ad hominem nor create a situation in which anyone, myself included, might be a target. I respect Tom far too much. Nevertheless, my earlier point about the "tone" in politics has been amply reinforced for me. Geesh.

Seven Machos

JUKEBOXGRAD

Where is Karl Rove referenced in your dirty-tricks article?

Certainly, Democrats never resort to dirty tricks to win elections. Never.

peapies

Mark Levin in the corner makes an excellent observation...

"As for Wilson's wife, I told the grand jury I was certain that Rove never used her name and that, indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week, when I either saw it in Robert Novak's column or Googled her, I can't recall which. ..." If he got it from Google, that would mean it was on the Internet for the entire world to see. Isn't this worth pressing Cooper about a little harder?

RiverRat

A touch of reality for moonbats from Mark Steyn:

"The British suicide bombers and the Iranian nuke demands are genuine crises. The Valerie Plame game is a pseudo-crisis. If you want to talk about Niger or CIA reform, fine. But if you seriously think the only important aspect of a politically motivated narcissist kook's drive-thru intelligence mission to a critical part of the world is the precise sequence of events by which some White House guy came to mention the kook's wife to some reporter, then you've departed the real world and you're frolicking on the wilder shores of Planet Zongo.

What's this really about? It's not difficult. A big chunk of the American elites have decided there is no war; it's all a racket got up by Bush and Cheney. And, even if there is a war somewhere or other, wherever it is, it's not where Bush says it is. Iraq is a ''distraction'' from Afghanistan -- and, if there were no Iraq, Afghanistan would be a distraction from Niger, and Niger's a distraction from Valerie Plame's next photo shoot for Vanity Fair.

The police have found the suicide bomber's head in the rubble of the London bus, and Iran is enriching uranium. The only distraction here is the pitiful parochialism of our political culture.

Seems logical.

peapies

Steyn again...

But in the real world there's only one scandal in this whole wretched business -- that the CIA, as part of its institutional obstruction of the administration, set up a pathetic 'fact-finding mission' that would be considered a joke by any serious intelligence agency and compounded it by sending, at the behest of his wife, a shrill politically motivated poseur who, for the sake of 15 minutes' celebrity on the cable gabfest circuit, misled the nation about what he found. . . . What we have here is, in effect, the old standby plot of lame Hollywood conspiracy thrillers: rogue elements within the CIA attempting to destabilize the elected government."

A serious Diplomat wouldn't have raced to the NYT to rush details of his tea sipping trip.

A serious Diplomat would have submitted a truthful report which stated that beyond the words of some tea sippers his findings were inconclusive, in other-words he could not come to a determination EITHER WAY.

A serious diplomat would have no reason to pose for Vanity Fair had he prepared an adequate report from the get go.

The left, at this point would be better to focus some of ire at the one person that "boondoggled" them

Martin

Good Lord peapies, Maguire's got's Valerie Plame google cache stashed around here somewhere. Wilson had it on his bio.

The classified info was her job status, not her name. To all the googlers, she was Valerie Plame Wilson, an energy analyst and diplomat's wife.

After Novak, she was diplomat's wife and CIA analyst. See the problem?

In fact, I can't believe Levin would actually post such nonsense.

richard mcenroe

Here's the Financial Times' take on Cooper...

jukeboxgrad

MARTIN: "I think we might switch sides and defend Rove for awhile."

I'm certainly willing to defend Rove, up to a point. I'm willing to defend his right to remain silent, and I'm willing to defend his right to know that anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law. I'm willing to defend his right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. Finally, he should know that if he can't afford an attorney (maybe he's short on gold bars), one will be provided for him at government expense.

"I can't believe Levin would actually post such nonsense."

They're grasping at straws. We're going to see a lot more nonsense like that.

LESLEY: "my earlier point about the 'tone' in politics"

When you go out of your way to genuflect at the feet of Mr. Go-Fuck-Yourself, you somewhat constrain your ability to make high-horse complaints regarding "the 'tone' in politics."

SEVEN: "Where is Karl Rove referenced in your dirty-tricks article?"

He's not, but it's well-known that Rove played a major role in that campaign, as well as Bush's other campaigns. Nice try, though.

"Certainly, Democrats never resort to dirty tricks to win elections. Never."

Nice job ignoring the question: provide one example half as nauseating as the love-child story.

jukeboxgrad

PEAPLES: "A serious Diplomat would have submitted a truthful report which stated ... his findings were inconclusive"

Show me where Wilson said his findings were "conclusive." He said "his [Bush's] conclusion was not borne out by the facts _as I understood them_" (emphasis added). I think that's a moderate and reasonable statement, and far from a claim of being "conclusive."

"If he got it from Google"

Her name might have been somewhere on the net. What was not on the net was something indicating she worked for the CIA (let me know if you can demonstrate otherwise). Small difference. In case you still don't get it: Rove didn't say to Cooper "Mrs. Wilson is married to Mr. Wilson." Rove said to Cooper "Mrs. Wilson works for the CIA."

This is exactly what Mark Steyn has some trouble with: "some White House guy came to mention the kook's wife to some reporter." Trouble is, Rove didn't just "mention the kook's wife." Rove mentioned that "the kook's wife" works for the CIA, regarding WMD. And then lied about this for a couple of years. Steyn et al are making it clear that concepts such as integrity and the rule of law mean nothing to them. They merely represent "distractions" and "parochialism." Kind of like how the Geneva Conventions are "quaint" and "obsolete."

We still are a country of laws, even though folks like Rove and Steyn find that highly inconvenient. Also, it's ironic that Steyn tried hard to suggest that since it's wartime, we can't afford to waste any energy on little things like making sure people obey the law. On the contrary: it's especially during wartime that we would expect any citizen (let alone a high government official) to exercise care with regard to classified information.

"rogue elements within the CIA attempting to destabilize the elected government"

This is a pretty mind-boggling statement. Steyn is suggesting that this investigation is nothing more than attempt by the CIA to overthow the duly elected government of the USA. A coup. Treason, in other words.

I want to go on record right now; you heard it here first. Sliming Wilson wasn't enough. Now it's necessary to slime the CIA (never mind that the guy in charge at the time, the guy who referred the complaint to DOJ, ended up being awarded a medal by Bush). Next step: slime the DOJ (never mind that it was Bush's man Ashcroft who appointed the prosecutor), the FBI and Fitzgerald himself. We will soon be hearing that all these people are traitors, executing a treasonous plot to overthrow the US government.

It's inevitable. Just watch. They have nothing left to work with.

Lesley

JukeBox, I'll agree I set myself up for that one (by praising Cheney and Rumsfield). Good call. Doesn't change either of our opinions, but good call.

kim

Copying Cheney's tone for a response to a post not mimicking Leahy's provocation doesn't set you up as arbiter of tone.
================================

kim

Geez, Lesley, Juke's been the jerk here, not you.
=====================

Seven Machos

JUKEBOXGRAD

Nowhere in the link you provided does it say that Karl Rove had anything to do with any rumors.

You shouldn't make up facts, then ask people to find evidence demonstrating them to be false. This is bad form, and it really makes you look silly. Since you are so much smarter than I am, I frankly expect better arguments. A little person like me shouldn't have to give geniuses like you rhetorical advice.

peapies

I think the point is made in the first half of that sentence...

"As for Wilson's wife, I told the grand jury I was certain that Rove never used her name and that, indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week, when I either saw it in Robert Novak's column or Googled her, I can't recall which. ..."

what you write today
"If he got it from Google"

Her name might have been somewhere on the net. What was not on the net was something indicating she worked for the CIA (let me know if you can demonstrate otherwise). Small difference. In case you still don't get it: Rove didn't say to Cooper "Mrs. Wilson is married to Mr. Wilson." Rove said to Cooper "Mrs. Wilson works for the CIA."

doesn't quite square with what you wrote yesterday(or the point of this matter period. You seem to be suggesting today that it was wrong for Rove to tell the truth which is Wilson's wife works at CIA...However I have been led to believe that we are here today because conventional bloodthrist was pissed Rove leaked her NAME! One without the other does not make a LEAK!!!!!

Seven,

"Rove was not the leaker"

Then please explain the meaning of this (Cooper): "Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes." (link).

"the thing leaked was not classified"

Better tell Fitz he's been wasting his time, then.

"Why did Cooper mention Plame?"

Cooper didn't "mention Plame" to Rove. Rove outed Plame to Cooper.

By the way, "I would have a lot more respect for you" if you managed for a few nanoseconds to put aside your pathetic practice of answering a question with another question.

"The administration wanted to discredit Wilson"

Please explain why the White House needed to out Plame in order to "discredit Wilson." As I said earlier, it was a WSJ reporter, oddly enough, who said: "That Ms. Plame recommended her husband doesn't undercut Mr. Wilson's credentials for the job of trying to figure out whether Saddam Hussein was seeking the raw material for a nuclear weapon in Africa."

If the message Rove wanted to deliver was "Wilson was not sent by Cheney; rather, he was sent by slimy traitorous insignificant low-level operatives," let me suggest the following way he could have said that, which would not have posed any threat to our national security: "Wilson was not sent by Cheney; rather, he was sent by slimy traitorous insignificant low-level operatives." Please explain the critical importance of Rove using words such as "Wilson's wife" as part of that sentence.

Also, nice job continuing to sidestep the various other very simple issues I raised here.

Posted by: jukeboxgrad | July 17, 2005 12:59 PM


Paul Zrimsek

Just for you, Stalingrad:

There are a number of quotes that we do not find in Thomas Jefferson's correspondence or other writings; in such cases, Jefferson should not be cited as the source. Among the most common of these spurious Jefferson quotes are:

* "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."

patch

"Number of times Rove has appeared before the grand jury: 3.

Number of times Wilson has appeared before the grand jury: 0."

Generally, the target of an investigation in a Federal case is the last person interviewed.

Martin

Yes Patch-but don't forget Fitzgerald said the investigation is essentially complete except for questioning Miller and Cooper.

Steve Carr

Peapies, you're just being willfully obtuse. Rove leaked Valerie Plame's identity -- that's what everyone is so worked up about. The fact that he didn't say her name is irrelevant. He provided more than enough information for her to be easily identified and disclosed her status as a CIA agent. We can debate whether that was a crime, a firing offense, or neither -- but there is no way to argue that Rove did not identify Plame. So stop wasting our time.

Seven Machos

Steve Carr -- I like you. I often disagree with you, but you are always reasonable, and I appreciate that.

You could be right. Rove could be the leaker. I don't think he was. Further, I think you are seriously moving the goalposts when you say that this is an open-and-shut case. The point of Grand Jury proceedings is to decide if there is the possibility that someone has done something that might be a crime -- to establish what you have claimed has already been established.

I personally have a pet a theory that Fitzgerald is dragging this out because he doesn't mind seeing Miller in jail, because she completely screwed up a prior investigation. However, that's neither here nor there, and it doesn't have anything to do with the outcome of these Grand Jury proceedings.

Martin

Peapies-as a hypothetical-what if Rove had said:

Puh-lame Puh-lame bo Blame Banana fanna fo Flame
Fee fy mo Malame-Puh-lame!

Would that be leaking?

Steve Carr

Seven, I'm not saying that this is open-and-shut in terms of criminality (which is what the grand jury is trying to figure out). What I am saying is that there's no debate that Rove was the person who disclosed Valerie Plame's identity to Matt Cooper. Rove has admitted he talked about Plame to Cooper, Cooper says Rove did it, and Cooper says he didn't know who Plame was beforehand. I don't see any wiggle room there.

Seven Machos

Again, Steve, you could be right. But consider:

1. We have not really heard Rove's side of the story. We know that Cooper asked Rove about Plame. Rove allegedly says that he said, "Oh, you know about it." (This is what Cooper says that Libby said, if I am following all of this correctly.)

2. We have heard Cooper speak on television but we must recall that Cooper has his own skin to save.

3. Cooper happened to be talking to Tim Russert, still another person who has his own skin to save.

4. The prosecutor has not said anything, and nobody has any idea what he is ultimately going to say or do.

Consequently, I think you are premature in your assessment, though I do think you present your assessment very well and and very forcefully. Unlike a lot of other posts here arguing Plame-Good-Bush-Rove-Evil-Guilty, you made me think and think carefully.

Jim E.

On July 6, S Machos wrote: "The prosecutor has himself indicated, 'no crime has been committed'."

Glad to see Machos has now rendered that statement inoperative by acknowledging (finally) that the "prosecutor has not said anything."

Facts are being recognized! A crime may have -- or may not have -- been committed. Progress has been made! Good job, Machos!

Jim Rockford

Hmmm ... so Cooper is married to a Democratic Party strategist.

That's a VERY interesting tidbit. It makes his published stories and public statements ... well suspect.

What probably isn't suspect is his Grand Jury testimony, which is likely why he didn't want to testify. If he testifies under oath that Rove and Libby say to the effect that "yeah I heard that too from other reporters" regarding Joe Wilson's wife working at the CIA and sending him to Niger; and in print says that Rove and the Administration tried actively to smear/punish Wilson, he looks at worst like Jayson Blair and at best like Dan RaTHer and "fake but accurate." Miller too perhaps, even worse if she's the original source for Plame's CIA role. And deliberately sat on that info to make Bush and Rove look bad.

Would it be worth going to jail for so you don't look like just another branch of the DNC?

Maybe. But that Cooper's wife is a Dem staffer puts a HUGE conflict of interest in all his reporting and makes EVERY public statement not under sworn oath suspect.

Pity.

Seven Machos

Jim E.: I still think Fitzgerald said that at some point. But you are right, it's not easy to find in the public domain. Perhaps I was confused as to what Fitzgerald said about journalists committing a crime.

At any rate, on the face of it, you got me, and I stand corrected. I've never said I'm anything more than a dumb Republican (and I must dumb BECAUSE I am a Republican.) Nevertheless:

1. I stand by my prediction that Rove and Libby will be vindicated.

2. I stand by my contention that many on the Left only want in a clinically insane kind of way to see Bush tarred SOMEHOW by scandal.

3. I found this interesting quote by the judge, in response to Miller's attorneys, presumably not long before she was carted off to jail: "Hogan [said] this 'is a case in which the information [Miller] was given and her potential use of it was a crime ... This is very different than a whistle-blower outing government misconduct.'" I'm not sure what to make of that for either side.

4. On the whole, Fitzgerald has been amazingly, eerily quiet.

jukeboxgrad

SEVEN: "Nowhere in the link you provided does it say that Karl Rove had anything to do with any rumors."

I know you think all the sleazy opposition rumors that seem to inevitably emanate every single time Rove is involved in a political campaign are a complete coincidence. Now let's discuss the tooth fairy.

Look, I realize you won't be convinced unless you see a video of Rove and Bush giving Satan a blowjob. And even then, you'd claim it's all just Spielberg special effects. Pay attention: they are skilled at hiding their fingerprints (but only most of the time; nobody's perfect). They have many years of practice. They have it down to a science. They realize folks like you are easily fooled. They count on it. Don't let them down.

If the problem is that you haven't seen a link that says "Karl Rove had anything to do with any rumors," then chew on these for a while: link, link, link. I hope you have a strong stomach.

"You shouldn't make up facts..."

Nice job failing to provide even a single example.

"...then ask people to find evidence demonstrating them to be false."

I realize your approach works a lot better for you: hardly present any facts of your own, and dismiss the ones presented to you unless they meet your doctrinaire preconceived notions. I realize you find this position comforting.

"to decide if there is the possibility that someone has done something that might be a crime"

No one is suggesting the trial is over and the jury has reached a verdict. However, the fact is that several judges have taken the secret evidence very seriously, seriously enough to consider a criminal charge that could significantly lengthen Miller's imprisonment: "in this closely held investigation, federal appeals court judges of very different ideological stripes and Hogan have reviewed secret evidence and have agreed that Miller's and Cooper's claims of a right to protect their sources is outweighed by the public interest in investigating a possible breach of national security."

In other words, this group of very serious professionals seems convinced that there is more than a tiny possibility that "someone has done something that might be a crime."

"We have not really heard Rove's side of the story."

Really? For a couple of years we heard "Rove's side of the story" from the White House: that is was "totally ridiculous" to suggest that Rove was involved.

For the last few weeks, we've been hearing Rove's side of the story pretty much on a daily basis from Luskin and from an army of other surrogates: Rove did it, but he was only trying help a reporter write an accurate story.

So if you "have not really heard Rove's side of the story," it just means you aren't paying attention.

What none of us have heard, however, is the story Rove will be telling tomorrow, because it's been a moving target (at least with regard to certain slippery details), and I'm sure that will continue.

"We know that Cooper asked Rove about Plame."

Really? Is that an innocent error, or are you willfully making stuff up? Cooper asked Rove about Wilson, not about Plame.

"Rove allegedly says that he said, 'Oh, you know about it.'"

I think you're confusing the Cooper-Rove story with the Novak-Rove story. No surprise; some people in the press are describing it incorrectly. In the former case, Rove was giving Cooper information Cooper did not already have. In the latter case, Rove was confirming for Novak something Novak had already heard elsewhere. Even though certain folks would like to pretend otherwise, even the latter is still a leak of classified information. But the former is more egregious.

"Cooper has his own skin to save."

Most of the important details of what Cooper said have already been acknowledged by Rove (via Luskin). Who knows what Rove will say tomorrow, however.

"This is very different than a whistle-blower outing government misconduct"

Here's the more complete passage: "Hogan said Miller was mistaken in her belief that she was defending a free press. He stressed that the government source she 'alleges she is protecting' had already waived her promise of confidentiality. He said her source may have been providing information not to shed light on government secrets _but to try to discredit an administration critic_. 'This is not a case of a whistle-blower' revealing secret information to Miller about 'dangers at a nuclear power plant,' Hogan said. 'It's a case in which _the information she was given_ and her potential use of it _was a crime_. . . . This is very different than a whistle-blower outing government misconduct.'" (emphasis added)

This passage should be of interest to all those folks who think in the end Fitz will go after Wilson. But hope springs eternal, I guess.

jukeboxgrad

PEAPLES: "it was wrong for Rove to tell the truth which is Wilson's wife works at CIA"

Telling the truth is usually a good thing, except when it is done in connection with an unauthorized release of classified information. No one is accusing Rove of speaking falsely when he said Wilson's wife works for the CIA (although he was indeed speaking falsely when he claimed she "authorized" Wilson's trip; if anyone has any proof to the contrary, I'd love to see it). The accusation is that he was leaking classified information when he made that statement.

"However I have been led to believe that we are here today because conventional bloodthrist was pissed Rove leaked her NAME!"

Even that miserable snake Luskin has acknowledged that whether or not her name was mentioned doesn't matter. There are an infinite number of ways of positively identifying someone without using their name. Rove's formulation "Wilson's wife" is just one example.

Are you trying to say Rove is off the hook because he didn't use the word "Plame?" If so, you're dead wrong (as Steve ably explained).

By the way, I have no idea why you reposted a long excerpt from one of my messages. I'm going to assume that was a slip of the mouse.

PAUL: "There are a number of quotes that we do not find in Thomas Jefferson's correspondence or other writings"

Thanks for the tip. My mistake. I always appreciate a chance to learn something new.

Anyway, this is actually the one I was trying to remember. I like it even better: "It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from the government." Thomas Paine.

I also like these other ones, too. I would appreciate the benefit of any further debunking you can offer:

"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." Samuel Adams.

"Our loyalty is due entirely to the United States. It is due to the President only and exactly to the degree in which he efficiently serves the United States. It is our duty to support him when he serves the United States well. It is our duty to oppose him when he serves it badly." Theodore Roosevelt.

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country." Theodore Roosevelt.

jukeboxgrad

PATCH: "Generally, the target of an investigation in a Federal case is the last person interviewed."

I've heard that said. However, it's also my understanding that when a target has not been asked to testify, there is still a principle calling for reasonably early notification to the target, to offer them a chance to testify: "When a target is not called to testify ... and does not request to testify on his or her own motion ... the prosecutor, in appropriate cases, is encouraged to notify such person a reasonable time before seeking an indictment in order to afford him or her an opportunity to testify before the grand jury" (link).

Do you have any reason to think Wilson has received such a notification, or is about to receive such a notification? Given that the thing is about two years old, don't you think it's about time, if he's really a target?

Something else, since I'm guessing that you're knowledgeable about this sort of thing. My understanding is that Luskin has acknowledged his awareness, via Fitz, that Rove is a "subject" of the investigation. (Of course we all know a subject could become a target at any time.) Do you have any knowledge indicating that Wilson is also a "subject" of the investigation?

One more thing. According to this report, Rove, besides appearing before the grand jury on three occasions, was also "grilled by FBI agents twice in formal meetings and asked to respond to questions in informal settings."

Do you have any knowledge indicating whether or not Wilson has also been similarly questioned by the FBI, formally and/or informally? Assuming he hasn't, is this also consistent with speculation that he is the target (or _a_ target),
after all?

Just curious.

Of course I would also be interested to hear any comments you have about Judge Hogan's remark about someone trying "to discredit an administration critic." As far as I can tell, Rove's surrogates have pretty boldly bragged that Rove was indeed engaged in precisely that noble enterprise: trying "to discredit an administration critic."

Is it possible this is all just a ruse on the part of Hogan, to lull Wilson into a false sense of security?

jukeboxgrad

JIM: "Cooper is married to a Democratic Party strategist."

Warning, everyone. If you're not with us, you're against us. Lots of people are about to be slimed. Don't say I didn't warn you.

By the way, Fitz sat next to a Democrat once in grade school. Likewise for that damn Ashcroft who appointed him. Likewise for Tenet, who originally referred the case to DOJ. Slimy traitors, the lot of them.

"Would it be worth going to jail for so you don't look like just another branch of the DNC?"

By the way, if you follow the details closely, it appears that Cooper was very ready to go to jail to protect Rove as a source (I imagine that made Matt very popular at home). There is ample reason to believe the story unfolded differently only because Matt's boss overruled him (and gave up Matt's notes contrary to his wishes), and then on top of that only because Luskin said something stupid in the WSJ, at the very last moment. Look it up. Here are a couple of good places to start (link,link).

Sorry to let the facts get in the way of you gratuitously sliming someone who appears to have a great deal of integrity.

MARTIN: "Banana fanna fo Flame"

This isn't the first time I almost ended up with my beverage coming out of my nose, on account of you. (The other time recently is when you mentioned the FEC.) Which reminds me:

LESLEY: "I set myself up"

I respect your candor.

Seven Machos

JUKEBOXGRAD

Rhetoric Rule #1: It's always a good idea to link to nutty leftist conspiracy theorists and whackjobs when you want to persuade centrists and conservatives because, yeah, THAT'LL WORK.

Arthur Landry

oh man, Juke box grad, I was really hoping you had it. For years I've been looking for the proof that Rove orchestrated the horrible, horrible McCain smear. Its kept me up at night. And you promised it- but you deliver THAT? Good Lord, man.Give me Atrios and be done with it.Proof, not hackery.

docob

Hey, Jukeboxgrad -- ever think of getting your own blog rather than chewing up someone else's bandwidth? I sure hope you hit the tip jar heavy.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame