• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Matthew Cooper reports Rove was the one to originally leak Plame's indentity to him

A

Aegeon

Golden Member
Matthew Cooper is going to have an article describing what he said to the Grand Jury according in a story in this week's edition of Time magazine. Here's some of the key things he's going to say according according to the New York Times (it looks like plenty of other news sources are basicly now reporting about the same thing.)

Matthew Cooper, a reporter for Time magazine, said the White House senior adviser Karl Rove was the first person to tell him that the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV was a C.I.A. officer, according to a first-person account in this week's issue of the magazine...

The article, a description of Mr. Cooper's testimony last Wednesday to a federal grand jury trying to determine whether White House officials illegally disclosed the identity of a covert intelligence officer, offered the most detailed account yet of how a White House official purportedly did not merely confirm what a journalist knew but supplied that information.

Mr. Cooper said in his article that Mr. Rove did not mention the name of Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Wilson, or say that she was a covert officer. But, he wrote: "Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the C.I.A. and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the 'agency' on 'W.M.D.'? Yes.

"Is any of this a crime? Beats me."...

Mr. Cooper also wrote that he told the grand jury he was certain Mr. Rove never mentioned Ms. Wilson by name, and that he did not learn of her identity until several days later, when he either read it in a column by the syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who referred to her by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, or found it through a Google search.

"Rove did, however, clearly indicate that she worked at the 'agency' - by that, I told the grand jury, I inferred he obviously meant the C.I.A. and not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency. Rove added that that she worked on W.M.D. (the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction) issues and that she was responsible for sending Wilson. This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson's wife."...

In his article, Mr. Cooper also shared a memory that was not in his notes or e-mail messages: Mr. Rove's ending the phone call by saying, "I've already said too much."

"This could have meant he was worried about being indiscreet, or it could have meant he was late for a meeting or something else," he wrote. "I don't know, but that sign-off has been in my memory for two years."
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/polit...62ec&hp&ex=1121659200&partner=homepage

Just to get this question out of the way, Cooper would not lie in the article about what he said to the grand jury unless he wanted both himself and Time sucessfully sued by Rove for libel. Now while it is possible Cooper risked perjury by lying in his grand jury testimony, I have to ask what his motive for doing so would be. If he simply intended to hurt Rove and the Bush administration politically by making things up, why would he wait untill AFTER the presidential election and risk being held in contempt of court in the meantime?

It definately looks to me like Rove was the initial person to leak that Plame worked for the CIA to at least one reporter. I'd say there defianately is at least some meat on this story at this point. At this point, you've got the question of regardless of whether Rove actually broke the law, did he deliberately mislead the American public and the Bush adminstration itself about his involvement in the Plame leak in his previous statements before this recent set of news broke? Some of Rove's prior statements about his lack of involvement with this matter do not seem to have been accurate.
 
It also appear there is a serious problem with any claims Rove first heard about Plame from Novak.

Part of the Republican defense, as expressed by Mehlman on NBC, is that Rove did not know Plame's name or that she was a covert operative. Mehlman cited a New York Times report that, in his words, "says Karl Rove was not Bob Novak's source, that Novak told Rove, not the other way around. . . . This information at least came to Mr. Rove from journalists, not from a classified source."

But the article said that when syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, who was the first to report Plame's name and CIA job in July 2003, mentioned her, Rove replied he had "heard that too," indicating Rove had obtained the information elsewhere.
Click to expand...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...rticle/2005/07/17/AR2005071700755.html

If this is Rove's defense, he's going to have trouble explaining away his comment suggesting prior knowledge of Plame's indentity. At best he can admit to intentionally deceiving Novak in his conversation, and generally its not very helpful to talk about how you have lied to people in the past when trying to convince a grand jury of the accuracy of your testimony. If Novak claims he heard this from another reporter, the obvious questions are when and who told him.
 
Originally posted by: Aegeon
It also appear there is a serious problem with any claims Rove first heard about Plame from Novak.

Part of the Republican defense, as expressed by Mehlman on NBC, is that Rove did not know Plame's name
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You mean you don't know the name of the ambassador's wife you go to church with?
 
Originally posted by: BDawg
Originally posted by: Aegeon
It also appear there is a serious problem with any claims Rove first heard about Plame from Novak.

Part of the Republican defense, as expressed by Mehlman on NBC, is that Rove did not know Plame's name
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You mean you don't know the name of the ambassador's wife you go to church with?
Click to expand...

Can Republicans read? If they can they should know that names need not be used., only identifying information.

That the Republican Party would actually trot out this rubbish as a defense is indicative of their contempt for the American people.

They really believe you people are a bunch of morons.

So far, America, you're proving them right.
 
Originally posted by: irwincur
Even if he did explicitely give out her name, it is not illegal. READ THE F'ING LAW.
Click to expand...
I suggest you do the same.



BTW,


Subtle shift: Bush appears to narrow criteria for firing
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8605680

Bush qualifies firing vow over CIA exposure
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArtic...77_RTRIDST_0_USREPORT-BUSH-LEAK-DC.XML

A Sidestep and a Backtrack
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...t/blog/2005/07/18/BL2005071800863.html



:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: irwincur
Even if he did explicitely give out her name, it is not illegal. READ THE F'ING LAW.
Click to expand...
I suggest you do the same.



BTW,


Subtle shift: Bush appears to narrow criteria for firing
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8605680

Bush qualifies firing vow over CIA exposure
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArtic...77_RTRIDST_0_USREPORT-BUSH-LEAK-DC.XML

A Sidestep and a Backtrack
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...t/blog/2005/07/18/BL2005071800863.html



:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Click to expand...

Feb 11, 2004


"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.


😛 😛 😛 😛 😛

Here is how the match-up will end:

Howard Dean----0
Karl Rove ----1


 
Originally posted by: Ozoned



"If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is," Bush told reporters at an impromptu news conference during a fund-raising stop in Chicago, Illinois. "If the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of.
Click to expand...

And true to his word, Bush is "taking care" of his girlfriend Turd Blossom.

We're so fortunate to be ruled by an administration full of such accomplished liars.

:roll:
 
I suggest you Bushies try some different lies. The latest crop definitely aren't working.

Poll: Many Doubt White House Cooperation in CIA Leak Probe

Most Say Rove Should Lose Job if He Leaked Classified Information
Analysis by GARY LANGER

ABC NEWS

July 18, 2005 ? Just a quarter of Americans think the White House is fully cooperating in the federal investigation of the leak of a CIA operative's identity, a number that's declined sharply since the investigation began. And three-quarters say that if presidential adviser Karl Rove was responsible for leaking classified information, it should cost him his job.

Skepticism about the administration's cooperation has jumped. As the initial investigation began in September 2003, nearly half the public, 47 percent, believed the White House was fully cooperating. That fell to 39 percent a few weeks later, and it's lower still, 25 percent, in this new ABC News poll.

This view is highly partisan; barely over a tenth of Democrats and just a quarter of independents think the White House is fully cooperating. That grows to 47 percent of Republicans ? much higher, but still under half in the president's own party. And doubt about the administration's cooperation has grown as much among Republicans ? by 22 points since September 2003 ? as it has among others.

There's less division on consequences: 75 percent say Rove should lose his job if the investigation finds he leaked classified information. That includes sizable majorities of Republicans, independents and Democrats alike ? 71, 74 and 83 percent, respectively.

At the same time, in September 2003 more Americans ? 91 percent ? said someone who leaked classified information should be fired. The question at that time did not identify Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff and one of George W. Bush's closest advisers, as the possible source of the information.

Should Karl Rove Be Fired If He Leaked Classified Information?

All: Yes 75% No 15%
Republicans: Yes 71 No 17
Independents: Yes 74 No 17
Democrats: Yes 83 No 12

A Time magazine reporter, Matthew Cooper, said this weekend that Rove told him that the wife of a former ambassador was a CIA officer, without giving her name. Cooper testified last week before the grand jury investigating the matter, saying his source had released him to do so.

Bush today appeared to raise the bar on a dismissable offense, saying he'd fire anyone who committed a crime. Previously the administration said anyone who'd disclosed the CIA agent's identify would be removed, without specifying a criminal act.

Miller

This poll finds majority support for another reporter, Judith Miller of The New York Times, who's gone to jail rather than disclose her confidential source in the case. Sixty percent say she's done the right thing, ranging from 49 percent of Republicans to about two-thirds of Democrats and independents.

That view comports with an ABC News/Washington Post poll in May that found majority support for the use of confidential sources by news reporters ? 53 percent in general, rising to 65 percent if it's the only way to get an important story.

Serious

The leak investigation is seen as a meaningful issue: About three-quarters call it a serious matter, and just over four in 10 see it as "very" serious. These are down slightly, however, by five and six points respectively, from their level in September 2003.

Fifty-three percent are following the issue closely ? a fairly broad level of attention. Those paying close attention (who include about as many Republicans as Democrats) are more likely than others to call it very serious, to say the White House is not cooperating, to say Rove should be fired if he leaked, and to say Miller is doing the right thing.

Methodology

This ABC News poll was conducted by telephone July 13-17, 2005, among a random national sample of 1,008 adults. The results have a three-point error margin. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by ICR-International Communications Research of Media, Pa.
Click to expand...

Click here for PDF version with full questionnaire and results.

 
The Republicans have a big, big problem. For the first time in what seems like forever, their lies and spin have no effect on a situation. Fitzgerald could give a rat's ass about their spin and doesn't even pay attention to it. For the first time in a long time, their fate is out of the hands of their own personal enablers.
 
The Denver Post (who endorsed Bush for President in the 2004 election) had an insightful editorial on this issue today.

In June 2004, during the heat of his re-election battle, President Bush said if anyone in his administration had leaked information outing a CIA operative, they'd be history.

But Monday, Bush began to waffle as Democrats zeroed in on his top adviser, Karl Rove, as well as the top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney. "If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration," he said.

That's a far cry from September 2003, when spokesman Scott McClellan said plainly, "If anyone in this administration was involved in \[the leak\], they would no longer be in this administration." By qualifying the accountability, Bush is not only backtracking, he's begun to parse words in a legal trick worthy of his predecessor.

What is next? It depends on what your definition of "is" is...

The administration until now has gone out of its way to say that Rove was not involved. In the fall of 2003, McClellan said of Rove and Libby, "I spoke with those individuals ... and those individuals assured me they were not involved in this."

Given Bush's comments Monday, it sounds as if the administration in 2003 and 2004 was more interested in deflecting controversy than demanding accountability. Rove and Libby should come forward and explain their roles, and the president should stand by his determination to fire anyone who leaked Plame's identity - regardless of their political prominence.
Click to expand...
http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_2869063
 
But Bush is going to "restore confidence in Washington and the White House".... If that's what he has done, I will take the opposite any day.
 
Like in the other thread... I will reserve judgement until someone here can please tell me exactly which law(s) Rove actually broke. If he was even the real leaker - as news today suggests he was not.

I also want to know from the lefties why the NYT is letting their other reporter hang out in jail when 'the source' has been outed. Is it possible that there may be a more damaging 'source' that the left, and the NYT editors really need to protect?
 
It would have been nice if you righties had been as careful when judging Iraq. Perhaps you should have waited until inspections were complete before declaring Saddam's WMD a threat to the world. It would have saved you the embarassment of being proved "all wrong" again. Instead, your attack rat Rove was breeching national security seriously enough for the CIA to request an investigation and for judges on the case to refer to the seriousness of the breech when ruling on the case going forward.

You people have a huge problem and it isn't going away. Three years is far from "Instant Karma" but it's finally coming around and there is nothing you can do to avoid it this time.




 
Here is an email I sent to my family. Based on testimony given by the same media pundits that say Karl Rove is a criminal said that he committed no crime nor did he "out" Valerie Plame. Too bad they don't trust their readers with this information.


First, I really hate those that say, "he didn't divulge her name but only that she was the wife of Joseph Wilson." That *IS* identifying someone if Joseph Wilson was known and is BS to say otherwise. Well, unless individuals in police line ups are identified only when the identifier uses the person's name.

From conservative talk show hosts we learn that prior to this conversation Joseph Wilson himself outted his wife in a column written by David Corn. I have never heard all the details of this so it has been glossed over leaving me to wonder if a crime was or was not comitted.

Now I have read through this.http://www.bakerlaw.com/files/tbl_s10Ne...9/Amici%20Brief%20032305%20(Final).PDF

It turns out that the media groups listed in alphabetical order from pages v through xix (5 through 19, which is a lot of pages) say to the courts something completely different than what they say in their columns. Specifically on page ii they say, "In this case, there exists ample evidence on the public record to cast serious doubt as to whether a crime has even been comitted under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act..."

On page 4 they say, "But the cirumstances necessary to prove that crime seem not to be present here, and they should be carefully examined before contempt sanctions are upheld." Specifically, they are saying since no crime appears to have been committed those in the media who have divluged her name should not be held in contempt. They could be held in contempt of court IF a crime has been committed and once knowing a crime had been committed by their source they refuse to divluge their source. At least that is my understanding.

On page 7 it is stated that Valerie was NOT a "deep cover" operative and that she had been residing in Washington - not stationed abroad for a number of years.

On page 10 it states that Joseph Wilson wrote an Op-Ed piece fo rthe NY Times where he criticized the administration and detailed his mission and findings and apparently mentioned his wife. Novak contacted the CIA to verify Plame worked for the CIA and the CIA verified her employment. They failed to give him a "serious" request not to publish her name.

A Washington Times http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040722-115439-4033r.htm article states, "Mrs. Plame's identity as an undercover CIA officer was first disclosed to Russia in the mid-1990s by a Moscow spy, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity." It further states, "In a second compromise, officials said a more recent inadvertent disclosure resulted in references to Mrs. Plame in confidential documents sent by the CIA to the U.S. Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy in Havana."

So, it seems that Karl is guilty of the dreaded sin of not being a Fascist, Communist, or Marxist. That is he is a conservative and not a liberal, or progressive, or whatever they call themselves this minute.
 
Spin, attack and spin from the right. The same idiots who launched investigations everytime some trailor trash said they knew Bill Clinton. Crime doesn't pay guys, especailly national securty breaches duting a time of war And no Supreme Court nomintion is going to cover this one up.
 
It would have been nice if you righties had been as careful when judging Iraq. Perhaps you should have waited until inspections were complete before declaring Saddam's WMD a threat to the world. It would have saved you the embarassment of being proved "all wrong" again. Instead, your attack rat Rove was breeching national security seriously enough for the CIA to request an investigation and for judges on the case to refer to the seriousness of the breech when ruling on the case going forward.
Click to expand...

Nice way to avoid the question when you have been OUT MATCHED.

1. When defeated, bring up Iraq. No matter har far off topic it is.

2. When defeated. spew the same crap you just did, even though you jsut got smacked down with it.

3. Never actually answer a question. Just blather on... and on... and on...


There WAS NO BREACH. Furthermore, Rove could not have outed here, he never mentioned her name. I know that the left lacks common sense, but how can you really OUT someone if you never mention their name.

Technically that is impossible.

Lets not bother with the fact that she was already outed to the USSR years earlier by a Russian spy as well as outed to Castro BY HER VERY OWN SUPERIORS... Lets also ignore that she was not undercover within the last five years, the last time she was undercover was seven years ago. The law is clear here.

Crime doesn't pay guys, especailly national securty breaches duting a time of war And no Supreme Court nomintion is going to cover this one up.
Click to expand...

Sandey Berger anyone... At least Rove was not stuffing top secret documents down his pants and into his socks.

What ever happened with this one. Oh, I know, the press avoided it, lest it harm Clintons reputation.
 
Originally posted by: irwincur
Like in the other thread... I will reserve judgement until someone here can please tell me exactly which law(s) Rove actually broke. If he was even the real leaker - as news today suggests he was not.

I also want to know from the lefties why the NYT is letting their other reporter hang out in jail when 'the source' has been outed. Is it possible that there may be a more damaging 'source' that the left, and the NYT editors really need to protect?
Click to expand...

Ok, two things here.

First, I find it really, REALLY funny (like drooling on my shirt funny) that the right is always the side of black and white, good and evil, etc, etc and shows an almost rabid dislike for people who do something wrong, but somehow manage to avoid getting in trouble through legal technicalities or smooth talking. Now that Rove is potentially in trouble, you have the right searching for nuance and technicalities like there is no tomorrow. Reading righty blogs has been especially entertaining. They took their big beating stick to reporters for daring to reveal classified information (laws protecting them be damned), yet when Rove is in trouble, suddenly they are all about nuance and legal hair-splitting.

Secondly, I find it very difficult to believe that there is legal wiggle room here. Plame was in a cover position that was revealed. That cover position is protected for a lot longer than it has been since she was under cover, mostly because it could harm her contacts, reveal what data the CIA might have gathered, and many other things. The idea that revealing it is no big deal is flat out wrong, and I have a hard time thinking the law somehow allows for this. There is also this idea that since she had supposedly been revealed before, the information was suddenly unclassified. That is not the case, because sources differ, and finding classified information from several people is more trustworthy than simply having it from one person. Also, there are degrees of "revealed". Certainly FAR more people found out about Plame's identity after the article than before it.

More than any of that, it comes down to the basic idea that revealing classified information is wrong. I am positive that 100% of the people splitting hairs over this issue have made pretty black and white statements about this issue in the past. And lest we forget, Bush made a promise to get rid of the person who did it, above and beyond any other consequences.
 
Originally posted by: irwincur
Furthermore, Rove could not have outed here, he never mentioned her name. I know that the left lacks common sense, but how can you really OUT someone if you never mention their name.

Technically that is impossible.
Click to expand...
The President of the United States is a closet homosexual.
The owner of the 7-11 on Main & Broadway is a narc.
My wife's 22-year-old sister is having an affair with my 37-year-old brother.
My 7th grade home room teacher had lopsided boobs.
My older brother's daughter just learned to drive.

See any names in there?



 
Originally posted by: BBond
It would have been nice if you righties had been as careful when judging Iraq. Perhaps you should have waited until inspections were complete before declaring Saddam's WMD a threat to the world. It would have saved you the embarassment of being proved "all wrong" again.
Click to expand...


Problem with the bolded words is that the inspections were never going to be able to be completed.

With shell games and procrastination, you never get to the end result.

However, there is a problem with rewarding loyalty that is designed to break and/or circumvent the law. Provent intention to circumvent restrictions should be treated equally in this case as the actual criminal intent.

May not be convictable, but innocent until proven guilty does not apply to employment in the political arena.
 
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: irwincur
Furthermore, Rove could not have outed here, he never mentioned her name. I know that the left lacks common sense, but how can you really OUT someone if you never mention their name.

Technically that is impossible.
Click to expand...
The President of the United States is a closet homosexual.
The owner of the 7-11 on Main & Broadway is a narc.
My wife's 22-year-old sister is having an affair with my 37-year-old brother.
My 7th grade home room teacher had lopsided boobs.
My older brother's daughter just learned to drive.

See any names in there?
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I was talking about. irwincur would have been foaming at the mouth over a lefty offering such a silly defense as that, and he'd have been right. Now that it's Rove he's defending, "technically" is no longer a dirty word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top