Powered by TypePad

« Tie Grandma To The Railroad Tracks | Main | Miller To Be Called Back; Statute Suggested »

October 06, 2005

Comments

freaknik

The aspens are turning.

cathyf

So, does anybody else see an update to last night's post?

cathy :-)

kim

This is moving so fast that the latest thinking can't be posted because it wouldn't be any longer.
==================================================

Jerkweed

Kim, when has the inability to post actual "thinking" ever bothered you before you.

topsecretk9

cathy, I can't either...was wondering if it was cryptic but then I do that way too much

kim

I think therefore I am I before I.
==============================================

topsecretk9

TM wrote this last night referring to lefties atwiter...
Kremlinologists note Rove's absence from the recent Miers events, and conclude that space aliens have called him home he has been handed a target letter and is being eased out the door.

this was today, for what is worth
Rove played an active role in selection of Miers
By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 6, 2005

Senior Bush adviser Karl Rove was "very involved" in President Bush's Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers, who was selected in part because she has no judicial track record, according to a Republican with close ties to the administration.

topsecretk9

update, up and working

mark

The leaks appear.

This request of Rove, to reappear is troubling. Apparently reports of the letters going out is false, but there may be the case that the letters are being prepared to go out...and someone is giving a list.

Rove would be most likely going to do damage contol for someone, other than himself. Otherwise, why risk the appearance and get further into trouble. Libby is going to be on the block, maybe.

Rove changed his mind shortly after Miller tesifies. He must have gotten wind that there were some inconsistencies with the Libby v. Miller versions.

He may be going back to establish that Miller knew Plame's identity before her reported conversation with Libby, to take the heat off of him.

This is a distinct sign that the Miller testimony did not got as planned for the Whitehouse.

Keith

Rove offered in July to return to the grand jury for additional testimony and Fitzgerald accepted that offer Friday after taking grand jury testimony from the formerly jailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

The offer to testify was made back in July and was just now accepted.

topsecretk9

however, Ms Miller has yet to write word (then) and now, unlike Cooper and the NYTimes only late word is lllaaaamme...

this could be more about Judy...and trouble for her!

topsecretk9

by the way...has anyone read the "Macmind" blog linked/trackbacked to this post (above, at top) and the thread there?

I just noticed it and it is interesting indeed.

SteveMG

Time to really start the guessing game (as opposed to what we've been doing before now):

Conspiracy charges against: Rove, Libby and Fleischer.

No charges on violations of IIPA. Maybe some other charges on handling of classified documents.

Let the games begin. . .

SMG

Patrick R. Sullivan

If I were Joe and Valerie Wilson or Matt Cooper, I'd be awfully uncomfortable about now.

topsecretk9

conspiracy to obstruct a Federal investigation against Cooper and Miller (and maybe more journo types)

out on a limb guess- maybe some stiffer charges for a certain couple of non admin unexpected(s)

remember, the target is usually not asked to testify and if so, is timely warned

Subpoenaing a subject or target

Department of Justice policy
The grand jury may subpoena and question a target or a subject.(146) However, because of possible prejudice in requiring a target to invoke the 5th Amendment before the grand jury, a target should not be subpoenaed unless the United States Attorney or appropriate Assistant Attorney General specifically approves.(147) Moreover, if both the target and his attorney signify in writing that the target will invoke his 5th Amendment privilege if called, then ordinarily, the target should be excused from testifying.(148)


Target letters
In most cases, the Division attorney should notify a target of an antitrust investigation a reasonable time prior to seeking an indictment to afford him an opportunity to testify before the grand jury. The target notification letter should include the following:

(i) the date on which the target may appear; (ii) that the target is advised to consult with counsel about the matter; (iii) that the target will have to waive his 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination explicitly prior to testifying; (iv) that, should he testify, the target will have to consent to a full examination under oath, to be conducted by attorneys for the Government and/or by the grand jurors themselves; and (v) that anything the target says before the grand jury may be used against him.(149)
The Government is under no obligation to notify a target prior to indictment and, of course, should not do so in the rare case where such action might jeopardize the investigation or prosecution because of the likelihood of flight, destruction or fabrication of evidence, endangerment of other witnesses, undue delay or otherwise would be inconsistent with the ends of justice.(150)

Keith

The U.S. attorney's manual requires that prosecutors not bring witnesses before a grand jury if there is a possibility of future criminal charges unless the witnesses are notified in advance that their testimony can be used against them in a later indictment.

Rove has already made at least three grand jury appearances and his return at this late stage in the investigation is unusual.

The prosecutor did not give Rove similar warnings before his earlier grand jury appearances.

I'm not a lawyer, from the fact that Rove wasn't warned before his previous testimony but was warned before this testimony tells me that he is now likely to be indicted--target letter or not.

If not, can someone explain to me how?

Cecil Turner

"Time to really start the guessing game . . ."

I'll play: no indictments, no indication a crime was committed. (At least on the central issue . . . on the ongoing leakfest, including those from the grand jury, no bets.)

topsecretk9

Keith I am no expert, but it is my understanding that the what Rove has received this time is pretty standard boilerplate " advice of rights"

So I just see this a stretch on the part of the press to paint something that is standard into something suspect...which is really what they do with everything when you think about it

Cecil Turner

" . . . from the fact that Rove wasn't warned before his previous testimony but was warned before this testimony tells me . . ."

I'm also not a lawyer, but a letter saying they "cannot guarantee he won't be indicted" would hardly qualify as a "warning." (At least in the sense of warning a witness who is under suspicion of his Fifth Amendment rights.) If Fitzgerald is playing it straight, he hasn't decided to try for a Rove indictment . . . yet.

Syl

" . . . from the fact that Rove wasn't warned before his previous testimony but was warned before this testimony tells me . . ."

Actually I think the difference is that earlier they asked Rove to testify. The requests had the built-in assumption that Rove wasn't a target simply because the prosecutor made the request.

In this case Rove volunteered to testify some more, in which case a warning would be SOP.

cathyf
If I were Joe and Valerie Wilson or Matt Cooper, I'd be awfully uncomfortable about now.
I dunno. If Fitzgerald has really been conducting an investigation into what Wilson or Plame did this would require him to collect evidence agaisnt them, not just collect evidence about what Rove or Libby didn't do. This grand jury has leaked like a sieve, and it's hard to imagine he did all that in secret. Unless he is bringing charges against one or both and all of the evidence is documentary and there were no witnesses. I think, though, that it's unlikely to be Wilson or Plame.

cathy :-)

topsecretk9

have there really been a lot of leaks?

topsecretk9

this is a lawyer type question, but do these things lead to other Grand Juries for other crimes learned during this grad jury?

just wondering...because I don't quite understand how Fitzgerald would know that Judy had other sources? Sources for what, she didn't write anything, so why would he (or how) would Fitz know this?

also strange that Fitz would be all hard ass on Judy and Coop (jail) but pussy foot Rove/Libby to the end, when he could have indicted a while ago?

try hang gliding

A dollar says Rove just wants to clarify whether or not he actually had a conversation with Cooper about welfare reform.

TM

Sorry about the confusion on the UPDATE. The original UPDATE got crashed out; I then posted a short explanation here, and that got eaten as well.

Good point earlier about Judy by topsekret at 2:09, who thinks she may be in trouble.

Normally, I would figure a journalist would be in the clear, but:

(a) she never wrote a story;

(b) she still has not explained her situation.

As Jay Rosen noted, Matt Cooper told his tale in TIME and on Meet The Press immediately after testifying; we have had nothing from Judy.

And there is no bar on a witness disclosing their own grand jury testimony.

SO, either (1) Judy and the NY Times are bankrupt as news agencies (possible!), or (2) Judy is not in the clear, and her lawyers have duct-taped her.

My other guess - let's invoke a "Ronnie Earle factor" - Fitzgerald is under extra pressure ot bring a serious indictment and a strong case.

SO, he brings back Rove so that either (x) the grand jury gets one last look before indicting him (or not); or (y) Karl puts the final nail in someone else's coffin, possibly by simply repeating/reaffirming earlier testimony suported by Miller that contradicts someone else, presumably Libby.

Enough guesses? I feel the way I do about playoff baseball versus the regular season. IN July, its fun to talk about what we need for a stretch run; in October, let's just play the games.

jerkweed

Oh please. Go read Murray "go to guy" Waas' post on this.

Rove is coming back to "explain" his earlier testimony. Draw your own conclusions.

clarice

Uh--Maybe at the time Fitzgerald postponed taking up Rove on his offer (3 months ago), he was still trying to get Miller to testify more broadly and anticipated getting unredacted notes..Now that he settled for the redacted notes and heard her testimony (only) about Libby, he invited Rove in just to tie up everything..

And, maybe--Cooper whose bosses quickly turned over his unredacted notes was caught in the short hairs of his own lies and Rove is being brought in for the final blow?

Jim E.

A few people above have asserted that the grand jury has been guilty of leaks. Any examples?

Seems to me that the investigation side of this drama has been pretty quiet (at least compared to, say, Starr and Co.) and that the overwhelming preponderance of leaks has been coming from administration sources and their lawyers.

Jim E.

TM,
Since your including other speculation (like O'Donnell's) on your main page, you might want to take a quick look at Josh Marshall. No new evidence, but interesting speculation over there.

Geek, Esq.

They're bringing him back to essentially cross-examine him.

SteveMG

Geek:
"They're bringing him back to essentially cross-examine him."

Relying on spectral evidence again?

Ye olde wish is father to the thought.

Dammed, you guys on the left are really hungry for Rove's scalp (among other parts).

Still need policies and a program even if old Karl is strung up from the Washington Monument.

SMG

Geek, Esq.

They have all the information from Rove that he's willing to give that they want.

The only reason they call him at this point is to get him to say something that he's been trying to avoid saying.

Keith

The funny thing about the liberals wanting Rove so bad is that taking him out of the administration is probably a good thing for Bush in the long term. Can anyone remember when Bush made a good political move as far as passing his agenda is concerned? Who's idea was Social Security? Who thought of Harriet Miers? Karl Rove had a hand in all of those things. He can win an election, but he hasnt' proven himself to be good at governing.

Keith

From the NYTimes writeup:

The prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has held discussions in recent days with lawyers for several Bush administration officials suggesting that that he is considering whether to charge them with a crime over the disclosure of an intelligence operative's identity in a 2003 newspaper column.

But some of the lawyers said Mr. Fitzgerald indicated that he had not yet made up his mind about whether to accuse anyone with wrongdoing and would use the coming weeks before the grand jury expires on Oct. 28 to decide the issue.

Mr. Fitzgerald's conversations with lawyers since late last week have left an ominous cloud hanging over the inquiry, sweeping away assurances from a number of officials and their lawyers that Mr. Fitzgerald was unlikely to find criminal wrongdoing.

Does anyone who knows about such things draw the same "ominous" conclusions that the the Times does? Does the fact that Fitzgerald has been meeting with administration lawyers in recent days provide any clues? Does it really "sweep away assurances"? Does the Times know more than it's letting on?

topsecretk9

"The prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has held discussions in recent days with lawyers for several Bush administration officials suggesting that that he is considering whether to charge them with a crime over the disclosure of an intelligence operative's identity in a 2003 newspaper column."

again, I am no expert, but on first blush...the idea that Fitz is meeting opposition lawyers to hymn and hah about charging their clients doesn't (at least from my own experience in legal matters) seem likely. That he is meeting with them seems to me a bit strange, no?

Keith

"That he is meeting with them seems to me a bit strange, no?"

Yeah, it does. That's why I'm wondering what it might mean. The Times seems to take it as a sign that bad things are ahead for the Bushies, but I wonder if it might not mean exactly the opposite. Why would Fitz be tipping his hand in personal conversations if he was about to try these people in court?

But I'm not a lawyer--I have no idea.

topsecretk9

anyone else get the feeling that the press--the ones involved--and the ones who've been reporting on this from the beginning have essentially been Katrina-ing this story?

Sensible Mom

I don't believe Ronnie Earle is a factor for Patrick Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald is a professional, Earle is not, and everyone knows that.

I don't think Plame or Wilson will be indicted. From the leaks we've heard everything has revolved around what Rove, Libby, Cooper, Russert and Miller have known and said.

I don't believe Plame or Wilson were ever interviewed by Fitzgerald, although I can't think of why not, but I don't believe that's an indication that they're the ones being investigated.

My gut tells me this is very bad news for Rove and/or Libby. The media will get a pass even if they informed the administration of Plame's so-called covert status.

I do find it interesting that Judy Miller has not spoken about her interview. For months the NYT has hinted at Rove's role and Miller's martyrdom. The fact that they haven't claimed her innocence from the rooftops gives me pause. Then again, she may have been told to be quiet so as to ferret out someone else.

topsecretk9

Keith

yes, I don't buy it. I just isn't plausible "listen fellows nice of you to come, well I just not sure if I am gonna indict your clients"

and yes, is does appear that the NYT has it own take, and suprise it's ominous and cloudy for Rove!

Sensible Mom

I meant to say the NYT celebrated Miller's martyrdom.

Why is everything in italics?

Keith

Tom, you might want to edit my messed up italics sign in my previous comment and then delete this one. Sorry!

topsecretk9

Keith

TM is forgiving on the broken tags...ahem I just know ahem

sensible mom

I also don't believe that Fitzgerald will end this without indictments. If there wasn't a crime, he would have wrapped up the investigation long ago.

He will indict at least one person.

Keith

yes, I don't buy it. I just isn't plausible "listen fellows nice of you to come, well I just not sure if I am gonna indict your clients"

So what was going on in those meetings? Why do prosecutors usually meet with lawyers of people who are being investigated, or who are at least involved in an investigation, right before they're supposedly about to conclude their investigation? I'm trying to read tea leaves.

topsecretk9

okay I know I am going out into crazy land here, but I don't even know if I believe anything in the press anymore...at this point I am so jaded I wouldn't be surprised if revolves around a lawyers observed outside the building of Fitz, becomes meetings...

but thats silly...I know

unless Rove and Libby are really prosecution witnesses, so meeting with Fitz and the NYTimes is grasping for spin

c

tag not closed above ok now?

Gary Maxwell

Lawrence ODonnell who hasn't been right about anything since around Jimmy Carter's Presidency? Loony Larry is the the scooper here. Listen if he say put your money on the pass line, a wise man would go against the shooter.

Think about it. If there really is some real risk to Rove, his lawyer would never allow him to trudge back into the Grand Jury room where his counsel can not even be present and his words can be used against him.

Fitzgerald has bupkus or he has reporters in his crosshairs. I am betting two years and millions spent with this whole thing going clockwise down the drain.

Jim E.

In terms of the meetings described in the NYTimes, perhaps FitzGerald is looking for people to flip or plea bargain with?

Jim E.

Gary M,
O'Donnell was the first major scribe to publicly and confidently say Rove was Cooper's source. He was right about that.

What do I win?

topsecretk9

C--- did you close it? If so, how? for future goof up would love to know how? pretty please

topsecretk9

Jim E

No real beef here, but it was leaked to him ( L O'd) and he read Cooper's email (or some such) so I it isn't like he gueesed it right.

Gary Maxwell

Jim E.

I dont read ODonnell so if he had bagels and cream cheese with another East Coact reporter/liberal and then drops a little crumb on a small news day, well that is some scoop. Larry thought Dan Rather got a raw deal too.

Lets see what TM says above. Oh Larry says Rovce is a target. Rove's lawyer says not true and no target letter has gone out we know as fact so dont get sucked in by the gambler's fallacy. Just cuz he has had the dice go against him so many times, that does not change the odds one bit on this throw.

Jim E.

Gary M,
Time will tell, huh? Luskin's lawyer is in no way a credible source for anything. Just take a look at his cleverly worded denials from July.

And I don't understand how O'Donnell reporting facts from an insider somehow undercuts his credibility. It actually does the exact opposite.

Jim E.

From what I understand, Fitzgerald is under no legal obligation to send out target letters.

cathyf

Did that close the italics? Maybe another one...

I would argue that Earle's example makes it less likely the Fitzgerald will indict. He has a huge reputation for being the straightest of straight shooters. Why get dragged into the Earle mud by bringing an indictment for something not a crime? The IIPA is pretty strict, and it's really hard to imagine that anyone knew that Plame was supposed to be covert until Wilson published his comments. And you can claim that Wilson knew darn well that his column complaining about the "outting" was the first "outting", but his outrage seemed genuine enough, and you're certainly not going to claim beyond a reasonable doubt that he didn't honestly believe that Novak had already outted her.

cathy :-)

TM

Think about it. If there really is some real risk to Rove, his lawyer would never allow him to trudge back into the Grand Jury room where his counsel can not even be present and his words can be used against him.

I have been clinging to that, but... Rove has already testified three times, and talked to investigators. His attorney *might* be thinking that any damage has already been done.

Also, Rove is a smart, tough-minded witness (probably a defense attorney's nightmare, actually), so it is not like a lamb being thrown to the lions.

I don't believe Plame or Wilson were ever interviewed by Fitzgerald,

FWIW, Wilson mentioned on a radio interview that he had testified to the grand jury, but there is no indication that he is a suspect - his testimony involved his side of the Novak story and the media follow-up, to hear him tell it.

sensible mom

If Rove refused to testify he would be branded guilty by the media and accused of thwarting the investigation. Rove has no option other than to testify.

topsecretk9

JimE

I never said it undercut his credibilty I just said he was passing on leaked info. It's easy to say this is what I think will happen, then reveal, when I read coppers email

I am not opposed to O'Donnell, but also don't think O'Donnell has all the answers..

"Rove was Cooper's source"...well Rove spoke with Cooper and Rove mentioned Wilson, that he was recommended by his wife and his wife works for the "agency"

so "his source" line is subjective

Jim E.

Rove was Cooper's first source. It's a fact.

topsecretk9

TM

"to hear him tell it."

hmm.

Gary Maxwell

Jim E.

Nice job of parrotting O"Donnell column but anyone who cares has already read it. It Lawrence Fing O"Donnell for heaven sakes. He is wrong about the day of the week most of the time. And he gets histerical about nothing.

You are going to be very disappointed. But cheer up you still got the DeLay indictment... Oh never mind.

topsecretk9

Jim E

fact? whatever... this investigation is about "source of Leak", Rove may be a source for Cooper's published writing, but Cooper himself said he never used Plame by name! or said she was "Covert".

Keith

From the Washington Post for Friday:

A source close to Rove said Bush's chief political adviser and his legal team are now genuinely concerned he could face charges. But, the source said, his lawyers are hoping that Fitzgerald's warning of the chance of indictment is simply the move of a conservative, by-the-book prosecutor wrapping up a high-profile investigation.

It sounds like Rove's people really don't know one way or the other, but they're hoping. Yet why would they send their client in to testify again if they thought he was truly as risk of tightening the noose?

From later in the article...

"Obviously, some more questions were raised since the last time he testified that Fitzgerald wants to answer," Eliason said. "It would be unusual for Rove to go back in if he felt he was going to be indicted."

Indeed.

Gary Maxwell

TM

You would believe anything out of Joe Wilson's mouth after "hello"? Seriously, his serial lying does not make anything he says without three corroborating witnesses useless as a b cup bra at Dolly Parton's house?

topsecretk9

I'm just not buying the press...and I say that not under the illusion that Rove isn't - the target-

I just have no reason to buy their sale.(and circulation numbers back this up) I don't think ANY of them have been shooting straight, and not just from a get Rove angle

but more for a "say what makes us look good" angle.

Geek, Esq.

I have been clinging to that, but... Rove has already testified three times, and talked to investigators. His attorney *might* be thinking that any damage has already been done.

Any time your client opens his mouth, there's a chance that he'll do great harm to his own cause.

Geek, Esq.

Someone help me out with this:

Who pulled the trigger this week on Rove's testimony--Rove or Fitzgerald?

The WaPo article says that the offer was made in July--that seems to undercut the "Hail Mary " theory.

Jim E.

The NY Times reports that Rove claims that Novak told him (Rove) Wilson's wife's name, and that at the end of the call, Rove told Novak he had heard much of what Novak just told him. Isn't this new news? Or has this conversation already been reported on? I thought Rove couldn't remember which reporter told him the name.

Jim E.

If Rove was actually Novak's first source, rather than second (as Rove's leak seems to imply), then Rove has a severe problem. Actually, in terms of possible conspiracy charges, Rove would seem to be in trouble even if he was Novak's second source.

jerry

Mysterious harmonies: both O'Donnell and Wayne Madsen are saying 3 indictments w/one or two unindicted co-conspirators, Madsen say Rove Libby and Fleischer are the indictments.

I'd love it if Madsen has the scoop.

topsecretk9

okay peeps, TM has an update, and excerpts the new WAPO

but this is Cooper from "What I told the Grand Jury"

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071705X.shtml

I recall calling Rove from my office at TIME magazine through the White House  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. I recall saying something like, "I'm writing about Wilson," before he interjected. "Don't get too far out on Wilson," he told me. I started taking notes on my computer, and while an e-mail I sent moments after the call has been leaked, my notes have not been.

WAPO

Besides Cooper, at least two other people have testified before the grand jury since Rove last answered questions: New York Times reporter Judith Miller, who was questioned after initially refusing to appear and serving 85 days in jail, and Rove's secretary.


Under an agreement with Fitzgerald, Miller's testimony last Friday focused on her conversations with Libby. Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, did not return telephone calls seeking comment yesterday.


Rove's secretary was questioned about why a phone call from Cooper to Rove in 2003 was not recorded in White House phone logs, according to sources familiar with the probe. She reportedly explained that Cooper called the main switchboard and his call was not logged because it was rerouted to Rove's office.


and then of course TM details the rest of the story.

topsecretk9

JimE

don't get too out in front on this Rove thing...the investigation was set up as a boondoggle by this cat whose wife works in the "agency" and was leaking classified info to various news orgs.


by the by

would not this covert agent take issue with her husband leaking class info in an op-ed?

topsecretk9

and to Kristoff?

John

Isn't this really contingent upon either Libby or Rove knowing that Wilson/Plame had been covert? What is the likelihood of them having that knowledge?

Seven Machos

I love the guy who has the Wayne Madsen scoop. 'Cause, yeah, there's a guy known for veracity and objectivity.

Man, you leftwingers are optimists to the bitter end. I'll give you that.

topsecretk9

frustrated, I can't find a "transcript" of coopers Belusi email...but Michael Moore has this version

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

umm, this is the part of the email I want to see

Cooper proceeded to spell out some guidance on a story that was beginning to roil Washington. He finished,

does anyone know of? I will take the slap down if TM has it in some story.

Also, I am going on my old presumption that the reporters were in the know and needed to "educate" admin in order to procure "sources" and "source quotes"


TM

Rove told Novak he had heard much of what Novak just told him. Isn't this new news?...I thought Rove couldn't remember which reporter told him the name.

IIRC, the Novak/Rove conversation is known. As a different but related point, Rove was hazy about who else he heard it from, and whether he had heard it from someone before Novak.

Hmm, from the Times last July:

Asked by investigators how he knew enough to leave Mr. Novak with the impression that his information was accurate, Mr. Rove said he had heard portions of the story from other journalists, but had not heard Ms. Wilson's name.

About all I have on Cooper's e-mail is here, which is from Newsweek and probably matches Moore.

Syl

""please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]" and suggested another reporter check with the CIA."

Interesting...so, did another reporter check with the CIA? What did the CIA confirm? or did the CIA say 'I can neither confirm nor deny'?

kim

PERJURY

On Cooper, Miller, and Wilson.
===============================

TM

Interesting...so, did another reporter check with the CIA? What did the CIA confirm? or did the CIA say 'I can neither confirm nor deny'?

Good question that may clear up a little Cooper puzzle. From his chat with Russert:

MR. RUSSERT: The piece that you finally ran in Time magazine on July 17th, it says, "And some government officials have noted to Time in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched to Niger..."

"Some government officials"--That is Rove and Libby?

MR. COOPER: Yes, those were among the sources for that, yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: Are there more?

MR. COOPER: I don't want to get into it, but it's possible.

MR. RUSSERT: Have you told the grand jury about that?

MR. COOPER: The grand jury knows what I know, yes.

MR. RUSSERT: That there may have been more sources?

MR. COOPER: Yes.

I took this a puffery at the time (he had fought two subpoenas, so why would he suddenly get all chatty about his sources?), but it may simply be that yes, they spoke to some CIA officials.

And why not? Novak did.

clarice

I think there's a lot of smoke(a four letter word actually comes to mind, but I'm being polite) in the latest NYT and Wash Po articles. And remember, both Pincus of the Post and Miller of the NYT are deeply involved this story so their papers have a motive to try to deflect. (Why hasn't the Wash Po pulled Pincus off this story any way?)

Have you considered that Rove may be a witness for the prosecution? That could explain why he had voluntarily appeared three times and offered to appear a fourth. Surely if Luskin thought these appearances put him in legal peril he'd not permit it.

And, yes, that business with Novak and the CIA has always intrigued me. On the occasion when I tried (re a civil matter) to confirm someone's employment with the CIA, I was told the agency did not confirm or deny whether anyone worked there. And yet someone did so to Novak and possibly other reporters. I have always found that curious.

I have searched online to see if Cooper has written anything or made any public appearances since his reports of his testimony before the gj. The question isn't where has Rove been(in DC working on Miers) but where has Cooper been and why haven't we heard from him?

My only knowledge of what is going on is from the newspaper reports of this matter, and I remain persuaded that Cooper, not Rove, is the person who should be worried.

Appalled Moderate

clarice:

On what charge?

clarice

Obstruction. His notes apparently do not match his testimony or Rove's. I think he tried to set up Rove.He called Rove ostensibly about welfare reform, asked about Wilson (though he apparently already knew about Plame from others) and then spun Rove's comments to Mars. Remember his wife , Mandy Gruenwald, is a Dem consultant.

(Remember, too, Walter Pincus' wife was a Clinton appointee.)

topsecretk9

this opening paragraph (of Coopers' "What I told the Grand Jury" )tickled me...

It was my first interview with the President, and I expected a simple "Hello" when I walked into the Oval Office last December. Instead, George W. Bush joked, "Cooper! I thought you'd be in jail by now." The leader of the free world, it seems, had been following my fight against a federal subpoena seeking my testimony in the case of the leaking of the name of a CIA officer. I thought it was funny and good-natured of the President, but the line reminded me that I was, very weirdly, in the Oval Office, out on bond from a prison sentence, awaiting appeal--in large part, for protecting the confidence of someone in the West Wing. "What can I say, Mr. President," I replied, smiling. "The wheels of justice grind slowly."


in that Cooper suggests that the President had to be referring to his is showdown with Fitz and testifying. However, I just couldn't shake the feeling that the President was speaking in more general terms...

Jerkweed

Actually Cooper was on a C-Span call in show last week-you could have asked him personally.
In the short time I watched he just said we'll have to wait for Fitzgerald and blogs are speculating in the absence of knowledge.

Who cares though? Rove is dead meat.

Seven Machos

What kind of idiot really thinks that Karl Rove would still be a senior administration official if he knew he might face federal indictment as far back as, what, 2003?

CaseyL

He never thought he'd face indictment. The Bush WH has already gotten away with everything else, and they never thought this would be any different.

They're used to dealing with political hacks and subservient reporters; they're good at threats and smears, which work just fine with political hacks and subservient reporters.

They don't know nothin' about pitbull career prosecutors who hate being lied to.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame