Powered by TypePad

« My Note To Dan Froomkin | Main | A Straw In The Wind? »

May 25, 2006

Comments

Syl

pis

It's the administartion officials who will sink Libby, however, not teh reporters.

Why do I get the feeling the adults are talking in the parlor and the two-year-old barges in?

Read the indictment. We'll wait.

clarice

I apologize, ed.But a thwack on the head with a furled umbrellas to Pis..

Pisistratus

It's because of these sort of shenanigans, Clarice:

Here's York on NRO the other day re: the New Waas story: "One last thing. National Journal reports that investigators first learned about the September 29, 2003 phone call between Rove and Novak from...Rove himself, who told FBI agents about it during his very first conversation with them in Fall 2003."

Note the "..." the clear implication being Rove should get a merit badge.

Does York mention September 29 was the day after the Post's famous anonymous tip that two administration officials had contacted 6 reporters about Plame. How could Rove possibly keep it secret from the FBI?
Necessity shouldn't earn merit badges.

That's why York's a stenographer. He's just pushing a spin. Note-I see plenty of stenographers on the left side too. When it comes to the press, call me Diogenes.

clarice

So far what do you think will be removed from the indictment before trial?
I believe all the Cooper counts and all the references to "classified"

Anything else?

clarice

Pis, I doubt very much that Rove scheduled the investigation. The point is when he was asked, he told the truth..And Mr. Untouchable UGO seems not to have.

Pisistratus

Syl-the indictment has a clear structure:

1. here's where all the administration officials discussed Plame with Libby.
2. Libby says he forgot those discussions and learned it from reporters.
3. Reporters deny that.

The key finding is whether Libby's "forgetting" is reasonable given all that was going in the administartion, or was it perjury when he claimed he forgot.

Libby is drowning in his own lies. Reporters denying they told him just blocks an escape hatch. It's the administration officials who are the weight around his neck.

Pisistratus

nobody likes a tattletale, ed.

Syl

pis

Does York mention September 29 was the day after the Post's famous anonymous tip that two administration officials had contacted 6 reporters about Plame. How could Rove possibly keep it secret from the FBI?

What does 1x2x6 have to do with Novak calling Rove on the 29th? The 1x2x6, if not spin itself, would concern a convo back in July.

It's the July conversation that would be discovered, not the September one.

Jeff

Syl - You didn't read the 2004 Waas story, did you? The closest it comes to your formulation is saying that Rove said he only circulated information about Plame after Novak's column. From Rove's perspective, does saying to Novak, "I heard that too" based on unsubstantiated rumor from journalists count as "circulating information about Plame"?

Syl

Jeff

does saying to Novak, "I heard that too" based on unsubstantiated rumor from journalists count as "circulating information about Plame"?

No.

Read what Overholser said again.

Syl

pis

3. Reporters deny that.

And if the reporters' testimony is impeached, fitz has squat to prove his case.

Pisistratus

Except the administration officials.

boris

I think if one defines "circulating information" to be equivalent to "I heard that too" then that's probably not what Rove denied doing.

Rove could deny being the source of the information or deny confirming the information. I agree with those who claim that Novak had his story from UGO and Harlow. Rove was just rhetorical padding.

clarice

I sure do want to be present when Russert is reminded that the convo was in July not June--In July just between the Op ed and MTP appearance of Munchausen and the Novak article.

maryrose

Which counts involve Cooper specifically and is the perjury one also affected by Cooper?

PaulV

pissy,
Read the counts of the indictment slowly- it just concerns what Libby told reporters-

ed

The judge refers to a "slight alteration." Could just be the difference between having fully dried off or being in the process of drying off. We should wait and see here.

clarice

He also says these are internally inconsistent and therefore whatever he testifies to is impeachable..Thus we have drafts saying A and NOT A and on the stand whichever version (A OR NOT A) he gives, he is impeached.
The variations may be slight, but from the Judge's words they seem significant.

clarice

maryrose, the link to the indictment is on the right side of the page. I believe Cooper is in the false statements , and obstruction counts, but you can check and let us know.

JM Hanes

Rocco

"OT...Didn't Wilson claim he was investing in gold mines and do you think this is worth investigating?"

OT, perhaps, but decidedly on point! His whole consulting operation could use serious exploration.

ed

Clearly you're correct Clarice. However if the inconsistancy is one minor detail, a jury could still buy his story. The judge is merely being fair here.

clarice

Possibly..But remember, it is only a minor detail which is the basis of the perjury count against Libby :Whether he told Cooper,"I heard that, too" or "I heard that, too, from other reporters".

And since it is in his public recitals of his testimoy that Cooper adds to his version "or words to that affect", let me be bold and suggest those are weasel words to cover the fact that he knows he did not give a verbatim account of what he recalled of the conversation.

Jeff

does saying to Novak, "I heard that too" based on unsubstantiated rumor from journalists count as "circulating information about Plame"?

No.

Okay, Syl, then there is no inconsistency in the Waas article's accounts of Rove's version. Overholser has nothing to do with it. You asserted an inconsistency between Waas' old article and this one in its accounts of Rove's testimony. You mischaracterized what the old Waas article says. And you now acknowledge that what the old Waas article says is consistent with the most recent. Now, I may think that we're getting some major casuistry and parsing from Team Rove. But that's another issue. You evidently buy that parsing. And hence you can't claim that there's any inconsistency between the two articles' accounts of Rove's testimony.

maryrose

clarice:
I checked the indictment and Cooper is mentioned in the perjury, false statements and obstruction charges.

Kate

I think this puts the Rove case and the Waas articles in some context. I would guess that Fitz has to weigh bringing charges against Rove based on sole testimony of a questionable witness, Cooper, who has his own motivations to lie.

Plus, Waas, in his last two articles, is essentially begging Fitz to indict and is bringing up other possible charges which don't involved Cooper, but which, sadly for Waas,don't seem to be criminal.

Javani

Clarice:

Another evidence how stupid Cooper is. First, he writes the "welfare" article which impeaches his memory abilities. Now he hasn't burned drafts of his "What I told" article.

Jeff

But remember, it is only a minor detail which is the basis of the perjury count against Libby :Whether he told Cooper,"I heard that, too" or "I heard that, too, from other reporters".

clarice, I think you are engaging in some wishful thinking here. Go back and read Count 5 in the indictment. It's not as you say. There's no question it will be very very good for Libby is the alteration is that in his notes Cooper wrote something like, "Libby said, 'I heard that too,' and he might have said 'from reporters.'" But that's far from all there is either to the interaction with Cooper or, especially, the perjury charge. The false statements charge regarding what Libby testified he said to Cooper in particular is a better case, but even there the discrepancy between the two versions is greater than just the issue of sourcing it to reporters.

Again, it can only be helpful to Libby that there is some alteration, however minor. But if there' just one alteration, it's not clear that it would gut the charges relating to Cooper.

lurker

"(My guess..Fitz may remove the Cooper counts from the indictment, rather than rely on Cooper as a witness.)"

Which leaves...how many counts?

And from reading some of the posts in the last few days with some posters that remain convinced that Libby and Rove were the first leakers, what should happen is the public revelation of UGO's identity. Will the lefties believe it? Due to the 911truth.org, the answer is no.

boris

far from all there is either to the interaction with Cooper or, especially, the perjury charge

Do lawyers imply more than they can actually claim? Patents, you bet. Maybe Clarice's eye for the claim is more focused than Jeff's nose for the implications.

Sue

I'm kind of fuzzy here...did Fitzgerald already know there might be a problem with Cooper or did he find out today too?

maryrose

I'm not sure Sue but all you have to do is lookk at Cooper to know he is running scared and that his pre and post testimony smacks of fear and uncertainty.

Syl

Jeff

You're being awfully picky with our side and forgetting the impression Waas article left on the other side because YOU are interpreting Waas for yourself--after the fact.

The impression left in 2004 was that Rove didn't initially come clean.

And that's quite different from what Waas is reporting now.

cathyf
And since it is in his public recitals of his testimoy that Cooper adds to his version "or words to that affect", let me be bold and suggest those are weasel words to cover the fact that he knows he did not give a verbatim account of what he recalled of the conversation.
I'll be generous to Cooper, and suggest that the weasel words are the common-sense qualifications of a man self-aware enough to know that his recollection (without notes) is bound to vary somewhat from a verbatim recording of the conversation if such a recording had existed.

(There is a certain irony there, too. The bedrock of the Cooper charge is stated as the difference between Libby saying stuff with or without qualification. Which Fitzgerald gets to by ignoring Cooper's qualifiers. When do we appoint an extra-special super-dooper special prosecutor for Fitzgerald's "lying" in the indictment?)

cathy :-)

Syl

Jeff

clarice, I think you are engaging in some wishful thinking here.

You mean it's not what Libby said, it's why Libby said he said it? Are we putting people in jail for their thoughts now?

clarice

Please work that one up for the BIG letter to OPR, cathyf..

Tom Maguire

Jeff - I have to go with Syl here. Re-reading the 2004 waas, it does leave open the possibility that Rove said "I talked to Novak about Plame, but I didn;t say enough to be a source".

Maybe Rove could even bring in Waas' journalism prof to make his case, and Novak could get Cooper to vouch for his journalistic standards.

But that said, just follow the link to Jane Hamsher, who cited the Waas story. First, she excerpted (among other things) this from Waas, whihc is hard to read as "Rove said he discussed Plame with Novak:

But Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rather, Rove insisted, he had **only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak’s column.**

Then, she wrote this:

It seems like every appearance Rove has made before the grand jury has been to walk back the incorrect information he gave the FBI in the first place (which no doubt matched up with Libby’s quite well).

Yet now you are arguing that this new Waas story does not give a different impression than the old one. That's a tough sell.

Jeff

Tom - I think what I am arguing is that you should be blaming Rove, not Waas, for the misleading impression, which comes from a combination of spinning the investigation and spinning Waas back in 2004. I mean, look how strange what you're arguing is. The impression you get from Waas' old article on its own is that Rove testified he didn't discuss Plame with Novak, and in fact he didn't discuss Plame with Novak. The impression from Waas' old article is that Rove did discuss Plame, but only after Novak's column.

In other words, part of the misleading impression is that Rove wasn't one of Novak's sources. Not exactly unfriendly to Karl, is it? It's only in retrospect, knowing that Rove was in fact one of Novak's sources, that that article looks like it might be giving a misleading account of Rove's testimony. But in fact it looks to me like it's just closely parsed. Hence my point that there's no inconsistency here.

I suspect there was some updating on Rove's part in successive testimonies, but it's more complicated than an initial flat out denial of talking with Novak about Plame before his column and later acknowledgment. I suspect Rove denied that he was a source for Novak's column, instead testifying that Novak told him about Plame. Then he was surprised - when is not clear - to learn that Novak had taken his "I've heard that too" as a confirmation, making Rove Novak's confirming source.

An interesting question in this connection that has arisen lately is whether the story is that Novak told Rove that his first source was Armitage. One of the things that has probably made investigators suspicious of Rove and Libby is that a lot could hang on the claim that the origin of their information was reporters, rather than a government source. This makes me doubtful that Rove testified that Novak told him Armitage was his first source. At the same time, even if he did, Rove's claim is that he first heard about Plame from a non-government source, probably a reporter. Unfortunately for him, he can't remember who it was, or even if it was in person or over the phone, so there's no way for investigators to track down Rove's story and get confirmation on it, thereby exonerating Rove.

Syl

Jeff

You sound a little desparate.

maryrose

Desperately seeking Jeff.

sad

Jeff

Fitz and the judge may be angry with Cooper over differing drafts of the same story because Fitz was being supervised via public knowledge which now is proved to be incorrect.

Barney Frank

Is it just me or does everyone come to the end of one of Jeff's posts with their eyes crossed?
No offense Jeff. You have an excellent command of the details but I always lose your point in the blizzard of details and qualifications and either/ors.

maryrose

BarneyFrank;
You expressed exactly how I feel when I read Jeff's posts. I always end up going back to re-read sections because it becomes so convoluted that I can't make sense of the premise or the conclusion.Then I get annoyed.

MayBee

Tom - I think what I am arguing is that you should be blaming Rove, not Waas, for the misleading impression, which comes from a combination of spinning the investigation and spinning Waas back in 2004.

Wait. Rove was spinning who? Are there direct quotes from what Rove told the investigators and Grand Jury? Did Waas interview Rove, and was spun by him in the interview?
Isn't it all coming out of Waas's pen, and not out of Rove's mouth?

clarice

Waas said his sources were" a government official and an attorney familiar with the ongoing special counsel's investigation of the matter. "http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:HTEkEvb1TNAJ:www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2004/03/waas-m-03-08.html+waas+2004+rove+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1 said that?

anyone care to guess which official and which attorney?

topsecretk9

Grossman and Sauber?

MayBee

In the Waas article clarice linked:

Wilson reported back to the CIA that the allegations were contrived and that documents purportedly revealing the scheme were crude forgeries.

Well.

MayBee

Ha! This is fun:
that Novak wrote his now-infamous newspaper column alleging that Wilson had received his assignment because his wife had recommended him for the position. The claim has since turned out to be untrue. Novak revealed that Plame was a covert CIA operative in the context of incorrectly asserting that she was responsible for her husband's appointment.

Waas and Wilson. BFF.
Add that to my all time favorite, the 'smear' campaign. Why is Waas so beloved?

topsecretk9

SUE

I am sooooooo sorry I did not see and then email a copy! About that time I commented I got a work bomb.

topsecretk9

Ed

sorry i did not email it to you too. See TO Sue above.

clarice

Maybe we ought to do a slim volume "The Wit and Wisdom of Murray Waas"

topsecretk9

Maybee

I think I was the only one (except for Dwilkers -- I think ) that saw this Waas piece as a negative for primarily Novak, and a positive for Rove. (I have a hunch about him right now)

I am CERTAIN many a left-like commenter held for quite a time that Rove did not testify about "NOVAK" until GJ appearance #2...that this article reveals that Rove not only testified about Novak -- he did so to FBI investigators initially and even told them Novak called and said he'd protect Rove.

If Rove were being less than forthcoming why would he tell FBI investigators Novak was willing to protect him?

I don't get the lede here and think Waas doesn't either...remember...NYT's reported recently that Novak went before the GJ in December AFTER Woodward and they also said Rove at #5 was asked again about Novak contacts...Woodward put a hiccup in Novak and Armitage's original story (is my hunch)

topsecretk9

--I think I was the only one--

well and of course, Clarice was willing to humor me and entertain the speculation- LOL as always...

clarice

Why shouldn't I? You find stuff faster than anyone, remember details that we all forget and just generally are worth listening to, ts.

topsecretk9

Wilson reported back to the CIA that the allegations were contrived and that documents purportedly revealing the scheme were crude forgeries.---


Pathetic much?

Contrived? He did? He reported to the CIA on Feb. what 22nd 03 that they has conclusively been swindled by some Italian huckster hawking crude forgeries to a bunch of foreign Intel in 02 BEFORE we knew or had them?....(because you know...Rocco sold some way earlier to other gov'ts and the CIA in Italy told him intially to go way in sring 02)? Hmmm...Does Wass really want to go down that road...

MayBee

I am CERTAIN many a left-like commenter held for quite a time that Rove did not testify about "NOVAK" until GJ appearance #2..

You were absolutely right about that.


I don't see Novak being in any legal trouble- I don't think any of the reporters are. To me, this Waas story seems about 6 months past its relevancy date.
Sure, the investigators were interested in Novak's call to Rove....back when they thought Rove might have been the original leaker. We all have seen pretty clearly that there was a call for Rove's scalp the minute Novak's story hit the presses, and of course investigators were eyeing him.
The problem is, we now know blaming Rove was just dust thrown in Fitz's eyes. So good for them. They discovered that and moved on, which Waas seems unable to do.

topsecretk9

Clarice --

I know far-fetched...but I keep wondering (as i did yesterday) if Fitz is restraining acknowledgment of his new found partially clue bought via Woodward...how would a guy in his position proceed...Dwilk thought it too...

on the niger doc...they keep harping wrong crap --to this day--the every dog smells hi own whole first

MayBee

Maybe we ought to do a slim volume "The Wit and Wisdom of Murray Waas"

heh.

MayBee

Waas's current article:
Rove and Novak, investigators suspect, might have devised a cover story to protect Rove because the grand jury testimony of both men appears to support Rove's contentions about how he learned about Plame.

Yesterday's news: Inconsistency = perjury!
Today's news: Consistency = perjury!

He's a funny, funny man.

clarice

ts--I cannot figure Fitz out and I don't want to even try to get in his head. My guess is if he doesn't indict Rove, and I don't think he will, he will soon wrap up any further investigation. (I think his pleadings are getting worse and showing more signs of desperation.And like Rick I think J. Walton knows more about the case and is semaphoring "cut the shit.I'm on to you.")

Tom Maguire

Tom - I think what I am arguing is that you should be blaming Rove, not Waas, for the misleading impression, which comes from a combination of spinning the investigation and spinning Waas back in 2004.

In hindsight, the 2004 Wass looks like Rove-friendly spin telling us that Rove initialy denied having been a source to Novak. That carried us through the election.

Come summer 2005, we learn that Rove was, in fact, a source for Novak.

People then dig up the old Waas article and compare.

Did they (a) conclude Waas was spun, or

(b) conclude that Rove had misled the FBI in his first go-around, and only later 'fessed up?

I think the Jane Hamsher cite I offer comes down clearly on (b).

I also think I could find plenty of other cites (including some here by your and/or me) making argument (b) with reference to Waas 2004.

Anyway, what is your point - that Waas was an accurate stenographer of spin?

My point is, his story did not hold up well, and people have taken the wrong conclusion from it. So far, I have ony the one Hamsher cite to prove that, however.

MayBee

One more and then I'm done:

Dan Richman, a law school professor at Fordham University and a former federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York, says that perjury and obstruction cases are difficult to bring. "In many instances, you almost have to literally take the jury inside a defendant's head to demonstrate their intent," he said.

eww! would that require a neurosurgeon?

clarice

Night all and have a good holiday weekend..

topsecretk9

MayBee--

I have a hunch about Novak and Armitage....

1- If Novak called Rove and said "hey bub, don't worry about a thing", he most certainly did to his UGO too - notice he;s kept with that since his UGO has not let him reveal publicly

2- there was a discrepancy between novak and Rove that tended to make Rove look suspicious UNTIL Woodward

that is

Rove said he heard the actual **name** "Plame" from Novak, Novak said he didn't know the **name** Plame when he talked to Rove on July 9th.

Both - I think--said Rove was a "confirming" source for Novak


So..that implies that UGO **gave Novak the "name" after he talked to Rove (and Fitz didn't believe Rove and thought Rove did give it to him but Novak was protecting him- see?)


So this all works fine and dandy against Rove, but all ducks in a row...

But then Wooward appears and say UGO was blabbing way back in June...hmmm.

It at least makes one wonder -- especially if there was a "hey bub, don't worry call" to UGO -- if both Novak and Armitage weren't as frank about *their* communications (novaks --YOU CAN find it in Who;s Who...sidenote ...is an indicator to me -- novak threw out a buffer --" even if you don't but the "name" bit ...it is easily found in who's who")

MayBee

good night clarice.

TM-
Anyway, what is your point - that Waas was an accurate stenographer of spin?

And who's spin was being steno'd? Considering the other spin thrown into that baby.....

Tom Maguire

I picked a likely phrase from the Waas 2004 article and got 170 hits, including this Raw Story classic from our main man, Jason Leopold, Nov 2005:

According to lawyers, Rove did not tell FBI investigators in 2003 that he had spoken with Novak prior to his column being published and had been one of the two “senior administration officials” cited in Novak’s column as having confirmed Plame’s identity and CIA employment.

Rove was named as “Official A,” the person who confirmed Plame’s CIA status for Novak, in the 22-page indictment against Vice President Cheney’s erstwhile chief of staff.

Fitzgerald is now trying to piece together evidence as to whether Rove obstructed the investigation into Plame’s outing, a felony, during that first interview he had with the FBI, as well as allegedly lying to the federal agents, the attorneys said.

A Mar. 8, 2004 story in the American Prospect related to Rove’s testimony noted that, “Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July.”

I think it is fair to argue that Jason is leaning on the Waas 2004 story to conclude my point (b) above, that Rove lied, rather than (a) Waas was spun.

MayBee

ts- I follow you.
I do wonder where Novak got the name and when. Could be Armitage. Could have inadvertantly been the street babbler. To me, at this point (in the post-Woodward era), it seems to hardly matter. Fitzgerald thought he was being obstructed because the door was locked, but it turns out he was trying to open the wrong door.
In my mind, had he known about Woodward he never would have charged Libby. That's why I can't imagine anyone new (except for Rove) being in trouble at this late date. Finalizing the Rove investigation seems a loose end and one with strong political implications both ways.

Tom Maguire

Here is TalkLeft relying on Waas 2004 (at her point 5; here is pollyusa in a Jan 2006 comment shutting me up when I wrote that "I thought Rove mentioned his chat with Novak from the first FBI interview".

And I cited a Waas 2005 article for my support, which dwells on Cooper but eventually clarifies the confusion about whether "I heard that, too" equates to being a source.

I was a prophet without honor at my own blog...

topsecretk9

--Is it just me or does everyone come to the end of one of Jeff's posts with their eyes crossed?
No offense Jeff. You have an excellent command of the details but I always lose your point in the blizzard of details and qualifications and either/ors.--

Barney- LOL

No, I do too ( if that, then in the event, by that, which certainly by way of rather than the by way of)--- but then I read some of they weird crap I hastily put together later on and ... whew, how you all put up with me!

topsecretk9

--I was a prophet without honor at my own blog...---

We're we to chase you around to find out you'd prophet-ized elsewhere...but didn't think your own blog cultist are worthy?

topsecretk9

TM

did you notice the case number on

"sealed vs. sealed"?

Jeff

Tom - With the proviso that what Rove testified to (and when) remains very obscure, here are a couple of points: 1. The old Waas story is actually extremely precise. After we learned more - and I bet many of those hits, especially the ones that focus on discrepancies in Rove's testimony, were from much later, not contemporary with the story - a lot of people might have picked up on the report in a misleading way. 2. Still, what Rove testified to early on may still be suspicious, but not quite in the way some people think. Here's perhaps the missing link from another Waas story, though it is a story that in other respects has not stood up so well:

Sources close to Rove say he simply did not know at the time that Novak had used him to corroborate the Plame information published in the July 14 column. Rove did not discover that until after his initial interview with the FBI, sources say.

Indeed, Rove's story to investigators was that when he said to Novak in July 2003, "I heard that, too," he was essentially telling Novak that he had heard the same information through the grapevine. Rove said he thought the information about Plame was hearsay and speculation, and that he was surprised to later learn that Novak had considered him one of two administration sources for his column.

A person close to Rove and familiar with his account said in an interview: "There was nothing about the context in which he was asked, or the substance of the conversation itself, that would have led Karl to believe that he was confirming-or even being asked to confirm-anything for the column."

In part because of the brevity of his comments to Novak and his lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations about Plame, Rove did not know that he was one of the two administration sources cited in the column, the source close to Rove said.

This makes it sound like Rove's initial testimony was that he spoke with Novak, who told him about Plame, but he was not a source for Plame. He only discovered that later. Now, that might sound odd together with what Waas just reported, that Rove testified about the September 29, 2003 conversation with Novak where Novak said he didn't burn sources and so on. But Rove is reported to have called that a "curious conversation" or some such. Maybe Rove's initial story was that he didn't think he was a source, so that was part of what made the conversation curious.

The basic point is, the mistake came in misunderstanding the Waas story later on. It remains fully consistent with what we know now. Here's some evidence: Waas reported that Rove testified that he only circulated information after the Novak column. Syl affirmed that, from her point of view (which in this regard we can say she shares with Rove), Rove saying, "I heard that too" to Novak doesn't count as circulating information. That's basically what Rove's testimony was. And that is also equivalent to saying that Rove's initial testimony was that he was not a source, much less the source, for Novak. But it's also easy to see how investigators might have become suspicious of that when it turned out that, in fact, Rove was Novak's second source. And Rove evidently changed his story, insofar as he acknowledged that his conversation with Novak turned out to be a source conversation.

MayBee

And Rove evidently changed his story, insofar as he acknowledged that his conversation with Novak turned out to be a source conversation.

But that isn't a case of Rove changing his story. Only Novak can give that part of the story.

I think Waas misunderstood his own story, thinking he had caught Rove in a lie. Waas is too easily spun by Wilson.

topsecretk9

Waas is too easily spun by Wilson.


---MayBee...spun? By Wilson?....I think that's the code for... "ahead of the new cycle"

Syl

Jeff

Isn't Rove a piece of brilliant work? He came clean, didn't lie, wasn't a source, and yet managed to make an entire set of people believe:

He didn't come clean when he first spoke to the FBI because he claimed he wasn't a source for Novak. But it turned out the subject came up during a conversation with Novak and Rove actually responded (with 'I heard that too'). So Rove WAS a source for Novak because...because...Novak says so! Therefore Rove misled the investigation and the public and is in imminent danger of being indicted yesterday!

And, to top it all off, Rove was spinning all this to make the dumb people believe he was in trouble so when they find out he really isn't in trouble they become suicidal.

A classic Rovian plot.

You've been had!

Actually you all did it to yourselves and can't blame Rove.

kim

C, 'When asked, Rove told the truth and UGO didn't'. Wouldn't that be a hoot, Bush pardoning Armitage just before leaving office?
=================================

The comments to this entry are closed.