Powered by TypePad

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

July 17, 2005



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


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


"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 c