Powered by TypePad

« Jane Hamsher's Rolodex | Main | "It's Just A Mess For Everyone Involved" »

December 03, 2005

Comments

topsecretk9

Wilson reported back to the CIA that the allegations were most likely the result of a hoax.

This is just a weird thing for him to be telling the CIA. It keeps getting repeated. And it is just a weird statement. His TASK was NOT to Debunk ANYTHING (documents included) , his TASK was to see if there was anything to the "INTEL" from foreign sources that were reporting Iraq was SEEKING Uranium and PART of that Intel. included set of documents that purported "A" sale.

It is just beyond me why the sophisticated truth pursuers called "Press Corp" have not found these weird statements provocative enough to write about a little more in depth like.

Anyhoo, Owl wrote

If this was deep cover to explain a situation, why was he taking all these notes? Why did he then go out and write a hit on his source? Then fake a 'I will never testify' and then run a campaign against his source?


You can say that again. Actually Cooper has been the more cagey reporter in all this (if you read his after GJ statements) Yet during his morally courageous protection of Rove he managed to stage a very dramatic and self serving waiver fiasco that intended to goad and embarrass Rove.

Who wants protection like that?

topsecretk9

oh I forgot

Why did he then go out and write a hit on his source?

Yes. This is a question that I have pondered a lot. Why AFTER Tenet's statement that Rove hinted to him did Cooper wait six days to write a story that pretty much IGNORED the Tenet info. Rove was clearly speaking to Time MAg...don't get to far out on this - big statement coming---Cooper had his predetermined story line and he wasn't gonna let Tenet's statement get in the way of that.

kim

Ohmigod now TJ thinks Cooper deliberately protected Rove. Isn't that some sort of crime?
==================================================

cathyf
Which begs the question: did Rove ever testify that he did recall talking to Cooper about Plame?

This article has the information about Rove's testimony that he did tell Cooper about Plame.

Rove has at some point testified that he passed on information about Plame to Cooper, according to two lawyers involved in the case.
But again, that's the WaPo being cute with it's wording. Reports are that he testified that he has this email, which he has no reason to believe is anything other than his contemporaneous notes on the conversation, but that he nonetheless has no memory, and only knows what he reads in the email that he wrote. So he has testified that he did tell Cooper about Wilson's wife, but that he does not recall it and he believes that he told Cooper about Wilson's wife based upon reading his email.

Of course we don't have transcripts, just leaks, but if the leaks are accurate, they say that Rove to this day asserts that he does not remember this conversation with Cooper, but he believes what he reads about it in his notes.

cathy :-)

clarice

"Lawyers involved in the case"--that's something else to put in the independent/special prosecution basket of disinformation along with the Sidney Blumenthal gambit, isn't it? It could be anyone's lawyers and they could have no actual knowledge--

Rather like Mickey Kaus' "hamburger helper" polls or those selected "amn on the street" comments in other stories.

TomJ

truz,

there is no evidence we know of that supports the conclusion Rove deliberately gave false testimony

Either one has to believe that Rove deliberately gave false testimony, or one has to believe that Rove had a case of amnesia in a period of less than three months. The amnesia argument is based on the idea that the subject of Plame was an insignificant matter, from Rove's perspective. The idea that Plame was an insignificant matter, from Rove's perspective, is at odds with the fact that Libby was discussing Plame frequently, with a variety of senior people (not just Niger, not just Wilson: Plame). If Plame was that important to Libby, Plame was probably not insignificant to Rove.

The amnesia argument is also at odds with the fact that various officials told Fitz about various Plame-related conversations. Why did they remember and Rove didn't? He's probably not that much dumber than they are. And there's no good reason to suggest that the others cared about the subject more than Rove did.

Rove lied because he figured Fitz would never be able to crack Cooper. And Rove was almost right.

I think Fitz will demonstrate some odd timing: that Rove's amnesia was suddenly cured right around the time it became clear that Cooper was about to sing.

Cooper's interpretaion was Cooper's problem, not Rove's

You can argue that Cooper should have accepted Rove's first waiver. But Cooper didn't. The practical effect of this is that Rove was safe. Until Cooper finally changed his mind, that is. And I think the timing will show that this seemed to have a magical effect on Rove's memory.

Rove didn't testify until Oct. 15th of 2005

I think you meant to say 10/15/04. I believe it was during this testimony that Rove recanted, ie, recovered his lost memory.

Rove already knew Cooper was likely to be forced to talk

I think Rove came to this conclusion not long before 10/15/04, which is why he decided his amnesia needed a sudden cure.

Are we to believe he lied anyway?

I believe Rove started lying to Fitz around 10/03, which is when Fitz (via FBI) first started asking questions. This was long before it became clear that Fitz was going to crack Cooper.

Should we further believe that Luskin would have failed to inform his client that the case law was against a successful legal challenge by Time and the NYT?

Rove calculated that Cooper would be willing to go to jail. Rove was almost right.

Also, Rove was already in a jam. His lying (on this matter) was in the public record on 9/29/03, when McClellan told the world that Rove wasn't involved. This was only shortly after 9/23/03, which is when the CIA asked DOJ to start a criminal investigation.

I think it's very plausible that Rove lied to McClellan prior to 9/23, based on an assessment by Rove that he had enough powerful buddies in powerful places that the issue was in the process of going away. Once McClellan announced Rove's lie to the world, Rove's options were severely limited. Rove then prayed that Cooper would stay quiet. Cooper did stay quiet through the election, which I'm sure was a great relief to Rove.

You seem to be making the following argument: it's not plausible to believe that Rove lied because doing such a thing would have been really dumb. But allow me to remind you of Libby: lots of folks were very, very amazed that Libby was so dumb to lie the way he did. I think the situation is very similar; both Libby and Rove started lying early in the game, at a time when they both thought the story would quickly die. And once the lying started, they essentially were stuck in the hole they had dug for themselves.

kim

Please define 'involved'.
===========================

topsecretk9

Kim
TJ just used a lot on column inches, does that give you pause?

The idea that Plame was an insignificant matter, from Rove's perspective, is at odds with the fact that Libby was discussing Plame frequently, with a variety of senior people (not just Niger, not just Wilson: Plame). If Plame was that important to Libby, Plame was probably not insignificant to Rove.

The only reason it was important to Libby was Wilson's lie to Pincus and Kristof that Cheney was the almighty "behester"...the reason Rove was not all together focused on it is because he knew Tenet was coming out with a statement that was going to drive a dagger through Wilson's lies and ...the only reason a scandal was created was to kick up enough dust (obstruct) that no one would hear Tenet

kim

Yeah, and I've asked him before to define 'involved', to no avail, another trick of our old friend.
===============================================

cathyf

Bottom line: Libby is Cheney's boy, while Rove is Bush's boy. Joe was telling lies about Cheney. Libby is Jewish, and Joe was making anti-semitic comments. Rove is an episcopalian, so anti-semitism isn't so high on his radar. I have no problem believing that Joe Wilson wasn't nearly as important to Rove as to Libby.

cathy :-)

kim

I second the emotion, cf.
========================

kim

If Cooper depicts, you can't convict.

or

Libby's Little Fibber Pills vs Joe's Gargantuan Munchausen Munchers.
====================================================

DougJ

"If Cooper depicts, you can't convict."

Excellent work, Kim.

TomJ

PART of that Intel. included set of documents that purported "A" sale

There was no substantive intel other than the forged documents (not that they were substantive, either). This is documented by the Robb-Silberman report, which said that the idea of yellowcake from Africa was "based largely" on the forged documents. And without those documents, "there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Iraq had recently sought uranium from Africa."

Ohmigod now TJ thinks Cooper deliberately protected Rove

Please don't put words in my mouth. The fact is that Cooper had a chance to hang Rove before the election, and Cooper passed up that chance. I explicitly said that I think Cooper did this because he thought it was important to keep a promise.

he believes that he told Cooper about Wilson's wife based upon reading his email

This is an odd statement on your part, since Rove's email (at least the part of the email that's been published) says nothing to indicate that Rove told Cooper about Plame. (Rove's email also says nothing to contradict that idea, either.)

he nonetheless has no memory, and only knows what he reads in the email that he wrote

You claim you've seen "reports" to support this statement. I haven't. Please share.

It could be anyone's lawyers and they could have no actual knowledge

Luskin is on the record as a named source making statements that essentially corroborate the essence of what Cooper claimed: Rove told Cooper that Plame=CIA.

Please define 'involved'.

Rove told Cooper that Plame=CIA. Please explain why this doesn't qualify as "involved."

Libby is Jewish

Do you actually have a source for that which doesn't trace back to a web site called conspiracyplanet?

I have no problem believing that Joe Wilson wasn't nearly as important to Rove as to Libby

It's not a question of claiming that Rove cared exactly as much about Plame as Libby did. The problem is that in order to avoid believing that Rove lied, you have to believe that Plame was so unimportant to Rove that the conversation disappeared completely into his amnesia pit in a period of less than three months.

Another indication that the conversation had significance to Rove is the fact that he chose to report it to Hadley, via that email. Surely Rove does not send Hadley an email every time Rove gets off the phone.

kim

I was being ironc about Cooper protecting Rove. What makes you think Cooper wasn't protecting himself and Joe's lying meme?
=================================================

kim

Utterly literal, another side to the box.
=========================================

kim

Easy about the amnesia. As soon as he got off his chest about dodging the trap, he quit worrying about it. Guess how many traps he dodges each day? Answer: Fewer than he sets.

Gotcha.
==============================

Rick Ballard

Jumpin' Jack - always in the box. No way out 'cause he can't reach the crank.

cathyf
Utterly literal, another side to the box.
Yeah, the autistic side...

cathy :-)

kim

Savez cet savant?
==================

TomJ

What makes you think Cooper wasn't protecting himself and Joe's lying meme?

When Cooper decided to wait a very long time before telling us that Rove was his source, in what way did that amount to protecting Joe?

Cecil Turner

When Cooper decided to wait a very long time before telling us that Rove was his source, in what way did that amount to protecting Joe?

Must we assume Cooper told the truth the second time 'round? And why do you continue to dodge such a simple question?

kim

We don't know yet, but it protected the meme.
==============================================

TomJ

Must we assume Cooper told the truth the second time 'round?

You're suggesting that first Cooper told one story, and then he told another story. He didn't. Why would you suggest that? Maybe you're confusing him with Rove.

Anyway, it's reasonable to believe that Cooper told the truth for a variety of reasons that I've mentioned several times. One reason is that Cooper's story is essentially corroborated by Luskin's statements. Another is that Cooper's contemporaneous email confirms the essence of what he later told the public (and the GJ): Rove told Cooper about Plame.

BTW, please try to stay on topic. I notice you haven't addressed these issues.

it protected the meme

You're repeating yourself, which is the not the same as offering an explanation. I still don't understand how Cooper hiding Rove's involvement amounted to protecting Joe's meme.

I also still don't understand why telling Cooper about Plame doesn't mean "involved."

kim

I was repeating myself because you put incorrect words in my mouth to the effect that Cooper was protecting Joe. So I had to repeat myself. Shall I do so again?
Refusing to testify, and keeping Rove as a subject of investigation throughout the election campaign, investigation for what has turned out to be a nothing, protected Joe's meme. I don't see why you, apparently quite perspicacious, cannot see the obvious here.
============================================

kim

If I didn't remember talking to Cooper about Plame, I'd say I was not involved, too, and so would you.
==================================================

Cecil Turner

BTW, please try to stay on topic. I notice you haven't addressed these issues.

[Snort.] Riiight, Juke. I notice you can't be bothered to answer whether you're playing us all for fools, either.

kim

Very powerful mind, very powerful discipline to not use links and to improve the tone. Color me impressed. But not by his argument, only by the improvement in rhetorical style. If he could only be taught to seek truth rather than victory, he might find both instead of neither.
==================================================

topsecretk9

BTW, please try to stay on topic.

Comments like these amuse me. Um why does one have to obey you? Answer: they don't.

Cecil your killing me, in a good way.

TomJ

you put incorrect words in my mouth to the effect that Cooper was protecting Joe

You had said "What makes you think Cooper wasn't protecting himself and Joe's lying meme?" In my opinion, "protecting Joe" and "protecting Joe's lying meme" are sufficiently interchangeable, for the purpose of what we're talking about.

[Cooper] Refusing to testify, and keeping Rove as a subject of investigation throughout the election campaign, investigation for what has turned out to be a nothing, protected Joe's meme.

I think you're suggesting that if Cooper had gone public before the election, this would have been good for Rove and bad for Wilson. This is a new one. I wonder if you can help me make sense out of that, since it strikes me as an idea that came straight out of Lewis Carroll.

If I didn't remember talking to Cooper about Plame, I'd say I was not involved, too, and so would you.

If I was sure the conversation never happened, it would be fair to say "I was not involved." On the other hand, if I couldn't remember whether or not the conversation happened, the honest statement would be "I can't remember whether or not I was involved."

Rove essentially told us he was sure the conversation never happpened, and that it was "ridiculous" to suggest that it did. In the absence of a mental disorder, this kind of complete and highly emphatic amnesia is very implausible, for various reasons I've detailed. It would be nice if you (or anyone else) made some attempt to address those reasons.

kim

Joe and Joe's lying meme are entirely different entitiies. Surely you've the subtlety to see that.

Alice notes that Rove was under suspicion throughout the campaign, and she notes also that the white joe rabbit is turning black doe.

You have an unusual standard for memory.
=============================================

maryrose

TomJ,
Unfortunately at this point your arguments put you in the camp that has already convicted Rove. You will soon learn that he is innocent of any wrongdoing.

Truzenzuzex

TomJ:

If Plame was that important to Libby, Plame was probably not insignificant to Rove.
I think your reasoning assumes a number of things that can be easily dispensed with.

First of all, Cheney was alleged by the press to have originated the Wilson affair. It was therefore more important to Cheney to deal with Wilson than anyone else (even though the press accounts were wrong), hence Libby's involvement. Why would Rove be tremendously concerned about something that was already being handled by Libby. Cooper's memory of the conversation surely suggests it wasn't something that Rove was concentrating on. Surely Rove had far more on his plate already.

Second, a person as busy as Rove has a lot of conversations with reporters. It is certainly plausible that he wouldn't remember this conversation ("What I Told the Grand Jury" by Matthew Cooper:

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.
Taking Cooper's testimony at face value, Karl sure sounds busy to me.
Rove lied because he figured Fitz would never be able to crack Cooper. And Rove was almost right.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to be flip, but this is a silly conclusion. Why would Rove think this? If you were in that situation, would you actually stake your freedom meaninglessly on the hope that a reporter, who was anything but your friend, would keep quiet in face of legal precedent and in spite of the fact that you had given him permission to disclose the information you needed hidden for your lie to succeed? Not only that, but by extension you are trusting the corporation who employs him (again, far from friendly to your politics) to fall in line behind their reporter?

Tom, with all due respect, this just doesn't wash. It starts to reach the level of a conspiracy theory in lack of credulity. Why would any sane man act as you suggest, especially one with excellent legal and political resources who had every reason to expect a pardon if he told the truth and got charged, but would face a much tougher time if he lied and got charged?

Also, Rove was already in a jam. His lying (on this matter) was in the public record on 9/29/03, when McClellan told the world that Rove wasn't involved. This was only shortly after 9/23/03, which is when the CIA asked DOJ to start a criminal investigation.
The logical alternative to this conclusion is that Rove actually forgot and had no reason to fear his earlier statements. McClellan had no reason to believe Rove was not being honest, and really neither does anyone else except those who have a vested interest in believing Rove lied.
I think you meant to say 10/15/04. I believe it was during this testimony that Rove recanted, ie, recovered his lost memory.
You are right, I goofed about the date.

However, in reviewing the timeline, do we know that the Oct.15th '04 appearance is where Rove corrected his testimony? It seems Rove appeared a total of 4 times before the GJ and the dates of the first two are unknown, athough Rove was said to have spoken to the FBI in the Fall of 2003. In sum, Rove apparently had 5 known conversations with the Fitzgerald investigation.

His second GJ appearance had to be before his October 15th 2004 appearence. He could have corrected his testimony then. Some sources suggest that he didn't correct his testimony until Oct. 6th, 2005. Not likely.

cathyf

Truzenzuzex -- you use the term "correct his testimony" several times. Does this really apply to the situation claimed? The scenario is that Rove went in and said, "I still have no memory of the conversation, but here is this email I apparently wrote that was found in Mr. Hadley's mailbox. It is a contemporaneous account of the call." Would that count as a "correction" or would it count as an "addition"?

cathy :-)

Cecil Turner

If I was sure the conversation never happened, it would be fair to say "I was not involved."

If you'd forgotten a conversation ever happened, wouldn't you be "sure" it never had? (And coming from someone who can't seem to remember if they ever used a Jukeboxgrad handle, this memory theory ain't real convincing.)

kim

Extremely reliable memory, another side of the box. Why the unitary point of view? Is it a camera oscura?
================================================

TM

Well, if TomJ is not Jukebox, they must have gone to the same school for commenters.

I'd be interested in seeing a specic denial (or affirmation, if honesty is still viewed as the best policy.)

Judge Tatel: "That said, without benefit of the adversarial process, we must take care to ensure that the special counsel has met his burden of demonstrating that the information is both critical and unobtainable from any other source. Having carefully scrutinized his voluminous classified filings, I believe that he has."

Very intriguing point by Poputopian.

However, that classified stuff did not find its way into any of the actual charges.

Further, it is now the defense that wants to look at it.

And one might wonder how much of it would reman classified upon further review, folowing the sort of process described with regard to those eight pages.

pollyusa

Cecil

Thanks for the additional links.

And sorry, but second-hand anonymous sources are a bit too nebulous for me to take as evidence Karl's version matches Cooper's.

I sincerely wish I could provide a first-hand accounting of the Cooper/Rove conversation from Rove's side, but alas these second-hand accounts are all that is available. The only way Rove's testimony will be known is if he is indicted.

We all grasp at every scrap of information the press and their sources dole out. FWIW, I do think Rove testfied that he told Cooper about Plame.


kim

His barking defends everyone's junkyard. And he's not as abusive to the regular customers.
===================================================

clarice

TM, My point exactly--And I've been saying this for some time. If Fitz included information indicating Plame was undercover and her "outing" affected national security when either (a) he had not appropriately checked out those allegations and they were false or (b) learned at a later date they were false, I think he's guilty of prosecutorial abuse or unethical conduct.

Since I have always felt such allegations were groundless, I'd be interested to find out if they appear in any of the redacted materials . And if they are, I'd move for dismissal of the indictment.

kim

When this pooch graduates to real pursuit of truth, he'll be a bloodhound.
===============================================

TM

In my vigorous defense of the Fitzgerald investigation, let me note this - yes, it looks odd that very early on he requested specific authority to go after perjury; one might almost infer he had given up on the big crimes.

However, by the time he got the ball in January 2004, Libby had already told his weird story (I learned about Plame from Cheney in June, then forgot it until I learned it again in July from reporters) to investigators.

So he ought very reasonably to have been thinking perjury at that point.

As to Rove and the recusal, the Waas article cited by Polly does say this:

During his initial interview with the FBI, in the fall of 2003, Rove did not disclose that he had ever discussed Plame with Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper, according to two legal sources with firsthand knowledge of the matter. **Federal investigators were also skeptical of claims by Rove that he had only first learned of Plame's employment with the CIA from a journalist, even though he also claimed he could not specifically recall the name of the journalist.**

Emp. added. I'm still not sure why the investigators would have known about Cooper in late Dec and kept quiet, but... Libby was looking like a perjurer by then, and part of his story involved what he and Rove discussed in July.

So that might well have been enough to move Ashcroft out.

Cecil Turner

FWIW, I do think Rove testfied that he told Cooper about Plame.

I have no idea. But I'm comfortably persuaded Plame's identity was known to other reporters (best bets: Kristof and Pincus), and the latest revelations show they gossip about sources. I don't think this conversation mattered a hill of beans, however it went. I also sincerely doubt we'll ever get a good read on it because apparently neither of the participants found it memorable, either. Further, I'd be a lot more impressed with Fitz if he'd come up with a reasonably complete narrative about who leaked Plame's name first . . . and he doesn't even appear to be trying.

pollyusa

Truzenzuzex

It seems Rove appeared a total of 4 times before the GJ and the dates of the first two are unknown,

We do have the month and year of Rove's 1st appearance.

The 12/03/05 WAPO does say that Rove's 1st time before the GJ was in February 2004.

TomJ

truz,

in spite of the fact that you had given him permission to disclose the information you needed hidden for your lie to succeed?

It's important to stay clear about the sequence of events. The permission you speak of was granted after Rove was already on record claiming he wasn't involved. Rove was in a box, in other words.

would you actually stake your freedom meaninglessly on the hope that a reporter, who was anything but your friend

Only if I had no other choice, and Rove had no other choice. Again, the sequence of events is important. In my opinion, Rove started lying very early, when there was no investigation, and he figured the issue was in the process of dying. When the issue picked up more and more momentum, he was already stuck with his lie. He then counted on Cooper because there were no other good choices. It's not that Rove was naively assuming that Cooper was his pal, it's that Rove was simply making the best of a bad situation (that he had created himself).

Why would any sane man act as you suggest

A lot of people have asked that exact question about Libby, and I've indicated the answer which I think applies in both cases.

do we know that the Oct.15th '04 appearance is where Rove corrected his testimony?

Good question. I think I've read that in a couple of places, but I'm not sure I have an authoritative source. I think these timing and sequence questions are important. As I said, I think the SP will show that Rove had his miraculous memory recovery right around the time it became clear that Cooper was about to sing. I think this will make Rove's amnesia alibi look more implausible.

Some sources suggest that he didn't correct his testimony until Oct. 6th, 2005. Not likely.

I agree it's not likely. I don't agree that the WP article you mention suggests that Oct 6 2005 was the first time he corrected his testimony about Cooper.

cathyf,

I still have no memory of the conversation, but here is this email I apparently wrote that was found in Mr. Hadley's mailbox. It is a contemporaneous account of the call

I think I asked this earlier. Maybe you didn't notice. Rove's email doesn't mention Plame. Are you suggesting that Rove is acknowledging he talked with Cooper, but not acknowledging that he told Cooper about Plame? I think this is at odds with various statements by Luskin.

pollyusa

I agree with every word TM, well said. I'll add that that regarding Rove, investigators may have had more.

The WHIG meeting notes and emails could play a role and Libby's notes may have information we are not aware of.

The meeting in mid June 2003, that the INR memo was prepared for, may have had Rove as an attendee. I think it possible that information about Plame was disclosed at that meeting.

The reports that Libby and Rove were working with Hadley on the Tenet statement. Hadley may have told investigators about the email and/or that Rove knew about Plame earlier than he claimed.

Who knows, I think it possible that investigators may have had the Hadley/Rove email and the phone log of the call from Cooper to the WH in the fall of 2003.

TM

I agree with every word TM, well said.

That is my kind of comment! And very good points by Polly, I should add - although I am blocking it now, back when I was outlining the case against Karl Rove, the INR memo and the WHIGs loomed large.

Now, for the Bonus Round: I have seen lots of folks nail down the first Rove grand jury appearance, and the Oct 15, 2004 and Oct 14, 2005 are well documented.

But if we can stump Polly on this, we can declare defeat - has anyone ever seen a fourth date? Or even a range? I am remembering that we don't even know if Oct 15, 2004 was his second or third appearance. (But I might be having a Libby moment here).

Truzenzuzex

TomJ:

It's important to stay clear about the sequence of events. The permission you speak of was granted after Rove was already on record claiming he wasn't involved. Rove was in a box, in other words.
Really? How so, and a box of who's making? If Rove had lied, why did he release Time and Cooper at all?
A lot of people have asked that exact question about Libby, and I've indicated the answer which I think applies in both cases.
Even if Libby is eventually proven to have lied, it says nothing whatever about the liklihood of Rove lying.

I am not suggesting that it is impossible for Rove to have lied and gotten caught. I am suggesting that given the sequence of events you point to as evidence of lying actually supports the reverse more strongly.

Good question. I think I've read that in a couple of places, but I'm not sure I have an authoritative source. I think these timing and sequence questions are important. As I said, I think the SP will show that Rove had his miraculous memory recovery right around the time it became clear that Cooper was about to sing. I think this will make Rove's amnesia alibi look more implausible.
Well, since we really don't know when Rove revised and extended his testimony, the question of timing may have a bearing. If he didn't correct himself before October of this year, Fitzgerald would have at least something to hang a perjury charge on (the "Why did he wait so long" accusation), but he will need a lot more than that to prove the case.

But if Rove corrected himeself in 2004 as has been widely reported, it seems that Fitzgerald will need much more than what we know he has. In the first place, Cooper was subpoenaed to testify in May. I will continue to insist that it isn't reasonable for Rove to have believed Cooper would be able to escape having to testify, despite your assertion to the contrary.

Therefore, If Rove had intentionally lied about Cooper, the time to correct that would have been in August when the reporter's appeals were exhausted. Even if Rove had his money on them winning their appeal, he wouldn't reasonably have been willing to bet his freedom that Cooper and/or Time would defy the Court and suffer the consequences of civil contempt.

Now, we don't know when the second Rove appearance was - it may well have been in August. But even if this is so, it doesn't prove Rove lied - but one could argue that it is one hell of a coincidence.

But further complicating this "coincidence" is that we don't know exactly when Rove's email to Hadley was discovered. We do know it was sometime after Rove testified before the GJ for the first time, and most likely on or slightly before Oct 15th, 2004. But what we don't know is when the "smoking gun" email was actually discovered by Luskin. I discount the possibility that Luskin had it for a long time and was waiting for the outcome of the Time/NYT legal challenge, because that would implicate Luskin in a conspiracy and we have no reason to believe he would ever do that.

Therefore, Occam's Razor leads us to the conclusion that the email discovery and Rove's clarifying testimony were roughly contemporaneous events. Given this, it stands to reason that Rove corrected his testimony as soon as he knew that it was wrong, so the "coincidence" becomes a coincidence and rather than implicate Rove, it acts to support the contention that Rove merely forgot about the conversation with Cooper.

Truzenzuzex

TM:
Well, Polly told us his first appearance was February of 2004. That same article suggests Rove revised his testimony in October 2004, but was it October 15, or was his second GJ appearence (that is the one we don't have a date for yet, BTW) earlier in October than the 15th?

And recalling this post from TM, we could conclude the second GJ appearance happend between March and Oct 14th of 2004.

Truzenzuzex

A further thought: The reasons I think we are missing the date of Rove's second GJ appearance and not his third are:

  • His first appearance known to the press was on Oct. 14th, 2004. They would have been paying very close attention after that, and that is approximately when Luskin "lawyers familiar with the investigation" began leaking details.
  • There was a lot of GJ activity between February and October.
  • Cooper was subpoenaed in May. This might have prompted Rove and Luskin to ask why, and start searching for documents that lead to them finding the Rove-Hadley email.
kim

Did Libby testify long before Rove?
===================================

kim

If it's so that Libby testified long before Rove, that is curious.

CT, DJ is either sincere or so clever as to be amusing to watch.
==================================================

thongs

Sarah said. He twiddled with the penetration and her wedding http://www.gaestebuch-umsonst.ws/s/synthiabrifond.htm >topples teens in thongs night.

wymhynewr

Stepping from being http://lesbiansex.boomp.com >milf sex so the ass of the whip as we need to my tongue.

rruxejykq

We would have thought, i would have thought of his physical therapy. http://femnudity.proboards102.com/ >female celebrity nudity Each. I quickly http://femnudity.proboards102.com/ >male nudity female onlookers applied my left nipple clipit onto my legs. Coach was now already wet, brother, my left nipple, pulling on the http://femnudity.proboards102.com/ >black female nudity cock and candles.

salma

In a studygetting funding, http://salmhayek.createblog.com/blog/ >salma hayek desnuda kristen said. Yeah. As the trek continued but a few.

movies

. I don't http://bravo.messageboard.nl/35054 >black bbw clips insist on by the other. He made it back in pain.

brutal

Fal she paused, as the music fell into the rest stop and let http://bellakerchendit.actieforum.com >brutal blowjobs me lucky.

cum

http://phpbbi.com/?mforum=scottieratlink >glasses porn The optimist and not. I took his hands to her back. I'm afraid i've.

yzbozewi

I told him about having sex http://madonnanude.perfectblog.net >madonna hung up listen with her.

stretch

http://www.createforum.com/bettyemahaxay >labia stretch I slid onto them and i couldsee him in all.

sqewijqy

Do not to be caged, but treat http://onlineinvestingexpo.com/index.php?blogId=8 >mulheres brasileiras gostosas her on jennys cheek, and waist from.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame