Does TIME Magazine Still Protect Their Sources?

Yesterday, TIME magazine delivered a fascinating Sunday puzzle when it told us that their reporter, Viveca Novak, was cooperating with the Fitzgerald investigation into the Plame leak:

Fitzgerald has now asked a second reporter in TIME's Washington bureau, Viveca Novak, to testify under oath about conversations she had with Robert Luskin, Rove's attorney, starting in May 2004, while she was covering the Plame inquiry for TIME. Novak, who is not related to columnist Robert Novak, who originally published Plame's name, is cooperating with the investigation.

David Johnston of the NY Times has more:

The reporter, Viveca Novak, who has written about the leak investigation, has been asked to testify by the special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, about her conversations with Robert D. Luskin, a lawyer for Mr. Rove, the magazine said.

...

Time disclosed the prosecutor's request in a two-paragraph article published on Sunday, reporting that Ms. Novak had been asked to discuss conversations she had with Mr. Luskin, starting in May 2004, when she was covering the investigation.

The article said Ms. Novak was cooperating with the inquiry. It is not known when she will testify; she has not been asked to appear before the grand jury but will instead give a deposition, said Ty Trippet, a Time spokesman.

On Sunday, Mr. Luskin declined to comment, but he has previously said he expects that Mr. Fitzgerald will decide not to prosecute Mr. Rove. Ms. Novak declined to comment, as did Randall Samborn, a spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald.

...

Ms. Novak is not known to have had discussions with Mr. Rove or other White House officials about the C.I.A. officer during the summer of 2003, the time that has been the focus of Mr. Fitzgerald's inquiry.

Nevertheless, the summer and fall of 2004 was a significant time for Mr. Rove, according to lawyers in the case. It was then that Mr. Rove searched for and found an e-mail message he had written that led him to recall the July 2003 conversation with Mr. Cooper, the lawyers said.

Mr. Rove's e-mail message was sent on July 11, 2003, to Stephen J. Hadley, who was then the deputy national security adviser. The message said Mr. Rove had spoken to Mr. Cooper about issues in the leak case.

After its discovery, Mr. Rove provided the message to Mr. Fitzgerald, who had not been aware of it. Mr. Rove testified about the conversation with Mr. Cooper in a grand jury appearance in October 2004.

Even so, Mr. Fitzgerald has investigated Mr. Rove's assertions that he had forgotten the conversation with Mr. Cooper, and why he made no mention of it in his earlier testimony and in meetings with investigators, the lawyers said.

In Ms. Novak's case, the magazine's apparently swift compliance contrasted with the legal battle waged by Time and Mr. Cooper, who for months resisted a subpoena from Mr. Fitzgerald for his testimony.

Yes, the swift compliance does make quite a contrast with their previous position.  And TIME was criticized at the time for folding up, rather than making a stand for press freedom.

So, has TIME surrendered all notions of a free press, and does it now consider itself to be an arm of the Fitzgerald investigation?  For some reason, in their statement they do not even address such questions as how or whether they hope to protect the confidentiality of their source, Robert Luskin.  Now, we see him quoted by name in some of the articles that include a Novak byline, so some of what he said was on the record.  But was all of it?

In my unexpected role of TIME apologist, I will hazard this guess - suppose Special Counsel Fitzgerald is asking Ms. Novak about information she may have passed to Robert Luskin.  Specifically, suppose Ms. Novak told Mr. Luskin in May of 2004 that Matt Cooper believed he was being subpoenaed to testify about his side of a conversation with Karl Rove.

Well, then - it is far from clear why her questions to Luskin would be covered by any concept of source confidentiality.  But if Luskin had been alerted in May 2004 that Cooper had talked to Rove, why did it take so long to discover the missing email?  [Possible Luskin response - "I didn't believe her.  Did I tell Karl?  Sorry, that is privileged communication".]

It's just a guess.  Now I'll tell you something that is not a guess - TIME ought to have explained this in their statement.  Are they or are they not still attempting to protect their sources?

More links to possibly-relevant Viveca Novak articles here, and more links to follow.  And as to how or why Fitzgerald discovered this Novak-Luskin connection now, as opposed to last summer or a year ago, I have no idea.  However, it is surely an impressive coincidence that Ms. Novak had the big TIME interview with Woodward just last week.  Unless, of course, it is not a coincidence.  I have a fair-use excerpt of the TIME article here, but I don't see anything helpful like "By the way, this reporter also had a critical conversation with Robert Luskin in May of 2004".

However, the TIME article did end with this, so who knows?

During his time with the prosecutor, Woodward said, he found Fitzgerald "incredibly sensitive to what we do. He didn't infringe on my other reporting, which frankly surprised me. He said 'This is what I need, I don't need any more.'"

As a further aside - if our newly energized Special Counsel no longer respects DoJ guidelines about enlisting reporters, and if press freedom is no longer an issue, we eagerly await word that he has contacted Ms. Mitchell, again.

OTHER IDEAS:

ReddHedd at firedoglake thinks Fitagerald is nibbling on the fringes of attorney-client privilege.  [UPDATE:  She calls a partial mulligan, and has a much more plausible new idea which, troublingly, builds on my own suggestion.  Briefly, if Viveca told Luskin that Cooper talked to Rove, Rove may have been in imminent danger of discovery; this undermines (but does not eliminate!) the recantation defense.]

JeraLyn Merritt is too prudent to guess wildly, but she has helpful extracts from past TIME articles.

Swopa also wonders about press freedom, and I stole his puzzlement about the Novak-Woodward connection.

Jane Hamsher has some guesses which I like even less than mine.

And let me propose a timeline correction - Matt Cooper was originally subpoenaed in May 2004.  Eventually, that subpoena was modified to applay only to conversations with one named official, later revealed to be Lewis Libby.  He then received a second subpoena in Sept 2004 which did not name any officials.

So a theory is that, as of September 2004, Fitzgerald believed Cooper had at least one more source, but did not know who the source was.  Fitzgerald's surprise that Cooper had a second source comes from Cooper's own account [No, it doesn't.  Hmm.  Here we go.]; other details are from the appeal available at Fitzgerald's website. 

Comments

[kim]

I don't share all of AJ's dismay with Fitz. The man is subtle.
===================================================

[kim]

Still Throat.

Maybe it is Powell.
========================

[kim]

Is Woodwards source also Cooper's?

Or both Novaks'?

Whew.
======================================

[kim]

Hey, what makes you think I know the answer?

Actually, I do. It's Joe.
================================================

[kim]

Joe.

Phew.
=====

[kim]

The problem with emptywheel's analysis is that it depends on Rove recall.
================================================

[Dwilkers]

"...suppose Special Counsel Fitzgerald is asking Ms. Novak about information she may have passed to Robert Luskin. Specifically, suppose Ms. Novak told Mr. Luskin in May of 2004 that Matt Cooper believed he was being subpoenaed to testify about his side of a conversation with Karl Rove."

He could never prove it IMO. I think this would be really, REALLY pushing the envelope.

1) They volunteered the info about the e-mail. How would they prove to a jury that this was a deliberate lie in light of the fact that they voluntarily produced it, however late?

2) Novak could say she told Luskin about the Cooper thing, but how exactly would that prove that Rove knew? Answer; it wouldn't except by assumption. Novak would be testifying about her conversation with a third party. Luskin couldn't testify at all about what he told Rove. It is totally unprovable.

3) It would be a priveledge nightmare even to attempt such a prosecution. The hurdles would be so daunting I cannot see why any prosecutor would even attempt such a thing.

If what Fitz is doing is anything like what you describe he has run totally amok.

[TM]

I am with Dwilkers on this, and let me add - even if Viveca told Luskin, what is wrong with a Luskin defense of "I don't believe everything reportes tell me. I figured it was a ploy to get me talking."

Now, can Fitzgerald force Luskin to testify as to whether he passed that conversation along to Karl? I don't see how that is not privileged.

Well, I don't love this theory, but no other theory exactly grabs me, either.

And is it merely an amazing coincidence that (a) Woodward and his source emerge; (b) Viveca gets the big TIME interview with Novak; and (c) Fitzgerald wants to talk with Viveca?

Well, color me "amazed".

[cathyf]

What if there is some rumor going around that Luskin told Novak that they were hiding something in the Cooper email story? Remember, it was Luskin who found the email... Suppose Fitzgerald contacted Novak, and she said, "That's a load of crap, he told me no such thing" and Fitzgerald then asked if she was willing to testify to that under oath. And because he has had considerable *ahem* practice with these sorts of negotiations over the last year, Fitzgerald had a well-formulated neat-and-tidy description of how he would limit his questioning to what Luskin told Novak about the email incident. Novak (and her lawyers) found them reasonable, Fitzgerald has cred with reporters for honoring other limitation agreements, she is eager to testify because people are telling lies that involve her and she wants to correct them, so she agreed to testify.

So, see, it doesn't have to be so ominous...

cathy :-)

[Geek, Esq.]

This is a real head scratcher.

And this is elementary stuff compared to Abramoff.

[Geek, Esq.]

It could be that Luskin told Novak about the email/conversation with Cooper in May 2004.

That doesn't make a lot of sense, and would have been monumentally stupid. But, I would have said the same about LIBBY's behavior as well.

[Truzenzuzex]

A couple of observations:

1. There is no way that Luskin disclosed atty/client privileged information to a reporter. If he discussed a May conversation with Cooper knowing that Rove didn't mention it to the grand jury, he should be disbarred. My assumption is that Cooper never came up in his conversation with Novak, because evidently Luskin shouldn't have known about it.

2. What would Luskin and Novak have to talk about? Perhaps only the weather, but it seems like more (From a CNN transcript Oct 17th):

M. O'BRIEN: What's Karl Rove's circle of wagons plan? Or is it get on a wagon and get out of the White House?

ALLEN: Well, Miles, people in the White House hope that this is an academic exercise, that this is a plan that's never going to have to be used. A number of Republicans think that Patrick Fitzgerald has an axe to grind here, is trying to justify his existence, is trying to make something out of nothing. But if there are charges, Vivica Novak and I, my colleague at "TIME," have found that both Karl Rove and Scooter Libby do plan to leave the White House in some fashion, is the way it's been put to me. There's a plausibility of unpaid leave of absence, more likely is they would simply resign.

So Rove and Libby or somebody close to them (perhaps Luskin and Libby's lawyer) may have been discussing the case with Novak, at least with regard to what might happen if Rove and/or Libby were indicted.

What else? Well, this was a wee bit interesting:

ALLEN: And the idea of an unpaid leave of absence is that these people are -- would be innocent until proven guilty. And, in fact, we know that Karl Rove plans to use this time, if he were to leave, to aggressively fight the chargers.

He continues to have the position that White House officials were told this information by journalists, not the other way around, and that he has an ironclad alibi in the fact that the columnist Robert Novak told him about the CIA operative, as opposed to the other way around. But some of the lawyers who are involved in the case have begun to fear the worst.

They do fear that based on the questions that the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been asking, is that he is very interested in the misuse of classified information, which is a much less rigorous statute than we'd originally been looking at. For years and years, I guess now it is, Miles, you and I have been talking about a law that would have a very high standard in which there would be a lot of tests that had to be met before revealing someone's identity could be a crime. But mishandling classified information, much lower standard.

Hmm. We have all talked endlessly about Rove and who gave what to whom. Also the whole classified information thing. Nothing really new here - or is there?

Now, if we think back to Martha Stewart, she was accused of misleading investors through press statements. Is Fitzgerald thinking of indicting Rove for using the press to obstruct his investigation? Novel, no doubt, but given the Stewart case, can we totally rule it out?

Or perhaps, 18 USC 793 charges are not as stiff as we think...

[owl]

I keep thinking back to what I have watched with Cooper. He and Isikoff have really been going after Rove. Attack dogs and lucky coincidence that MSNBC hosts Newsweek on their site. I watched both on PBS, after the Libby indict, and Cooper was giving Libby a pass and attacking Rove. Ditto for Isikoff. Now TIME's Novak interviews Woodward? The same Novak talking to Fitz about Rove?

Reminds me again of the Storytellers writing the Story and then using the Storyteller Privilege of only telling what they please, when they please, about whoever they please to tell on.... Storyteller Witnesses.

So thinking about TIME and Cooper, Fitz's July 5th opposing Cooper says "Cooper argues that there is no prospect that he will testify because he is ethically bound to honor a promise..." This has to be one of the funniest lines ever in relation to TIME and Cooper.

[Geek, Esq.]

He continues to have the position that White House officials were told this information by journalists, not the other way around, and that he has an ironclad alibi in the fact that the columnist Robert Novak told him about the CIA operative, as opposed to the other way around.

This could be interesting. Perhaps they're looking at whether Rove's conversion from "I'm absolutely positive that I first heard this from Novakula" to "I'm absolutely positive I heard this from LIBBY" was in fact not an example of him remembering the email, but rather getting caught in a lie and trying to wiggle out.

[owl]

I still think Fitz is after conspiracy. He bought the MSM/DNC story, otherwise he could not have said what he said at that news conference.

Fitz should take up the hobby of news junkie, then he would throw all this crap out the window. Pronto.

[PusBoy]

To answer the question posed by your headline, no.

Time put up a fight to protect Cooper's source, and they lost. Fighting this time could have been seen as a futile gesture.

All the other stuff about why this is happening probably boils down to Fitzgerald being thorough. If he's going to charge Rove or not charge Rove, then he's going to make sure that he explored every path, so he doesn't take heat from the side that gets pissed off.

Isn't there an old adage about serving two masters? Makes life tough.

[Marcel]

Maybe Luskin did not request confidentiality in his discussion with V. Novak.

[TM]

Typepad seems to be down again so I can't update my post, but ReddHedd at firedoglake has an interesting idea: *IF* Viveca told Luskin that Cooper's other source was Rove, then it may be harder for Rove to argue that he corrected his original testimony in a timely fashion. One requirement for a correction is that discovery of the truth by other means not be imminent.

As to why this came out now, still a puzzle.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

' Now, if we think back to Martha Stewart, she was accused of misleading investors through press statements.'

And the judge tossed the charge, after the prosecution presented its case, as not a crime. Which is one of the grounds of her appeal; that her jury was misled by that frivolous--in the first place--presentation that should have never been introduced.

Just another thing for Fitz to think about, it Martha wins her appeal.

[TP]

Wouldn't Viveca have to honor any confidentiality with Luskin unless Luskin gave her a waiver. It seems to me Luskin is not working under WH rules and is in control of whether or not he gives Viveca a waiver. If he didn't think the evidence was exculpatory, why would he give a waiver? Viveca testifying without a waiver from Luskin would be a huge leap for Time.

[Geek, Esq.]

Wouldn't Viveca have to honor any confidentiality with Luskin unless Luskin gave her a waiver. It seems to me Luskin is not working under WH rules and is in control of whether or not he gives Viveca a waiver. If he didn't think the evidence was exculpatory, why would he give a waiver? Viveca testifying without a waiver from Luskin would be a huge leap for Time.

Luskin is an agent and mouthpiece for Rove. Unless Luskin is in personal legal jeopardy, Rove's waiver would cover anything his attorney said on his behalf.

[Jim E.]

Half-baked/Rawstory has a new piece up. Not related to Viveca, but it is related to Rove.

[cathyf]

...Viveca told Luskin that Cooper's other source was Rove...

Remember the story is that Luskin is the one who actually found Rove's email, that Rove still doesn't remember the conversation with Cooper, and that Rove's testimony was that the contents of the email is the only evidence he can offer since he doesn't remember.

So we know that there was the last-minute Fitzgerald-Luskin pow-wow. Maybe Fitzgerald is tracking down the details of the Rove-Cooper story, because the supporting details make it more plausible that it is true. Suppose that Rove/Luskin are claiming that the first time Rove found out that Cooper was protecting a conversation he had with Rove is that Viveca Novak told them. And that this was what caused them to go searching Rove's hard drive for any files that dealt with "Cooper" around the right dates, and they turned up the email. Then perhaps Fitzgerald is simply confirming the details -- yes, she told Luskin, yes, it was these dates, yes, he seemed surprised. Why would Viveca want to obstruct that, especially if Luskin is the one who pointed Fitzgerald to her as someone who could corroborate the conversation?

cathy :-)

[danking]

Don't know how these reporters will be able to continue giving "limited" testimony when Libby's attorney calls them to the stand?

Do you think they'll ask Woodward what he meant by this not being a real crime? or what he meant by his "gossip" comment?

Was the gossip that Wilson's wife sent him on the trip?

[r flanagan]

At least in appearance , Fitz seems to
be mounting a double barrelled assault on the traditional -if not necessarily constitutional- confidentiality "rights" of both the press and the defense bar.

If so , I'm forced to agree with the Just One Minute consensus that he's dead wrong.
And I'm embarrassed by the fairly supportive
position that e.g. Firedoglake has taken .

This looks like such a double whammy
that I hope we are misreading the tea leaves.
Say it ain't so , Fitz.

[John Gillnitz]

Was Luskin even speaking to Novak under the condition of anonymity? There is no need to protect confidentiality if none was ever requested. It seems like anything juicy Luskin could have divulge could easily be traced back to him.

[boris]

Well I've always been open to the possiblity that Fitz was a shark jumper with BDS. The syndrome is just too prevalent for it to be anything other than a cultural phenomenon. Blanco's BDS clearly put lives at risk and may have cost more than a few. The saying goes "when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras" and unfortunately these days BDS is more horse than zebra.

[Florence Schmieg]

Cathyf: Your theory makes sense.

[Cecil Turner]

If so , I'm forced to agree with the Just One Minute consensus that he's dead wrong.

Well, I disagree on both counts (and am a big fan of quoting Wilford Brimley: "The First Amendment doesn't say that, counselor . . . the privilege doesn't exist"), but the intellectual honesty that leads to a conclusion you obviously find distasteful is quite impressive. My complaint with Fitz's latest move is that it moves us no closer to the basic issue ("who outed Plame and why?"), and is still related to whether sand was flung in the umpire's eyes. The second grand jury also suggests he's shopping around for a favorable finding. If either is true, he ought to be fired.

Unless Luskin is in personal legal jeopardy, Rove's waiver would cover anything his attorney said on his behalf.

Unless I'm missing something significant about the whole concept of the nonexistent privilege, it has little or nothing to do with legal jeopardy. Further, it's unclear whether it would be Novak's or Luskin's to waive. And a more cynical interpretation of the sudden disinclination to apply the privilege to Administration sources might be that it is remarkably congruent with reporters' political predilections.

[TP]

Geek. Is Luskin speaking on Rove's behalf when he comments on the case? How is that determined?

[Jeff]

And a more cynical interpretation of the sudden disinclination to apply the privilege to Administration sources might be that it is remarkably congruent with reporters' political predilections.

It has always seemed to me that a great piece of evidence speaking against that cynical interpretation is the fact that Cooper and TIME refused to cave in the height (or depths) of election season.

[Truzenzuzex]

Cathyf:

Then perhaps Fitzgerald is simply confirming the details -- yes, she told Luskin, yes, it was these dates, yes, he seemed surprised. Why would Viveca want to obstruct that, especially if Luskin is the one who pointed Fitzgerald to her as someone who could corroborate the conversation?

I like it. It makes sense. This could just be Fitzgerald covering all his bases, making sure that Novak and Luskin's story jive.

It's interesting she wasn't asked to testify in front of a grand jury. For some reason, the fact that she was deposed makes me think that Fitzgerald needed her testimony more to verify Rove's version of events than to prove Rove was dishonest.

Tying up loose ends...

[MayBee]

yes, I like Cathyf's theory as well.

[Cecil Turner]

It has always seemed to me that a great piece of evidence speaking against that cynical interpretation is the fact that Cooper and TIME refused to cave in the height (or depths) of election season.

It's hard to see how they could've been much more accomodating whilst pretending there was any privilege at all. Here was the state of "non-caving" in October, '04

Cooper told reporters yesterday that he had tried to accommodate special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald in agreeing to be deposed about his conversations with Libby, but that Fitzgerald "came back a few days later and asked for everything in my notebook."

[Jeff]

It's hard to see how they could've been much more accomodating whilst pretending there was any privilege at all. Here was the state of "non-caving" in October, '04

Cooper told reporters yesterday that he had tried to accommodate special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald in agreeing to be deposed about his conversations with Libby, but that Fitzgerald "came back a few days later and asked for everything in my notebook."

Um, how about if he had given him everything in his notebook and/or immediately testified about his conversations with Rove which showed Rove to have lied with regard to his involvement in the leaking of classified information, and perhaps to have lied to the President of the United States (and if not, so much the worse!). That would have been significantly more accommodating, and I have no doubt that many many right wingers would have called foul loudly and long on Cooper and TIME for intervening in the election. Or would you claim that the response from the right would have been exactly the same as it was?

[kim]

Come, come, come. Reporters and the MSM don't want the truth of this to come out ever. Not now, not election '04, not ever. If they wanted the truth out they could have started yesterday.
=============================================

[topsecretk9]

Just curious but is it 100% inconceivable that Fitz is not acting on a bit of info given to him BY Luskin? That Luskin turned V. Novak in to Fitz? Something perhaps she said to Luskin (pertaining to Cooper) that the Woodward fiasco made spring into Luskins mind?

Just a thought.

[clarice]

ts, I think you may be right. BTW MacRanger keeps hinting that Matt Cooper has disappeared. Anyone know anything about that?

Is it possible that V. Novak told Luskin something about Cooper?That Luskin passed this on to Fitz and he is checking that out?

[r flanagan]

On Keith Olberman's program Vanderhei said that his story in tomorrow's WAPO will say that Fitz's deposing V Novak may well be a good sign for Rove. Wouldn't say any more for fear of blunting the impact.

[Jeff]

Fascinating story from the WaPo. It appears that Novak is testifying more or less at Luskin's behest, or in any case

a person familiar with the matter said Luskin cited his conversations with Novak in persuading Fitzgerald not to indict Rove in late October, when the prosecutor brought perjury and obstruction-of-justice charges against Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

"This is what caused [Fitzgerald] to hold off on charging" Rove, the source said.

(I take the source for this to be pretty obviously Luskin himself, just as I take the other anonymous source who's not sure why Novak's testimony is supposed to help Rove to be Novak.)

[Terrie]

Jeff, thanks for the link.

That Washington Post article includes this nugget confirming our speculation about Woodward's source:

"Fitzgerald recently disclosed that he plans to present new evidence to a second grand jury. People close to the case said the first area Fitzgerald wants to address is Woodward's testimony and his source, who has not been publicly identified.

Woodward's source could face legal troubles because the source testified earlier in the case and apparently did not mention a conversation with Woodward about Plame, according to lawyers in the case. If the source provided inaccurate or incomplete information, Fitzgerald could seek to bring charges, they said."

[kim]

Justice delayed is justice denied. Memories fail. Attention should be paid to motive, and to deliberate lying, rather than to errata attributable to memory insufficiency.
================================================

[Cecil Turner]

Um, how about if he had given him everything in his notebook and/or immediately testified about his conversations with Rove . . . ?

Well, for one thing, Cooper's testimony wasn't proof of much, and certainly didn't help Libby or Rove. He apparently forgot about the welfare reform part of the conversation with Rove, and then spun Libby's "words to the effect of, 'Yeah, I've heard that too'" into what Fitz claimed as:

LIBBY confirmed to Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA;

Besides, the contention wasn't that they couldn't have been any more accomodating, but that they couldn't whilst pretending there was any privilege at all. Releasing e-mails that explicitly state the source spoke on condition of anonymity (i.e., "double super secret background"), without even bothering to put up a legal challenge, would essentially admit there was no such privilege. And from Time, Inc.'s viewpoint, could hardly enhance the confidence of the next source a Time reporter hoped to cajole. Claiming it's proof positive of political disinterest seems more than a bit of a stretch.

[Jeff]

Well, for one thing, Cooper's testimony wasn't proof of much, and certainly didn't help Libby or Rove. He apparently forgot about the welfare reform part of the conversation with Rove, and then spun Libby's "words to the effect of, 'Yeah, I've heard that too'" into what Fitz claimed as:

LIBBY confirmed to Cooper, without qualification, that LIBBY had heard that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA;

This is mostly beside the point: I was talking about politically and in the real world, not legally in the case. In 2004, Cooper could have revealed that Rove lied -- lied in the real world, I'm not saying perjured himself or obstructed justice -- about his role or lack of it in the Plame matter. I'm not even saying which interpretation of Cooper's account is correct. The point is that had Cooper revealed that Rove talked to him about Plame, it would have been politically damaging. And as for Libby, Cooper had already testified at that point, so the privilege point doesn't apply to that case at least, and whatever spin you want to claim Fitzgerald put on Cooper's testimony is irrelevant to what Cooper and TIME did and did not do in 2004. Similarly, TIME and Cooper are argumentatively resourceful; they, like many others in the case, could have come up with a public rationale for caving in 2004 while still claiming the existence of some privilege.

Oh, and I'm not claiming it's proof positive of anything. That's just a strawman.

[boris]

Cooper could have revealed that Rove lied

Rove warned Cooper off Wilson in a conversation he didn't recall later.

How is that lying ???

Oh ok ... different standards for reporters and PR operatives.

[Cecil Turner]

In 2004, Cooper could have revealed that Rove lied . . .

You mean through McClellan? I suspect there'd have been a lot less poltical damage from that three way "he said/he said/he said" than you apparently believe (especially when contrasted with the then-recent SSCI report showing Wilson to be less than forthcoming). And again, immediate source betrayal would have obvious effects on Time's reputation for source protection.

Oh, and I'm not claiming it's proof positive of anything.

Fair enough. Let me restate that: I don't agree it's "a great piece of evidence."

[Jeff]

You mean through McClellan?

Yes.

And boris - We know from Fitzgerald's investigation -- which, remember, was Bush's standard -- that Rove was involved in the leaking of classified information (whether it was criminal or not is a different question without a clear answer). Rove had conveyed to us, and evidently to the President, that he was not involved in the leaking of classified information. He was. I suppose we still have to address the question of whether he knew it; maybe he just said something false, and did not lie. But then he's more incompetent than I usually give him credit for. But it's possible, I suppose.

[kim]

Standard lie.

Define Bush's standard, and involved.
==============

[TomJ]

Boris- How is that lying

In the period prior to the election, the White House led us to believe that Rove (and Libby) were not involved in leaking Plame. That was a lie.

Cooper was one of a very small number of people on the planet who knew for sure that the White House was deceiving us. He decided that protecting Rove was more important than telling his readers, pre-election, what he knew: that the White House was harboring one or more liars.

This was, at best, a questionable decision on Cooper's part. It's not the decision he would have made if he was, as some claim, part of a Big Bad Liberal Media whose top priority is to hurt Bush.

Outing Rove would have hurt Cooper with regard to future sources only to the extent that those sources were interested in counting on Cooper to cover for them while they deceived the public.

Cecil- there'd have been a lot less political damage ...

I think you're claiming that Cooper outing Rove would not have meant much to anyone. If so, then all the more reason for Cooper to say to Rove "you don't really care if I talk about this now, right?" And then Rove could have said, "sure, go right ahead, I have nothing to be ashamed of, and I'm not asking you to help me deceive the public."

Jeff- Rove had conveyed to us ... that he was not involved in the leaking of classified information.

Yes. And unless we want to descend into a Clintonesque parsing of words like "is," the way most people interpreted this was to understand that Rove was not involved in telling reporters that Plame worked for CIA.

I realize that defenders of Rove want to hang their hat on a claim that Plame wasn't classified/covert, so therefore the White House wasn't lying when it said Rove didn't leak classified information. Sorry, that doesn't wash. If that's what's true, then Rove needed to say "yes, I told reporters about Plame, but there's nothing wrong with that because it's not classified information."

Rove most definitely didn't say that, which indicates he knows he had something to hide. But that's already obvious from the sneaky way he conducted the campaign against Wilson, to begin with. Those who claim Rove did nothing wrong need to explain why he tried to hide behind a curtain.

[boris]

I suppose we still have to address the question of whether he knew it;

Exactly so. Better to assume it was a deliberate lie and "only remembering when the email turned up" was another bald faced deliberate lie. Of course you have no slack left for them after using it all up (and them some) on Fitzy, Woody, Timmy ... ad nauseum.

[JM Hanes]

Jeff

"We know from Fitzgerald's investigation..."

We "know" virtually nothing from Fitzgerald's investigation. It has yet to be determined whether even the assertions laid out in his indictment of Libby have a substantive basis in fact. What we've got is a collection of leaks and sundry communications put forward by interested parties from which multiple, often conflicting, inferences can be drawn.

I could easily characterize the entire Plamegate affair as an organized conspriacy to oust one of the most effective political strategists ever from the White House by whatever means possible. You may choose to characterize Rove's brief encounters with reporters as "involvement," but that seems like a stretch to me -- especially compared to what was going on everywhere else. In constrast, however, it would be hard to deny that Libby's circumstances rise to the level of involvement, assuming the various caveats you yourself apply to Rove.

[boris]

Sorry, that doesn't wash.

Such insightful analysis!

Clearly you can see right through Mr Rove. He's up to something for sure isn't he? It's a conspiracy I'll bet.

[TomJ]

If the premise is that he leaked Plame because he simply didn't know this amounted to leaking classified information, then why didn't be simply say so, right from the start? "I told Cooper about Plame because I thought this was not classified. And it didn't even occur to me to bother to check, first. After all, I'm a busy man."

If it was true, that would have been a direct, plain-spoken statement. "I didn't leak classified information" and "I didn't leak her name" are not direct, plain-spoken statements. They are statements of a person who has something to hide.

[Cecil Turner]

In the period prior to the election, the White House led us to believe that Rove (and Libby) were not involved in leaking Plame. That was a lie.

McClellan made a statement concerning Rove (and Libby). He then amplified it in response to a question, but the gist was as Boris described. Calling that "a lie" is a guess, as it might well have been miscommunication. (And attributing a lie to "the White House" is obviously silly.)

Rove most definitely didn't say that, which indicates he knows he had something to hide.

Oh nonsense. Two people had a conversation and both wrote e-mails afterward. As is evident from the e-mails, they had different views of what was important (welfare reform vs. who sent Wilson), and both claim to've forgotten the part they considered less important. That "indicates" absolutely nothing: they might both have forgotten, they might both be lying, or there might be some further permutation.

[TomJ]

JMH- You may choose to characterize Rove's brief encounters with reporters as "involvement," but that seems like a stretch to me

According to Cooper, he learned from Rove that Plame worked for the CIA. Isn't that what the fuss is all about? How is that not "involvement?" Unless you claim that Cooper is simply lying, but I don't think Luskin has suggested that this statement by Cooper is a lie.

boris- Clearly you can see right through Mr Rove. He's up to something for sure isn't he?

Your sarcasm is a poor substitute for answering a simple question: if Rove wasn't doing anything wrong, why did he operate behind a curtain?

[Jeff]

boris - As usual, you're off point. I'm not talking about the possibility of perjury charges. I'm saying Rove said to the American public via McLellan (and to the President, evidently) that he wasn't involved in the Plame leak, and he was.

JM Hanes - The results of Fitzgerald's investigation was the standard for knowledge upheld by Bush himself. I am well aware that neither a trial of Libby nor a plea from him have taken place to establish his criminal guilt or non-guilt. But we've got some results at least of his investigation. TomJ is saying it better than I can.

[boris]

TJ,

Rove claimed to the GJ under oath that he forgot "leaking" about Wilson's wife to Cooper until an email turned up mentioning it.

So why worry about what Rove told the WH? Just flat out accuse the man of perjury and be done with it.

[boris]

boris - As usual, you're off point

As usual you missed the point ... Whoosh !

If Rove was lying about forgetting that he leaked to Cooper then accuse the man of perjury!

If he was telling the truth about fogetting then claiming he wasn't involved in the Plame leak was the truth as he knew it.

[TP]

TomJ. The Great and Powerful Oz always hides behind a curtain.

[boris]

What's in that koolaid you guys guzzle anyway?

[Shaft T. Stroker]

I see the lefties are backing off from "covert" and are now to "classified". Not that anyone has defined classified and why Val met that criteria. And from "Libby was the first known to tell a reporter" to "Libby was not the first to tell a reporter", but that doesn't matter now. What's next? Going from her job was "not widely known" to her job was "widely known (in a classified kind of way)". I also like the new "Repubs are guilty until proven innocent...and even then, they are still guilty".

[cathyf]

Rove most definitely didn't say that, which indicates he knows he had something to hide.

Or it means that he told the truth under oath when he said that he did not remember the conversation and still does not remember the conversation, and can offer only the email that he wrote right after the forgotten phone call. The email that was not discovered until many months after those statements were made.

But that's already obvious from the sneaky way he conducted the campaign against Wilson, to begin with.

ROFLMAO. Oh, yeah, there's a "campaign" which is incredibly "sneaky." The only reporters that Rove says anything about Wilson's wife to are ones who came asking Rove direct questions. One of whom only got through because he snuck a phone call through the WH switchboard under false pretenses. I can just imagine that strategy meeting now: "It's vitally important that we get this message out, so make sure that you don't tell any reporters, unless they sneak their way past your secretary and ask you a direct question about it."

cathy :-)

[TomJ]

Cecil- McClellan made a statement concerning Rove

The problem is that the statement was false.

it might well have been miscommunication

Then Rove could have and should have cleared it up right away: "I think there's been a miscommunication, so let me clear it up; McCellan said something yesterday which I think has given some people the impression that I didn't tell one or more reporters about Plame; let me set the record straight because it's really important to me that journalists only print things that are true." Maybe you have a theory for why Rove failed to do this.

both claim to've forgotten the part they considered less important

I think you're barking up a different tree. You're explaining why Rove "forgot" to tell Fitz about Rove's conversation with Cooper. That's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is that Rove "forgot" to speak up and set the record straight after McClellan went before microphones and led us all to believe that Rove (and Libby) were not involved in the matter.

On 9/29/03, McClellan said after having "spoken with Karl" that "it was a ridiculous suggestion" to say Rove was "involved ... I've made it very clear that he was not involved, that there's no truth to the suggestion that he was." This statement was made less than three months after Rove told Cooper that Plame=CIA. Why didn't Rove speak up and tell us McClennan had "miscommunicated?"

Has Luskin ever suggested that Cooper is lying when Cooper claims that he first heard Plame=CIA from Rove? I don't think so. Luskin is only claiming that Rove "forgot" to mention this to Fitz. Rove also conveniently "forgot" to tell the public that McClellan was issuing denials that must have been based on some kind of "miscommunication."

If you want to claim that Rove telling Cooper about Plame was an entirely trivial, harmless, casual act that Rove shouldn't be expected to remember for more than ten minutes, then that's what McClellan should have said: "Rove told me he can't be sure he didn't do it, because if he did do it, it was an entirely trivial, harmless casual act that no one should expect him to be able to remember for more than ten minutes." But that's not what McClellan said. Instead, he issued vigorous, emphatic, categorical denials.

Rove didn't tell the country "I can't remember if I did it, and why would anyone expect me to be able to remember such a trivial thing." He told the country "I didn't do it." That was a lie.

If Rove's memory is really so porous, he had an obligation to say "I have a porous memory, so I can't say whether or not I was involved." Of course that's tantamount to saying "I'm an airhead, and only a fool would pay any attention to a single word I say."

Jeff- TomJ is saying it better than I can.

I appreciate the compliment. But you do just fine without any help from me.

boris- why worry about what Rove told the WH?

Because Bush repeatedly promised that he would restore honor and dignity to the White House. Continuing to employ a liar is not consistent with that campaign promise.

[cathyf]

On 9/29/03, McClellan said ... The problem is that the statement was false.

Then Rove could have and should have cleared it up right away: "I think there's been a miscommunication, so let me clear it up; McCellan said something yesterday which I think has given some people the impression that I didn't tell one or more reporters about Plame; let me set the record straight because it's really important to me that journalists only print things that are true." Maybe you have a theory for why Rove failed to do this.

Well, how about that Rove has (reportedly) testified, under oath that he did not remember the conversation, and still does not remember the conversation, and has only the contents of the email he wrote and does not remember about the conversation he does not remember, and that email was not discovered until the summer of 2004. At which point Rove did "clear it up right away" -- he requested to testify to the grand jury about this newly discovered email, and did testify, immediately after his lawyer (Luskin) discovered the email.

I'm looking for a good bumper sticker... How about DECRIMINALIZE NON-AUTISM ?

cathy :-)

[Rick Ballard]

Hey, somebody's playing the old jerkbox! I thought it got disconnected.

[Cecil Turner]

Then Rove could have and should have cleared it up right away:

Or the President could have decided to have the various WH spokesmen shut up about the subject, which they did. Long overdue, IMHO.

You're explaining why Rove "forgot" to tell Fitz about Rove's conversation with Cooper.

You're assuming "forgot" is a lie, and using it as evidence for further assertions. (That's known as assuming your conclusion or begging-the-question.)

If Rove's memory is really so porous, he had an obligation to say . . .

Oh really? Was his faulty memory being used to accuse someone of a felony? (If so, I missed it.) Contrast that with Cooper's obvious misrecollection of the conversation in which he says he learned of Plame's identity (but not her name). Yet one is gospel, the other an obvious lie?

Continuing to employ a liar . . .

Let's pile up those unproven assertions, shall we?

[TomJ]

cathy- sneaky

The sneakiness is obvious in Rove telling Cooper "don't tell anyone I told you." If Rove was doing nothing wrong, why did he say that? Unless your claim is that Cooper is lying when he claims that Rove said that.

The only reporters that Rove says anything about Wilson's wife to are ones who came asking Rove direct questions.

Maybe you'd like to explain why Novak said this: "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me." (I realize he may have been talking about one or more SAO other than Rove, but I think that's a secondary distinction.)

By the way, presumably you realize Cooper did not ask Rove about Plame. Cooper asked Rove about Wilson. It was Rove's idea to mention Plame.

he snuck a phone call through the WH switchboard under false pretenses

You're making it sound like poor little Karl was ambushed by a big nasty reporter, and Karl was therefore helplessly compelled to divulge classified information. Ha ha ha.

Rove has more experience dealing with the press than perhaps any other living person. He is perfectly capable of making sure he's not talking with someone unless he has decided it's in his own best interest to be talking with that someone. And he's perfectly capable of making sure he only answers questions he wants to answer, and only makes statements he wants to make.

Rove is responsible for the words he said to Cooper. Period. Who put the dime in the phone is not relevant. Whether or not welfare reform was part of the conversation is also not relevant. Whether or not the call went through the WH switchboard is also not relevant (except to the extent that it relates to the matter of Fitz potentially showing that Rove was trying to prevent the call from being logged).

[boris]

You're explaining why Rove "forgot" to tell Fitz

Rove did not "forget to tell Fritz", he forgot the conversation. A statement like yours there is a dead giveaway that you are not serious. Nobody here has made a claim anywhere close to that. Lookalikatroll.

[kim]

Hey TJ, I asked for definition of Bush's 'standard' and Rove's 'involvement'. You only sound like you're saying it better because Jeff understands those limits.
========================================

[Rick Ballard]

The wailing and gnashing of teeth is a dead giveaway that it's an escapee from the outerdarKosness.

[JM Hanes]

Tom
"...not consistent with that campaign promise."

LOL! New to politics, eh? If you could keep your facts and your talking points separated, you might make more headway here.

"Administration officials" were not simply accused of leaking classified info, they were accused of a conspiracy to punish and intimidate Joe Wilson by deliberately and illegally blowing a covert agent's cover. So far, no one with the authority to do so has ever even officially declared that Plame was actually covert at the time.

Considering the fact that the CIA itself confirmed Plame's employment to a reporter, it's almost a wonder that they had the nerve to make a referral to Justice in the first place. That may be the most cynically political c.y.a. move on this entire Washington chessboard.

[boris]

LOL! New to politics, eh?

Even worse JM. The admin open book response to the SP actually is consistent with more integrity relative to the previous admin. Which was the point of the campaign statements anyway.

[TomJ]

he did not remember the conversation

Less then three months elapsed between the time that Rove told Cooper about Plame, and the time that McClennan told us Rove wasn't involved. That's rapid and complete amnesia, especially since Rove didn't tell us (via McClellan) "I can't remember whether or not I was involved." He told us "I was not involved." Also recall that Rove discussed Plame with Novak. It's hard work, doing all that forgetting, especially when it's that quick, that thorough, and that emphatic.

[TomJ]

Cecil- Or the President could have decided to have the various WH spokesmen shut up about the subject, which they did. Long overdue, IMHO.

Why is that preferable to telling the public the truth: "yes, we discussed Plame with various reporters?" We still haven't heard that plain truth from the White House. I don't buy the claim that Fitz would somehow object to such a statement.

You're assuming "forgot" is a lie

I don't understand why the amnesia defense is not an automatic blanket alibi for every single person who ever does something wrong and is then caught denying it. Unless there is a mental disorder, the simpler explanation is that the person is trying to get away with something. And did, in this case, since the coverup lasted through the election.

Was his faulty memory being used to accuse someone of a felony?

No. Rove's faulty memory is being used as a way to avoid taking responsibility for misleading the public. That's a serious matter, regardless of whether or not it's a felony.

I think you're trying to question Cooper's credibility. This is only relevant if you claim Cooper is lying when he says he first heard Plame=CIA from Rove. Is that your claim? As far as I know even Luskin has not made that claim.

unproven assertions

Some claim that "the earth is round" is an unproven assertion. Likewise for evolution.

Less than three months after Rove outed Plame to Cooper, Rove told us he didn't do this. Absent an Alzheimers diagnosis, this is enough proof for me that Rove lied.

Speaking of unproven assertions, here's a good one: "Cooper's obvious misrecollection of the conversation." Cooper didn't say "we didn't talk about welfare reform." Cooper said "I don't recall ... talking about" welfare reform. And Rove's email doesn't indicate they discussed welfare reform. It indicates Cooper gave a "brief heads-up" on the subject (and then "he immediately launched into Niger"). Not exactly a discussion. So it's completely understandable that Cooper would say "I don't recall ... talking about" welfare reform. A "brief heads-up" is not exactly "talking about" something (because that implies a discussion, with give-and-take), and in any case would hardly be worth remembering. And Cooper is not claiming he's sure such a brief heads-up didn't happen. He just doesn't recall it.

Also, when Cooper said this ("I don't recall doing so [talking about welfare reform]"), it was fully two years after his conversation with Rove. This is not particularly comparable with Rove's memory failures, which took place within a period of about three months.

If you look closely at Rove's email, and at what Cooper actually said, and at what Luskin actually said, it's clear that Luskin is making unproven assertions, as you are.

[boris]

Then Rove lied to the GJ, so accuse him of perjury then.

[TomJ]

kim- I asked for definition of Bush's 'standard' and Rove's 'involvement'.

I guess you're still wondering about the meaning of "is."

JM, if your point is that only a naive fool would have believed Bush's campaign promises, then I guess that means that you and I have some common ground.

no one with the authority to do so has ever even officially declared that Plame was actually covert at the time

Fitz said Plame's status as a CIA officer was classified information. That's enough for me. I find the endless discussion about "covert" vs. "classified" to be not that helpful or interesting.

And yes, it was Judge Tatel who used the phrase "plot against Wilson." I guess Tatel is another card-carrying member of the Soros-Streisand-Moore-Kerry moonbat axis.

By the way, if Harlow made a mistake (and I think it's not especially clear that he did), that's not a license for any of the other players to misbehave.

The admin open book response to the SP actually is consistent with more integrity

I don't consider lying to Fitz to reflect an "open book response," or a form of integrity. Likewise for misleading the public for two years. Likewise for still failing to come clean with the public, even now. Why is Woodward's source still hiding? If these folks did nothing wrong, why all the hiding?

[TomJ]

accuse him of perjury then

Stay tuned.

By the way, "not yet indicted" is hardly a ringing endorsement. Likewise for "was never indicted because in the end Fitz decided he didn't have enough proof," especially when it's already clear enough that Rove lied to the country.

[boris]

You excerpt is out of context:

The admin open book response to the SP actually is consistent with more integrity relative to the previous admin.

Where the top guy did the lying.

[boris]

Stay tuned.

Dream on.

[boris]

You're explaining why Rove "forgot" to tell Fitz

Still wondering where this came from. Must be some kinda made up sh!t.

[cathyf]

he did not remember the conversation

Less then three months elapsed between the time that Rove told Cooper about Plame, and the time that McClennan told us Rove wasn't involved. That's rapid and complete amnesia,

The normal time for complete amnesia of unimportant things is 15 minutes, at least in non-autistic humans. And I certainly have seen no evidence of Karl doing the Rainman schtick.

The vast majority of our lives is forgotten within 15 minutes or so because the brain judges it unimportant. In the autistic, the inability to discard unimportant memories is believed to be a fundamental part of what is profoundly disabling.

Have you ever changed your computer password and then forgotten it? Do you really believe that you could remember a forgotten password three months after changing it any better than 2 years after changing it? Of course not. If you don't put it in long-term memory right away, it's simply gone. Given that Rove wrote this email to Hadley, it's even more plausible that he forgot the conversation. The reason we human beings take notes is so that we don't have to remember the things we wrote down.

cathy :-)

[kim]

C'mon, TJ, don't be so petty. I know what the meaning of 'is' is. I asked for a definition of Bush's 'standard', and of Rove's involvement'. Jeff understood that those are key to the discussion. You havae your own meaning ofthem, which you have not shared.

So, what IS up with you?
===========================

[kim]

And what the heck makes you declare that Rove outed Plame to Cooper?
===============================

[TomJ]

Where the top guy did the lying.

I realize you were making a comparison to Clinton, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. Yes, Clinton did the lying himself, whereas Bush, for the most part, outsources that hard work to the hired help.

Still wondering where this came from.

I think it's widely acknowledged that Rove didn't tell Fitz, at least at first, about Rove's conversation with Cooper. I said Rove "forgot" to tell Fitz. Maybe you prefer to say Rove forgot about his conversation with Cooper, and that accounts for why Rove didn't tell Fitz. I avoid the latter formulation because I find it patently implausible. If you prefer that formulation, suit yourself. I don't think it makes much difference, because the underlying point is the same: Rove didn't tell Fitz (at least at first) that Rove discussed Plame with Cooper.

By the way, why all the hiding?

The normal time for complete amnesia of unimportant things is 15 minutes

Then I guess you're claiming that an amnesia defense is an automatic blanket alibi for every single person who ever does something wrong and is then caught denying it. "I thought it wasn't important, and that explains why I did it in the first place, and it also explains why I couldn't remember that I did it." Sounds pretty ridiculous to me, and definitely not the standards I want to see in place at the top of our government.

Also, you seem to be suggesting there's no difference between saying "I can't remember if I was involved" vs. "I wasn't involved." If your 15-minute amnesia theory is true, then Rove needed to say "such a thing would not have seemed important to me, so if I did it I would not have remembered, so I'm not in a position to claim if I did it or not."

But he didn't say "I don't recall doing it." He didn't say "I can't be sure whether or not I did it." He said "I didn't do it, and it's ridiculous to suggest I did." Big difference.

He expressed certainty when it seems he was, at best, not in a position to be certain. Sort of reminds me of the WMD discussion.

what the heck makes you declare that Rove outed Plame to Cooper?

Because Cooper said this: "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." Luskin responded to this with a pathetic non-denial. Did you really not know this?

You havae your own meaning ofthem

Yes, the exact meaning that can be found in any garden-variety dictionary. If you're confused, that would be a good place to start.

[kim]

Good god, my dictionary doesn't mention Rove or Bush. You have sophomoric games.
===========================================

[kim]

So you think that statement of Cooper's, not under oath, constitutes proof that Rove outed Plame. Do you really believe this? Please note all the qualifiers in it.
==============================================

[Cecil Turner]

I don't understand why the amnesia defense is not an automatic blanket alibi . . .

You're still assuming your conclusion. The sophistry doesn't add.

If you look closely at Rove's email, and at what Cooper actually said, and at what Luskin actually said, it's clear that Luskin is making unproven assertions, as you are.

What's clear is that Cooper's memory of that particular conversation is no more reliable than Rove's. (And whether he said "I don't recall" or "we didn't talk about," the memory was incomplete . . . just like Rove's.) Yet one is excusable (at length) the other an obvious lie? Okay, whatever you say.

[kim]

In one ear and out the other.
=============================

[boris]

I said Rove "forgot" to tell Fitz.

Liar. Quote: You're explaining why Rove "forgot" to tell Fitz

Who's explaining ??? You seem to be confused on this point.

I find it patently implausible

If you hadn't demonstrated a complete lack of honesty and coherance already, what you find implausible might count for jack.

As it is, Rove's explanation makes far more sense than yours.

[boris]

outsources that hard work to the hired help

Requiring source waivers, cooperation with the SP, and dropping Libby on indictment is inconsistent with the implication that W is "outsourcing" anything resembling BJ's obstruction. Therefore W has kept that particular campaign promise to the letter according to this person who voted for him.

If you didn't vote for him then you have no say in any obligation relative to the campaign.

[TomJ]

kim

my dictionary doesn't mention Rove or Bush

I guess your point is that Rove and Bush are entitled to special, politically convenient interpretations of simple English words like "involved." Here's some news for you: they get to use the same dictionary as the rest of us.

that statement of Cooper's, not under oath

Cooper's recent public statements are not under oath, but his GJ testimony obviously was. His public statements describe his testimony, which took place very shortly before those public statements. For all sorts of reasons it's not likely that Cooper would stupidly hang himself with any substantive discrepancies between what he told the GJ and what he told the rest of us.

If what you're claiming is that he lied to the GJ, that's a different story. Let us know if that's what you're trying to say.

proof that Rove outed Plame

Indeed, Cooper's recent public statements are sufficient to demonstrate that Rove outed Plame to Cooper. Aside from Cooper's recent public statements, there's also the email Cooper wrote shortly after he got off the phone with Rove. That email said "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd issues who authorized the trip."

Even the Powerline guys, who all commented on this on 7/10/05, acknowledged this email as proof that Rove told Cooper about Plame. Of course they explained the familiar reasons this supposedly doesn't matter: she wasn't really covert, Rove didn't know she was covert, Rove wasn't deliberately trying to out an agent, and everyone already knew all about Plame. But they did not even attempt to dispute what's obvious: Rove told Cooper about Plame.

And of course they didn't attempt to address the point I'm raising here: Rove told Cooper about Plame, and less than three months later, Rove denied this. That's more than enough for me to decide that Rove's a liar.

Luskin's response (to Cooper's revelations) was basically the same as Powerline's. So you and Cecil (and some other diehards here, I guess) are essentially staking out a position somewhere to the right of Luskin and Powerline. Wow.

note all the qualifiers in it

Cooper's statement that I quoted ("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.") contains exactly one qualifier ("may"), which modifies the end of the sentence ("may have been responsible for sending him"), which is hardly the main point. The main point is obviously that it was "through [Cooper's] conversation with Rove that [Cooper] learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA."

None of those words are qualifiers, in any material way. So why did you say "note all the qualifiers?"

[TomJ]

cecil

You're still assuming your conclusion

No, I'm not assuming a conclusion. I'm simply pointing out that the amnesia defense you present on Rove's behalf seems to be an automatic blanket alibi for every single person who ever does something wrong and is then caught denying it. If you disagree, it would be helpful if you said why.

What's clear is that Cooper's memory of that particular conversation is no more reliable than Rove's.

You're still glossing over the fact that Rove lost his memory within 3 months, whereas Cooper was asked to recall something (what even Rove called just a "brief heads-up") from two years prior. Not exactly comparable, but nevertheless you insist on treating it as comparable. You might as well claim that since in the history of humanity various people have forgotten various things, therefore every wrongdoer who gets caught in a false denial is entitled to a blanket amnesia alibi.

You also seem to be ignoring Cooper's email, which seems to have been sufficient to convince Powerline. You also seem to be ignoring the fact that Luskin has not suggested that Cooper's statement ("Rove told me about Plame") is false, even though Luskin is hardly reticent.

You're ignoring a lot, in other words.

[TomJ]

boris

Liar ... You seem to be confused on this point

Which is it? If I'm confused, then I'm not a liar. You seem to be confused on this point.

Rove's explanation makes far more sense than yours

As far as I can tell, Rove has explained (via Luskin) why Rove didn't tell Fitz (at first) about Rove's talk with Cooper. However, I've seen nothing from Luskin attempting to explain why Rove let McClellan tell us Rove wasn't involved, less than three months after Rove was involved. These are two separate issues. One is about misleading Fitz. The other is about misleading the rest of us.

So it would help if you could refer to me to "Rove's explanation" on this point, because as far as I can tell Rove has offered no explanation.

cooperation with the SP

Libby lied to Fitz. That's a funny sort of "cooperation."

dropping Libby on indictment

You're easily impressed. That should have been a campaign promise: "anyone under felony indictment won't be able to keep their senior-level job in the White House." Wow. Breaking new ground with regard to high ethical standards.

anything resembling BJ's obstruction

It's a sign of how bad things are that the best you can do is claim "not quite as bad as Clinton" (and whether that's true or not is another story). That would have been another stirring campaign promise: "not quite as bad as Clinton."

If you didn't vote for him then you have no say in any obligation relative to the campaign

Last time I checked, he's obliged to represent all Americans (and his campaign promises were addressed to all Americans), not just the people who voted for him. He apparently doesn't grasp this, so it's no surprise that neither do you.

[TomJ]

Here's a question it seems really hard to get an answer for: if Rove wasn't doing anything wrong, why did he tell Cooper "don't tell anyone you heard it from me?"

[Cecil Turner]

You're ignoring a lot, in other words.

"Speaking of" [various permutations of] "liar," "formulation". . . a propensity for converse arguments . . . multiple postings on a late schedule . . . hmmmm. And do I note a tendency to appear after JBG is banned? Methinks Mr Ballard is correct. Good morning, Jukeboxgrad.

And don't you think it's a teensy bit inconsistent to drone on about others' dishonesty whilst pretending to be someone else so you can continue to make the same points the same way? Just askin'.

[kim]

Are you purposely being stupid, TJ, or is it a matter of chance? In this context, you must define Bush's 'standard' and Rove's 'involvement'. Otherwise we aren't even talking in the same room. Insisting on limiting us to what the dictionary has for this specific discussion is senseless. Dictionary words are abstractions; I'm asking you to define specific actions which mean involvement, and particular delineation of standards.

Do you have any idea what I am talking about?
=========================================

[TP]

TomJ. "Don't tell anyone you heard it from me". I would guess it would be for the same reason Joe Wilson wanted anonymity from Kristof and Pincus. He wanted the story out there as a news story reporters would run with so that the administration, rather than he, would have to deal with its consequences.

[kim]

TJ, all that blather still doesn't constitute proof of 'outing'. Think about that.

I'm not qualified to qualify you in qualifiers, but notice the 'and' between two clauses after Cooper had talked of the 'first time'. Does the 'first time' apply to both clauses separately or to both together? Remember, Cooper is a comic, and has the 'gift'. He can confuse you or edify you somewhat at will. And he defends himself with his language. Qualifically.
==================================================

[JM Hanes]

Tom

You've got a real double standard going here yourself. The distinction you make between Rove's three months vs. Cooper's two years only works if you assume that Rove knew the conversation was significant and Cooper was clueless. Given Cooper's lapse on the welfare reform component, it looks like rather the reverse. If, and pls. note I do say if, it was a forgettable conversation, then a week in Rove world is plenty long enough.

When it comes to turning a typical Washington denial into a firing offense, assuming we're to apply that standard uniformly, the Democrats had beter be prepared to do some serious house cleaning of their own. I'm not sure you'd have any better luck on the other side of the aisle than the luck you're complaining about here. In fact, I'd wager that Republicans have a better track record when it comes to eating their own than the Dems do.

[JM Hanes]

Tom

"Here's a question it seems really hard to get an answer for: if Rove wasn't doing anything wrong, why did he tell Cooper "don't tell anyone you heard it from me?"

That's probably because the answer is so obvious, it sounds like a rhetorical question. Rove almost never talks on the record to reporters about anything. It's called being an anonymous source -- just like almost everyone else we've been getting info from on this topic for the past two years.