July 02, 2005
It may not be bigger news than O'Connor, but it's certainly better:
I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.
Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow.
That's Lawrence O'Donnell talking, and he's plugged in enough to break something like this. I wish it wasn't coming over 4th of July weekend and right on the heels of a Supreme Court vacancy, but what can you do? Moreover, if the timing is bad for us, it's worse for Rove. Having a story about his vindictive deshrouding of a CIA agent hit at a time when all news organizations will still introduce him as, "Karl Rove, who was just in the news for questioning Democrats' on their behavior in the War on Terror" is probably not his optimal scenario. And getting tried for perjury, the same "crime" that, when applied to mere adultery got Clinton impeached, will prove particularly hard to worm out of:
As the Wapo article suggests, the investigation has moved from one involving the identity of the White House official to one involving perjury - i.e., a cover-up. The source may have been questioned in front of the grand jury and lied.
Knowing the identity of the source is not enough for a perjury conviction. There must be two witnesses to the perjurious statement. Telephone records would not be enough, because they only provide the number dialed, not the identity of the person speaking. Matthew Cooper's and Judith Miller's e-mails and notes may provide that corroboration.
Man, all these fireworks and it's only July 2nd. Gonna be an interesting Summer...
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Rove Knows...:
Tracked on Jul 3, 2005 8:13:31 AM
» It wasn't Karl from Mark in Mexico
The New York Post Online Edition reports this morning that the Plame case special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, assured Karl Rove' lawyer in October, 2003 and then again just last week that Rove is not a target of his investigation. [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 3, 2005 10:25:50 AM
» Karl Rove and Patrick Fitzgerald, from Mark in Mexico
Ok folks, let's see if we can get some things straight about this Valerie Plame - Joseph Wilson - Matthew Cooper - Judith Miller - Karl Rove - U. S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald - Robert Novak - Scooter Libby - Federal District Court Judge Thomas F. H... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 5, 2005 4:10:31 AM
Is it possible tht Mr. Rove was given his official White House position in order to allow him to claim executive privilege and refuse to testify before Congress on Plame? Is it possible that this is part of a cover-up involving someone above Mr. Rove?
Posted by: michael reynolds | Jul 2, 2005 9:13:35 PM
I am ashamed for those people who apologize for Clinton's lies. That boy lied in a federal court under oath while he was the President, the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. He even paid a 90K fine for it. There really is no excuse good enough.
If Karl Rove is guilty, then he will hang....as should anyone. However, as with Clinton, I will reserve judgment, giving him the benefit of the doubt, until all the facts come out.
You are correct in that it will be an interesting summer.
Posted by: Robert Zimmerman | Jul 2, 2005 9:41:30 PM
Back Story on Rove
I read a cool article on MSNBC Newsweek that details some of the back story to the White House leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Here is a list of the most pertinent details:
1) The Time reporter Mathew Cooper aswell as an NY Times journalist is refusing to testify inspite of the decision to hand over the documents pertaining to the investigation by Time Inc. editor in chief Norman Pearlstine. They potentially face a jail sentence.
2) The ascribed motivation for the leak, which I didn't fully grasp beforehand, was to undermine the credibility of Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger. Plame was based there, and it was implied that her nepotism lead to Wilson's employ, and in turn, damages the validity of his findings. His findings were that there was no evidence to support the assertion that Iraq purchased enriched Uranium from Niger.
3) It seems that Bob Novak has made some kind of deal with Special Council Fitzgerald, as he is not being aggressively held to account like the Time and NY TImes reporters are. This is very strange.
4) Mathew Cooper has divulged that one of his sources was a top aide to Dick Cheney. He provided this information when said aide gave him permission to do so.
5) Rove's interaction with Cooper took place almost a week before the Novak article outed Plame.
6) Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin has made two interesting statements about what Rove did not say to Cooper in his coversation. Rove "never knowingly disclosed classified information" and "he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA," according to the Newsweek article. The first statement implies that Rove did pass on classfied information, but just wasn't aware that he was doing so. The second implies that Rove DID discuss Valerie Plame with Cooper but simply didn't make reference to the fact that she was a CIA operative.
My assessment of this would be that Rove told Cooper that Valerie Plame worked in Niger and got Wilson, her husband, the job there. This is a pretty wild estimation, but I feel pretty confident this is the case.
7) According the Newsweek, a couple of days after Novak's column was published, Rove called Chris Mathews and told him that Wilson's wife was "fair game." OUCH!!!
The problem is that the story is complicated, the stakes are difficult to condense into a soundbite, and the extent to which the story will become a topic of conversation amongst the general public is difficult to assess. A lot of evidence is leading towards serious misconduct by the White House senior political advisor. I don't understand why this isn't a bigger story. It's obviously because most news organisations are treading very carefully because of the severity of the implications.
Posted by: Graham Christopher | Jul 4, 2005 1:58:34 AM
What's with the scare quotes? Perjury most certainly is a crime.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Jul 4, 2005 7:06:31 AM
Posted by: peter.w | Sep 17, 2007 3:33:50 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.