« A truly hardened criminal | Main | Paul Harvey Goes Over The Top »

Rove Article Is Out

The Newsweek article about Karl Rove and the Plame leak (mentioned previously here) is out. Here's the key excerpt:

The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper's sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House. Cooper and a Time spokeswoman declined to comment. But in an interview with NEWSWEEK, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for the article. It is unclear, however, what passed between Cooper and Rove.

So Lawrence O'Donnell's breathless allegations were all much ado about nothing.

Of course, this isn't likely to stop the leftist-driven media storm over the accusation that Rove was the leaker.

Update:

Lawrence O'Donnell reacts to today's news:

On Saturday, Luskin decided to reveal that Rove did have at least one conversation with Cooper, but Luskin told the Times he would not "characterize the substance of the conversation."

Luskin claimed that the prosecutor "asked us not to talk about what Karl has had to say." This is highly unlikely. Prosecutors have absolutely no control over what witnesses say when they leave the grand jury room. Rove can tell us word-for-word what he said to the grand jury and would if he thought it would help him. And notice that Luskin just did reveal part of Rove's grand jury testimony, the fact that he had a conversation with Cooper. Rove would not let me get one day of traction on this story if he could stop me. If what I have reported is not true, if Karl Rove is not Matt Cooper's source, Rove could prove that instantly by telling us what he told the grand jury. Nothing prevents him from doing that, except a good lawyer who is trying to keep him out of jail.

Right. So the burden of proof is now on Rove, not his accusers.

That doesn't make any sense. If O'Donnell and others want to prove to the American public that Rove was behind the Plame leak let them present their evidence. And they have presented some. We know that Rove spoke with Cooper and was a source for his article. What we absolutely do not know is what information Rove provided.

Could he have leaked the Plame info? Probably. Is it Rove's job to prove he didn't leak it? Of course not. The fact that O'Donnell and others are asking Rove to defend himself only proves that they have no really convincing proof. Otherwise they would have made it public by now.

Rob Port owns and operates Say Anything.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rove Article Is Out:

» The Unalienable Right linked with Surprise!: "Creepy liar" Larry O'Donnell omits the truth

» Joefish's Freshwater Blog linked with Left sets sights on Karl Rove as Plame

» Michelle Malkin linked with ROVE-ING REPORTS

» Myopic Zeal linked with Was it Karl Rove?

» Mark in Mexico linked with Karl Rove and Patrick Fitzgerald,

Comments (32)

<a href="http://drudgerepor... (Below threshold)
-S:

DrudgeReport...


Question, however: given that O'Donnell "knows" quite so much, what are HIS sources? The guy's presenting himself as a veritable Karnack.

Not sure how one can conclu... (Below threshold)

Not sure how one can conclude that O'Donnell's allegations are baseless from that story.

O'Donnel claimed that the e... (Below threshold)
Rob:

O'Donnel claimed that the emails would show Rove was the source. Turns out, the emails only confirm that Rove was a source and not that he said even a thing about Plame.

Unless Lawrence has something else to offer, his claims are unfounded.

Rob -- Can you rea... (Below threshold)
frameone:

Rob --

Can you read?

Here's what Cooper wrote:

"Some government officials have noted to Time in interviews... that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," said Cooper's July 2003 Time online article."

Here's what we now know:

"The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper's sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House."

The emails show exactly what O'Donnell said they woudl show: that Rove was a source for Plame's identity as confirmed by two lawyers representing friendly witnesses to the White House. The article also states that Cooper spoke with Rove three or four days before the Novak story ran. Now Rove has previously said that he only spoke about Plame AFTER the Noval column. So what was he talking to Cooper about three or four days before the Novak column?

The only person in the article saying that Rove didn't discuss Plame is Rove's own lawyer. Now what do you think a lawyer would do in a siutation like this to keep his client from facing perjury charges? Tell the truth?

Frameone, no need to be a j... (Below threshold)
Rob:

Frameone, no need to be a jerk. We can discuss this without the insults.

As for the Newsweek article, I read it as Rove being a source for the article not neccessarily for the Plame information specifically.

Like I said, unless something else comes out to specificaly tie Rove to the Plame information I remain unconvinced.

The POINT, oyster, is that ... (Below threshold)
-S-:

The POINT, oyster, is that O'Donnell cannot determine his allegations to be "true" or accurate. And yet he continues his pontifications from another realm.

Liberalism is truly a mental illness, it truly is. A high degree of paranoia and lack of personal ethics (the "get them" maneuvers, the likes of which Ted Kennedy and John Kerry and others are quite familiar with) and you get just about any "truth" that you can argue out and about long enough, UNLESS there's an overwhelming something that shuts down the liberal paranoia and conjecture but only, in my experience, by publicly humiliating the liberal/s responsible (what liberals seem to fear more than anything and so are most affected by...public humiliation, lack of public adulation).

The problems occur in the most emotionally extreme when there are complex issues that have to be viewed with human intelligence and reasoned through: complex sets of conditions and information that can't be organized like dried noodles but instead like wet ones.

This is one of those situations that liberals just can't get: they "know" what they "know" and never any other information will make a difference. I think Karl Rove is an honorable person, an ethical person, a very intelligent and non-cagey person who was spoken with/to by the TIME reporter/s (probably, as it's nearly established by everyone by now) but that whatever he said, it cannot be proven to a certainty that those reporters did not already know what they later revealed before interacting with Rove, nor can it be proven to a certainty that there were not others interacting with them.

Rove and Rove's counsel say that he wasn't the person who leaked the name and I believe them. Also, there are many other issues that suggest, strongly, that it was someone else and once others knowledgeable speak out about this, I am confident that it'll prove liberals to be completely nuts about this.

We all know that "Rove" has become the Boogey Man to liberals, the Big Foot in the Woods, the Abominable Snowman, the Thing, the Monster under the Bed...it's ridiculous.

But, this is what fuels Huffington and her nutty contributors. Seems like a very needy stab by liberals, to my view, at the heart of sanity.

Rove is not being told to p... (Below threshold)
J-homey:

Rove is not being told to prove his innocence. However, he was summoned to testify, and he did. Now either he testified that he was the source of the Plame info or he wasn't. Given what his lawyer is saying, it seems that he testified that he wasn't the source for this info.

I think that in time, Time...or Judith Miller..will tell who committed this act of treason. And if it was Rove, he just compounded treason with perjury.

Lawrence O'Donnell is a cre... (Below threshold)

Lawrence O'Donnell is a creepy liar.

And now he can take the throne as Queen of the Space Unicorns recently vacated by Dan Rather.

Rob -- You remain ... (Below threshold)
frameone:

Rob --

You remain unconvinced based solely on what Rove's lawyer says? What a great gauge of whether or not an invesitigation is justified or not. No doubt Rove is innocent until proven guilty but the idea that this is solely some kind of left-wing witch hunt is nonsense. Which brings me to my second point: anyone who uses ridiculous phrases like "leftist-driven media storm" should have thicker skin.

psst...frameone?Ro... (Below threshold)

psst...frameone?

Rove signed a waiver giving the reporters he talked to full permission to discuss whatever HE told 'em.

So, are you trying to claim that Cooper not only is ignoring the waiver but actually OUT to PROTECT Rove???

"leftist-driven media storm... (Below threshold)

"leftist-driven media storm"....hilarious. I have yet to see anything on this story outside of the internets, so far this weekend, but then network news of any stripe has become unwatchable.

CNN, per usual, has made sure to gum it all up with endless reruns of shark attacks and abducted children. Nothing about O'Donnell's assertion, pro or con.

It sure would be nice if fake journalists like Matt Cooper and Judy Miller would just come clean already, "betray" these sources that can apparently only "help" from their secret knothole, and save us all from an endless series of speculation migraines.

Regardless of one's political stance, enough of this "Deep Throat" crap already. Either stand behind the whistle you're blowing and take the shot that comes to you from the opposition, or sit down and shut the hell up.

All that said, someone leaked Plame, the timing was sure convenient, and Novakula is somehow immune from the depredations Cooper and Miller must endure. I dunno, did you really need video proof of O.J. Simpson or Michael Jackson to know what they were up to?

The case seems largely circumstantial so far, and I'm sure we'll spend the next few months pondering Turd Blossom's Clintonian use of the weasel word "knowingly". But that doesn't mean he was out of the loop.

It may not be as pressing as the protracted discussion of Al Gore's iced tea-drinking habits back in 2000, but some people should at least pretend that they are intellectually honest about the prevalence of mal-fee-ance in the government of the United States of America, be it run by Republicans or Democrats.

I can't wait to see the circumlocutions of Rove's defenders if tangible proof does emerge of his guilt. Probably either a sliding scale of seriousness of offense, or a solemn pseudo-scholarly dissertation on the veracity of said proof, as discerned by the kerning of the e-mail font.

When your boy's at 40% and falling, I guess one clings to whatever straws are within reach. But that is not an effort to get at "facts" or "truth", that's just tendentious hackery.

"Rove signed a waiver givin... (Below threshold)
frameone:

"Rove signed a waiver giving the reporters he talked to full permission to discuss whatever HE told 'em."

I have no idea what is motivating Cooper or Miller to keep silent on who their sources are or what they said. Journalistic ethics seems like a thin defense here, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Cearly, as the Newsweek story states, Rove was one of Cooper's sources, that's a simple fact now. (I have no idea what part of "The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc. ... show that one of Cooper's sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove" Rob doesn't understand.) And yet Cooper still refuses to state this directly or reveal what they discussed three or four days before the Novak story came out despite whatever waiver Rove signed.

So what gives? I don't know. Can you explain it? This situation clearly isn't easily parsed. But since a crime may have been committed and now it looks like someone in the White House may have lied to cover up that crime this investigation deserves some serious attention. Of course by arguing that this is all some left-wing witch hunt driven by a leftist media, Rob would rather attack the investigation instead of find out the truth.

frameone:Wow. Ok, ... (Below threshold)
Inquiring:

frameone:

Wow. Ok, let's look at your logic. The Fallacy of Shifting the Burden of Proof. Just like O'Donnell you are saying Rove has to prove he did not do what he is being accused of doing even though the accuser has only the thinnest circumstantial evidence to support their accusation.

Here is an example for you, Shifting the Burden of Proof fallacy is what our legal system was set up to avoid. It is the prosecution's job to prove their allegations, not the defendant's job to prove they are, in fact, innocent.

""The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper's sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House.""

"The emails show exactly what O'Donnell said they woudl show: that Rove was a source for Plame's identity as confirmed by two lawyers representing friendly witnesses to the White House. The article also states that Cooper spoke with Rove three or four days before the Novak story ran. Now Rove has previously said that he only spoke about Plame AFTER the Noval column. So what was he talking to Cooper about three or four days before the Novak column?"

Please, point us to exactly how he was a source for Plame's identity.

What was that? Oh, you can't.

The burden of proof is upon O'Donnell, and now yourself, to accurately show Rove is guilty of what you say. You cannot throw out the barest thread of evidence and claim your case is closed and now Rove must prove himself innocent.

Here is what the story tells us. Rove talked to Cooper and was somehow a source. That's it.

How was he a source? That is what you and O'Donnell must now show. You cannot say that just because he was a source that it proves, ipso facto, the accusation you make is true.

He could have simply confirmed that Plame was an analyst for the CIA, without in any way referring to her status as a "secret agent." He could have confirmed that a certain country was in fact being looked at rather closely, without confirming the details as to how or why. He could have just told them there was something going on but he really could not indulge any information.

Unfortunately for you these are all reasonable doubts as to Rove's involvement. Being that in a court of law it would take a jury with a very unreasonable state of mind to convict on such evidence alone it shows this evidence to be absolutely worthless for the prosecutions case.

"So what gives? I don't know. Can you explain it? This situation clearly isn't easily parsed. But since a crime may have been committed and now it looks like someone in the White House may have lied to cover up that crime this investigation deserves some serious attention. Of course by arguing that this is all some left-wing witch hunt driven by a leftist media, Rob would rather attack the investigation instead of find out the truth."

Again, you violate the burden of proof. It is now your job to convince Rob that the full accusations/allegations are valid, not his to prove it is so. He says that it proves nothing and sounds like nothing more than a smear job, then you say he has to prove you are wrong, and until he can your argument built upon thin evidence stands. Sorry, not the way it works.

So, in review. Rove could be an informer on Plame's operative identity, or he could be an informer on a large number of other things that would not reflect badly upon him or the White House. O'Donnell made the accusation that it has to be only bad, you defended O'Donnell's argument, now you both have the fun task of proving it. You cannot go to everyone else and say, "disprove it."

Next, you are again putting words into people's mouths; in this case Rob's. Never once did he go on about "witch-hunt by the leftist media". He said the accusation was unfounded given the evidence, and that it is O'Donnell's job to defend what he said, not Rove's job to now prove O'Donnell wrong. Now, you have not only put those words in his mouth, but then you attack him and again shift the burden of proof to him using that tactic. Not knowing Rob maybe he likes the taste of Straw and Herring, but I doubt it.

Ahem, where I said "He <... (Below threshold)
Inquiring:

Ahem, where I said "He [Rob] says that it proves nothing and sounds like nothing more than a smear job..." I do apologize, Rob has never once claimed it was a smear job, I was just typing a bit slower than my thoughts were racing. For the record I personally do think it does sounds like a smear job, since O'Donnell has shown himself very capable of that sort of behavior before (think back to his behavior over the Swift Boat Vets).

I have no idea what is m... (Below threshold)

I have no idea what is motivating Cooper or Miller to keep silent on who their sources are or what they said.

Exactly. I'll be damned if I can suss out what possible motivation either of them may have to sit on what they know any further. If I were Rove, I'd be sweating, but from the looks of him, he sweats quite a lot as it is.

Journalistic ethics seems like a thin defense here, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

Feh. Judy was more than happy to regurgitate whatever the Army fed her during her tour of Iraq. The oft-quoted first rule of journalism is "if your mother says she loves you, check it out". Judy was okey-doke with inundating us stateside folk with tales of imminently-found WMD and such.

Really, coming clean with what all she knows might just be the last best way to salvage whatever credibility she may have left, as well as avoid some jail time.


One other thing, from viewing the top of the comments once again: S's sneer at O'Donnell "presenting himself as a veritable Karnack", and plaintively calling for his sources -- come on. Hypocritical much?

Must we go once again through the litany of what this administration put forth two-plus years ago as that which was "known" with all but the most absolute certitude, that Rumsfeld had magically divined the "north, south, east, and west" locations of the WMD because he still had the receipts, that what British intelligence supposedly "knew" wasn't worth a steak-and-kidney pie?

Apparently we must. The burden of proof has not shifted, no matter how much some of us might like to construct little virtual voodoo dolls of everyone who dares step forth to criticize the would-be masters of the universe.

Darleen says: Rove signe... (Below threshold)
Carrick Talmadge:

Darleen says: Rove signed a waiver giving the reporters he talked to full permission to discuss whatever HE told 'em.

Got a link or reference for that one? I hadn't heard this.

Thanks!

I have to take a bit of exc... (Below threshold)
Carrick Talmadge:

I have to take a bit of exception to Larry O'Donnell's main argument: Luskin claimed that the prosecutor “asked us not to talk about what Karl has had to say.” This is highly unlikely. Prosecutors have absolutely no control over what witnesses say when they leave the grand jury room.

I take it that Larry has never heard of a gag order? Given the sensitivity of the case, it is almost certainly the case that a gag order has been imposed.

Technically, Larry’s right of course, the prosecutor has no control over what the witness says after leaving the court room: The gag order comes from the judge and not the prosecutor. However, the vast majority of the time, the judge will accept the request of the prosecutor for a gag order, so this really is a specious argument.

In case anyone is interested, the Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that the state can lawfully restrict individuals from discussing their testimony until after the conclusion of the grand jury’s investigation. Thus, in the event of a gag order, O'Donnell is utterly wrong when he claims that "Rove can tell us word-for-word what he said to the grand jury and would if he thought it would help him."

Disclaimer: this is based on a similar comment I made on SayAnythingBlog.com.

If Rove is found to have co... (Below threshold)
Pansy:

If Rove is found to have committed treason, he should suffer the consequences. At dawn, preferably. Anyone who would argue otherwise should have there loyalties examined.

Carrick, There is ... (Below threshold)
john t:

Carrick,
There is no judge in this investigation.

Actually there is a judge t... (Below threshold)
chad:

Actually there is a judge that oversees the grand jury and in the event of disputes regarding questions of law resolves them. In addition in the case of items such as criminal contempt the order jailing the indivual must be signed by a judge.

Inquiring -- It is... (Below threshold)
frameone:

Inquiring --

It isn't my job to prove anything. It isn't Lawrence O'Donnell's job to prove anything, either. It is, however, the job of Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald to prove something if he brings a charge against someone in the case. What's outrageous is for Rob and others on the Right to suggest that the whole investigation is some kind of partisan witch hunt fanned by the Bush-hating lust of "the leftist-driven media." It should be fairly obvious to everyone that Fitzgerald is following the evidence where it leads him. I'm not trying to convince anyone of Rove's guilt or innocence, only to suggest that Rob's glib dismissal of the Newsweek article as "much ado about nothing" is not only a misreading of what the article states but also to trivialize what is a very serious investigation.

Let's not forget, there is evidence that a serious violation of the law might have ocurred inside the White House. Someone exposed Plame as a covert CIA operative to the press right around the time, it just so happens, that her husband was arguing that the Bush administration was playing fast and loose with some of the evidence it was basing its case for war against Iraq on. It's Fitzgerald's job to figure out who said what when and whether that adds up to a crime. Apparently, it is now the job of every right wing hack to argue that Fitzgerald is doing the bidding of the "leftist media." Since you're so big on rightly placing the burden of proof, where's Rob's evidence that Fitzgerald is a left wing stooge in a witch hunt ginned up to destroy Bush? I'm sure you'll all be forthcoming with that smoking gun.

In the meantime, you don't have to be a lawyer or a journalist to wonder why Fitzgerald has pursued Cooper and Miller with the dogged determination that he has. Clearly he feels he needs to know what they know before he can conclude his investigation. Crucially, Rove initially sayed that he only spoke about Plame after the Novak story. Now, however, his lawyer says that Rove spoke with Cooper three or four days before the Novak story appeared. Of course, Rove and Cooper might possibly have been discussing some utterly vague and nevertheless innocuous subject. And yet it should be plain as day that they weren't. When Newsweek writes -- "The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc. show that one of Cooper's sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove" -- what do you think they mean? To me this suggests that at the very least the subject of their conversation was not about some innocuous third issue or some vague reference to something being afoot. Just to be clear, what Cooper wrote that caused all the fuss was this sentence: "Some government officials have noted to Time in interviews... that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

How obtuse do you have to be to argue, in the face of what Cooper actually wrote, that "the emails show Rove was a source" could possibly mean that Rove and Cooper were discussing various country's under invesitagtion for something or other or some other completely irrelevent subject? Given the actual sentence that dragged Cooper into the investigation it is your hypothetical possibilities that are unreasonable, indeed, delibierately obfuscating, some could argue. That said, whether Rove told Cooper Plame's name and actual job or said "Hey, you should check into Wilson's wife, wink wink nudge nudge." I don't know. But could you tell me the difference if the intent, in any event, was to out Plame to smear Wilson?

But let's be honest, Rove, as O'Donnell suggests, could come right out and tell the world exactly what he told Cooper. He has chosen not to do that, as is his right. As I said in a comment above, that you clearly did not read, Rove is innocent until proven guilty. So to should Fitzgerald and his investigation be given the respect it deserves without hacks like Rob trying to muddy the waters by suggesting that it's all the work of some vast leftist media conspiracy.

John T: Carrick there is... (Below threshold)
Carrick Talmadge:

John T: Carrick there is no judge in this investigation

Chad: Actually there is a judge that oversees the grand jury and in the event of disputes regarding questions of law resolves them. In addition in the case of items such as criminal contempt the order jailing the indivual must be signed by a judge.

I think maybe John T was thinking that there isn't a judge present during ordinary testimony (aka "the investigation"). I think this part is true. A judge is not needed to adjudicate the proceedings of a grand jury, since you cannot have a lawyer present in the courtroom while giving your testimony. I understand that only the prosecutor, the witnesses and the grand jury are normally allowed to be present during testimony.

In addition to what Chad says, the judge is responsible for the written instructions to the jury, I believe also signing (approving) or quashing (rarely this one I think) subpoenas of witnesses, and of course writing gag orders.

frameone moves the goal pos... (Below threshold)
Carrick Talmadge:

frameone moves the goal posts: It isn't my job to prove anything. It isn't Lawrence O'Donnell's job to prove anything, either.

Sorry, it's O'Donnell's responsibility to substantiate the claims he made or to withdrawal them.

framework goes on: . I'm not trying to convince anyone of Rove's guilt or innocence, only to suggest that Rob's glib dismissal of the Newsweek article as "much ado about nothing" is not only a misreading of what the article states but also to trivialize what is a very serious investigation.

Once again you are wrong. Reading "much ado about nothing" into O'Donnell's comments and the greatly anticipated (from the left) Newsweek article is not the same thing as trivializing "a very serious investigation."

You are obviously the one who is obtuse if you really think that the Newsweek article implies in any manner that Rove was a primary source for the Valerie Plame leak. I am willing, under the circumstances, to give his lawyer the benefit of the doubt, because after all it is "a very serious investigation". Eventually, the grand jury investigation will be completed, and we will know the truth of what they are interested in. Till then or until the Times openly reveals their sources (unlikely), then everything else is rumor and speculation.

Both Creepy Larry and you are oth doing everything within your powers to keep the political angle stirred up. To me this demonstrates once again that your words mean nothing. This is now and always was yet another Quixotic "get GWB" pursuit on the part of the left. Please spare us any more of your mock outrage.

I'm curious as to why Rove'... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

I'm curious as to why Rove's name was released and only Rove's name. How many moonbats are willing to point their figers at everyone else on the list of sources as the one who out Plame? I can't wait till the truth comes out, so we can watch the moonbats reverse course on this, either claiming that their fellow lefty that really did this didn't really do anything wrong or come up with the conspiracy theory du jour that explains how Rove did it and somehow tricked some poor lefty into taking the fall for it. Am I the only one here to remember that Rove somehow altered the calendar and tricked the DNC into holding their convention earlier than usual which ended up costing them campaign money in the long run?

Since when is the left conc... (Below threshold)

Since when is the left concerned about treason and the CIA? Most of the time the left is actively committing treason and working to undermine the CIA.

Wow!

I read when this whole thin... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

I read when this whole thing first broke that Plame had probably been a mule while her husband was in the State Department, but that she now has a desk job at CIA headquarters. Did this turn out to be untrue? If it is so, how can you consider someone who works at friggin CIA headquarters to be undercover?

I think you meant mole not ... (Below threshold)
chad:

I think you meant mole not mule :-) Moles are people who burrow into an enemy organization and bring out data. Mules are either very stubborn people or the idiots who swallow 12 pouds of condom wrapped cocaine and then wonder why they are either constipated or dying. :-) So has anyone else ever had their very polite comments not get posted at huffingtonpost.com?

This is what I posted I dont think it was out of line.

There are three issues in this column that need to be addressed. The first is the issue of Rove, Cheney, and Pres. Bush hiing lawyers and it's use as an indication of guilt. Anyone who has had any dealing with the legal system either on the civil side or the criminal side knows that you always have an attorney innocent or not, dealing in good faith or not. This is as much to protect you from the arcane rules as anything else, so I don't see here hiring lawyers is an indication of guilt. The second item is, Was a crime actually committed? As I understand it in order for a crime to have been committed in this case, first Ms. Plames identity must and her status as a covert operative must have been revealed. Now obviously her identity was revealed, but was her status. At the time Ms. Plame was working openly at the CIA in the WMD proliferation section. If Mr. Novak's source merely said well you know Ambadssador Wilson's wife works at the CIA and thats the reason he was selected to go to Africa no crime was comitted because her covert status was not revealed, in fact nothing was revealed other than their relationship and the fact that she was openly working at the CIA. If on the other hand Ms. Plame had been working at the Pakistani Embassy, undercover, as a local civilian employee and that source said, well you know Ambadssador Wilson's wife works for the CIA and thats the reason he was selected to go to Africa, then a crime was committed because her identity and coverty status were revealed. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Finally there is the issue of Rove's ability to clear this up by revealing what he told the Grand Jury. First if he came out tomorrow and said I told the Grand Jury that I talked to Matthew Cooper he asked me about Ambassador Wilson's realtionship to Valerie Plame and I said they were husband and wife a well known fact in Washington DC, would he be believed. Second I believe under the rules of the Grand Jury he cannot reveal his testimony until the Grand Jury is dissolved. A limitation the Supreme Court upheld in BUTTERWORTH v. SMITH, 494 U.S. 624 (1990)494 U.S. 624. If this is the case then Mr. O'Donnell's entire post becomes rather moot. Anyway just some food for thought although I doubt it will be well received.

People on this thread keep ... (Below threshold)

People on this thread keep accusing Rove's defenders of believing that "the whole investigation is some kind of partisan witch hunt fanned by the Bush-hating lust of 'the leftist-driven media'." Who is doing that? Rove's defenders are not impugning the entire investigation, they are criticizing the people outside the investigation who keep insisting that we already know that Rove did it and gloatingly paint a picture of him being frogmarched off to jail.

In fact, we don't know who did it yet, though we should find out soon unless Cooper and Miller want to go to jail. If Rove turns out to be guilty of knowingly blowing a CIA agent's cover for petty partisan advantage, I (like most Republicans) certainly hope he goes to jail, and the same goes for any other person who may have done so, whatever his (or her) position or party. Can everyone on the left honestly say the same?

I wonder how many of those salivating over the possibility of seeing Rove in handcuffs are as angry as I am over the fact that Sandy Berger is not in jail. If they're not angry about that, they're filthy hypocrites and their complaints about a supposed double standard for treason are blatant psychological 'projection'.

Yes, Dr. Weevil, I agree ab... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Yes, Dr. Weevil, I agree about Sandy Berger being questionably absent from jail, but I'd also include Ted Kennedy and John Kerry in that complaint, also, as to their respective misdeeds of incarceration-meriting proportions.

Berger is someone who was able to slip away into obscurity because of, undoubtedly, the Clinton Covering (that's a rhetorical statement) and Kennedy and Kerry undoubtedly due to their financial abilities, all told (buys a lot of influence and helpers along the way, and calls into play a lot of favoritism and exceptions) (meaning, they bypassed being held responsible for their own actions due to social influence, which is a sad statement on them, most of all).


About some other comments here: if fish had wings, they'd be flying us all to the Caribbean.

As in, you can imagine a whole lot of things that can qualify for the "if" factor, about anyone. The issue is that Rove is the target o' the left and never a possibility to impune they will remain unimagined.

If Nancy Pelosi makes another speech, she might strike everyone deaf, dumb and blind. I mean, it could be.

I meant mule, although it m... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

I meant mule, although it may be the wrong term in this context. From what I have read, and I don't remember the details, when she was undercover she was basically a courier. This is not unusual for diplomat's spouses, any foreign espionage agency would have automatically suspected her anyway. This is all much ado about nothing.

- How perfect. First a libe... (Below threshold)

- How perfect. First a liberal media source "discovers" a governmental employee is a CIA operative, via an undisclosed "source" they claim to be in the Bush administration, and now we hear that Rove is behind it all in some manner.... Yeh .... riiiiiggghhhtttt ....

- Problem is what hell would Rove or anyone in the admin have to gain by "outing" a CIA person and at the same time discrediting the whole "yellow cake" thing.... Oh yes.... "Plame and hubby were closet liberals, set about monkey business at the expense of the Bush bunch"...

- Tell you what... If the sources ever see the light of day, and theres no indication that will actually happen as of yet, something like Kerry's form 180 that seems to keep finding more and more laborious paths to non-disclosure, don't be surprised if the "sources" were actually liberals who worked with the Plames....

- Based on the display and extent of liberal MSM bias I've gotten to the point where I expect yet another "Fairy tale" hatchet job several times a week anymore. Every time they jump the shark the Lie`berals just ratchet up another notch....

- But as always, the market place of free ideas weaves its magic, and the leftie group think cadres are seeing their circulation reaching a smaller and smaller audience....

- Maybe they should move-on.dork to the new improved "Triple layer" tin-foil hats.....

first of all O Donnell's so... (Below threshold)
cancon:

first of all O Donnell's source is Joe Wilson who's been rather quiet since he was outed as a liar over the uranium issue by the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Iraqi intelligence that was issued same month as 9-11 Commission report.......

second of all, was I the only way who heard and saw the following:

at the time the "scandal" first reared its head
Robert Novak said and he wrote in his column a few days after the Plame column, reiterating what he said and that was the fact Valerie Plame was a CIA operative was the worst kept secret in Washington, that it was common knowledge amongst much of the Washington based press corp

and I recall seeing at least 2 other Washington columnists backing up what Novak said, thereafter, that it was the worst kept secret in Washington in which case I suspect it was Mr. and Mrs. Wilson who are the source of the leak.........Vanity Fair appearances in Dec 2004, as Wilson's book was being launched, and in July 2005, of the loving couple substantiate that opinion for me....

the information that Plame recommended Wilson on the Niger trip is the juicier part of the scoop but apparently not subject to any legal recupercussions in this instance.....

IMHO




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy