Reply With Quote
Whoops.
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/..._id=1000972839
MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Do ents Reveal Karl Rove as Source in Plame Case
By E&P Staff
Published: July 01, 2005 11:30 PM ET
NEW YORK Now that Time Inc. has turned over do ents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Tonight, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.
Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's remarks:
"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury, the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.
"And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this do ent dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."
Other panelists then joined in discussing whether, if true, this would suggest a perjury rap for Rove, if he told the grand jury he did not leak to Cooper.
Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller, held in contempt for refusing to name sources, tried Friday to stay out of jail by arguing for home detention instead after Time Inc. surrendered its reporter's notes to a prosecutor.
Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said Friday that several unidentified Senate Republicans had placed a hold on a proposed resolution declaring support for Miller and Cooper.
``Cowards!'' Lautenberg said of the Republicans. ``Under the rules, they have a right to refuse to reveal who they are. Sound familiar?''
Lautenberg's resolution is co-sponsored by Sens. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) It says no purpose is served by imprisoning Miller and Cooper and that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press.
Whoops.
I'm shocked!
Republicans like to throw what people said back in their faces, so lets see what W said about the Plame investigation just a couple of short years ago...
American BlogspotFrom WhiteHouse.gov
Q Mr. President, on another issue, the CIA leak-gate. What is your confidence level in the results of the DOJ investigation about any of your staffers not being found guilty or being found guilty? And what do you say to critics of the administration who say that this administration retaliates against naysayers?
PRESIDENT BUSH: First of all, I'm glad you brought that question up. This is a very serious matter, and our administration takes it seriously. As members of the press corps here know, I have, at times, complained about leaks of security information, whether the leaks be in the legislative branch or in the executive branch. And I take those leaks very seriously.
And, therefore, we will cooperate fully with the Justice Department. I've got all the confidence in the world the Justice Department will do a good, thorough job. And that's exactly what I want them to do, is a good, thorough job. I'd like to know who leaked, and if anybody has got any information inside our government or outside our government who leaked, you ought to take it to the Justice Department so we can find out the leaker.
I have told my staff, I want full cooperation with the Justice Department. And when they ask for information, we expect the information to be delivered on a timely basis. I expect it to be delivered on a timely basis. I want there to be full participation, because, April, I am most interested in finding out the truth.
And, you know, there's a lot of leaking in Washington, D.C. It's a town famous for it. And if this helps stop leaks of -- this investigation in finding the truth, it will not only hold someone to account who should not have leaked -- and this is a serious charge, by the way. We're talking about a criminal action, but also hopefully will help set a clear signal we expect other leaks to stop, as well. And so I look forward to finding the truth.
I wonder how eager W is to finding out the truth now? I'm wondering why Rove was appointed Deputy Chief of Staff in the White House after the last election. If the prosecution goes any further and there is an effort to seek Rove's papers, will Bush invoke executive privilege? I assume that it would be easier to invoke executive privilege over the papers of someone who is an official part of the government. Before his recent appointment, Rove was just a private political campaign advisor. Now that he's been officially brought into the government, Bush may seek to make all of his papers unreachable. This act of bringing Rove into the government and giving him an administrative position might tend to show knowledge on Bush's part of Rove as the leaker.
Rove's lawyer denies that his client leaked Plames name to Cooper...
Seattle TimesLawyer says Rove talked to reporter, did not leak name
By Carol D. Leonnig
The Washington Post
WASHINGTON — Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, spoke with Time magazine's Matthew Cooper during a critical week in July 2003 when Cooper was reporting on a public critic of the Bush administration who was also the husband of a CIA operative, his lawyer confirmed today.
Rove is identified in Cooper's notes from that time period, which Time turned over Friday to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald — under court order. Fitzgerald is investigating whether senior administration officials leaked CIA operative Valerie Plame's name to reporters in July 2003 as retaliation after her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly accused the Bush administration of twisting intelligence to justify a war with Iraq.
Rove's lawyer said Rove never identified Plame to Cooper in those conversations. More significantly, Robert Luskin said, Fitzgerald assured him in October and again last week that Rove is not a target of his investigation.
"Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn't disclose Valerie Plame's iden y to Mr. Cooper or anybody else," Luskin said. Luskin said the question remains unanswered: "Who outed this woman? ... It wasn't Karl."
<</SNIP>>
Well, what else should we expect from the lawyer of the biggest premaddona in recent American political history, right?
Rove's day will come...
The Mark of Rove...a brief background of some of the political tricks of the schister...
Marci Palley<snip>
The “Mark of Rove” refers to Machiavellian maneuvers that leave no trace of their origin. In other words, Rove's involvement is but rumored. “The New Yorker” had a nice way of putting it: “Rove has an ominpresent quality.” During his first gubernatorial campaign in Texas, Rove announced that someone had bugged his office, and who but the opposition would benefit from that? Others in Texas politics thought Rove had planted the bug himself. Nothing was proved, and the Republicans won. In 1994, W Bush was campaigning for governor against the in bent Ann Richards. A whisper campaign had it that Richard had employed a lesbian, and perhaps was one herself. Bush said nothing. A local campaign chairman who had worked with Rove whispered the rumors to the press. A scandal erupted and Bush, who had neither run for nor held any public office, won the governorship.
However these leaks and whispers began, Democrats have not been alone in suffering them. In the 2000 presidential primary race against Republican Senator John McCain, rumors surfaced that turned McCain's advantage as a Vietnam war hero into a liability. It was alleged that McCain was mentally unstable because of his wartime experience. Perhaps he had an illegitimate black child; perhaps his wife is a drug addict. Several political reporters and local politicians held Rove responsible for the smear tactics. Nothing was proved. In public, Bush campaigned as a “uniter,” and not only won but was perceived by voters has having run the kinder campaign. In 2003, Rove was credited with having unseated the most powerful man in the Senate, Majority Leader Trent Lott (Republican), by engineering a scandal about racist remarks that Lott had made. It is rumored Rove he did so because Lott challenged G.H.W.'s tax plan in 1990, a betrayal that was sin enough for the Bush family, and for the loyal Rove. When “USA Today” called Rove the 101st senator, ABC News said, “as if senators have as much power as Karl!”
Funny how time has a way of catching up with people.
The wheel turns. Sometimes slowly, but those on top always wind up on the bottom, a position that should be familiar to Rove, since he's been feeding there forever.
So basically they're saying the source of that "Iraq looking to buy uranium for nuclear weapons" was Rove, who is in the Bush administration, the very people looking for evidence to start the war. Time for another distraction.
Time for another invasion.
It'll be interesting to see if anything comes of this.
Man that damn liberal media sure is all over this story!!
A GOP congress is only interested in perjury if a Demo President is gettin' some, not if intel operatives are being endangered for political revenge.
Ted Rall is all over this on his website.
I think the liberal news media is checking this twice so they don't get "rathered".
Okay, first of all, that's like saying "a [stupid] cartoonist" is all over this on his website.
I think the "liberal" media knows there's nothing to it...
Ted Rall is much more than a cartoonist and I think even your conservative blindness can see that.
Nothing to it? I hope you are right but if Rove is guilty of this than it is much more serious than betting a blow job in the Oval Office don't you think?
Despite the Time-Warner Corp's cave on the first ammendment, Fed prosecutor Fitzgerald is going after Cooper. So much for 'getting at the do ents.'
[/quote]July 5, 2005
Prosecutor Demands Time Reporter Testimony
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 1:12 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal prosecutor on Tuesday demanded the grand jury testimony of Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, even though Time Inc. has surrendered e-mails and other do ents to the investigation.
Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald also opposed the request of Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller to be granted home detention -- instead of jail -- for refusing to reveal their sources.
Fitzgerald said allowing them home confinement would make it easier for them to continue to defy the court order.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press
I agree with this judge: it's time to make someone pay for this crime. And a crime it was, make no mistake.
Let's start with Liver Lips. Oh, right, he owns this administration, so he's protected from oh yeah, the law.
Bush is going down faster than Monica went down on Bill.
You're right, he's a traitorous, idiotic, cartoonist.
No one's convinced a crime occurred. There's a lot of ambiguity surrounding Ms. Plame's status with the CIA. She was, according to Washington media, known to work for the CIA. And, if she had a dual role in that agency, it would have to be revealed that her iden y was leaked as "secret" agent and not just some CIA employee at Langley...which, by the way, is was is being asserted. Her secret agent days (if they ever truly existed) were long over before she was "outed" as a desk jockey employee.
It's not like she had infiltrated the upper echelon of al Qaeda and had her name and picture splashed across the media while getting boned by bin Laden, was it?
From what I've heard these reporters are derranged. This isn't a first ammendment issue and should not be confused for one for one second.
Where the is deepthroat??
These two reporters are complicit in the commission of a felony that damn near borders on treason. They aren't doing anything patriotic or moral by refusing to testify. What they are doing is trying to save their asses from real jail time.
They should be tried for the same felony that rove will face.
Rumor has it this is the beginning of Rove Gate?
Rumor going around Congressional Democrats is that Rove is soon to be indicted...
Dissident VoiceOccasionally I get emails from Washington folks who work on the Hill claiming to possess juicy insider digs on our public servants and their corporate paymasters. I usually delete said emails, as I don't want to be responsible for propagating dirty rumors or false information that can't be corroborated. I'd rather let Judith Miller and the New York Times do that. Nonetheless, in the past 24 hours I have been contacted by three separate congressional Democrats in Washington, by email and later phone, who all say the same thing: Karl Rove is about to be indicted.
More on the possible uncoming Rove indictment...
Dissident VoiceSources also all say that this indictment is likely to come down either late this week or early next week. Of course Rove's lawyer denies that his client ever “knowingly” handed over classified information to the media, or is the “target” of any investigation. Perhaps Rove “unknowingly” leaked the information, and he's the “subject” rather than a “target” of an investigation. Time will tell.
Apparently, I'm not the only one who has been leaked this information either. Over at Redstate, a right-wing Internet blog, one member who calls himself “Ohsure”, also claims that “ Great sources confirmed” the matter, and later added: “I not only don't do this, I have never done this. But here it is; ‘Karl Rove will be indicted late this, or early next week.’ I'm trusting a source. So either I am made a into an overzealous horses a**, or..., I have good sources and may be more trusted to get these things right.”
Some sources are saying that Rove may not be the only WH Senior Official who is under investigation by Fitzgerald and the alleged conspiracy could extend to include false information fed by the Bush junta to 'friendly' news sources in order to prop up its war in Iraq...
Wayne MadsenWhite House Rovegate conspiracy likely to grow to include other senior White House officials
More on Rovegate: According to Washington insiders, Karl Rove is not the only "person of interest" being investigated by a Federal special prosecutor and the FBI for leaking the name of covert CIA agent to the media. In addition to the leak, itself a crime, prosecutors are looking at criminal conspiracy involving a non-White House "pass through" that leaked the classified information on Valerie Plame and Brewster Jennings Associates to Robert Novak. Although Novak's now infamous column appeared on July 14, 2003, the focus is on a phone call or calls made by Rove to a non-White House player on July 6, 2003, the same day Ambassador Joseph Wilson's OP-ED on the bogus Niger intelligence appeared in The New York Times. It is also known that the White House knew at the time of Bush's departure that the "16 words" on Africa, Iraq, and uranium used in the State of the Union were false. Ari Fleischer said, a few hours after Rove made his first phone call, "we've said this repeatedly -- that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect." However, the trashing of Wilson and continued exposures of his wife continued even after this information was known to the White House.
July 6 was the same day that President Bush departed Washington for Africa -- and it is also known that the prosecutor subpoenaed phone records from Air Force One from July 6 to July 30 -- but the focus is on July 6 -- the evening Air Force One departed Andrews Air Force Base for Senegal (EDT) (the aircraft arrived in Senegal on July 7) and the day Rove called the White House "pass through," said to be one of the journalists subpoenaed by the Grand Jury. Rove's lawyer is now claiming that Rove did not "knowingly" disclose the name of a CIA agent. Rove's claim is incredulous considering the fact that it is doubtful Rove would have cared about Plame's iden y and then sought to spread it throughout the media, if she worked for the Bureau of Land Management or the Comptroller of the Currency.
New information: There is word that Karl Rove met with FBI agents who are part of the Fitzgerald probe 6 months ago and was given a "clean pass." However, this meeting may have been a sign that Rove was nervous and sought to gauge the prosecutor's case, if any, against him. Any prosecutor would have jumped at the chance to have a target like Rove get nervous and talk to them voluntarily, especially if he contradicted his previous Grand Jury testimony.
There are also growing su ions that Rove coordinated the exposure of Plame and her network through an en y called the White House Iraq Group -- an en y created to manage the propaganda for the war. Its members included Rove, Cheney's assistant Mary Matalin, White House communications assistants Karen Hughes and James Wilkinson, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, Legislative liaison Nicholas Calio, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, her deputy Stephen Hadley, and Cheney Chief of Staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. The entire White House Iraq Group is considered suspect in knowing beforehand about the leak and participating in the subsequent conspiracy to cover it up -- both in conversations between Air Force One en route to Africa and Washington, DC and in group strategy meetings to deal with the subpoena of do ents and testimony before the Grand Jury. Although the focus is now on Rove, many insiders also believe Scooter Libby phoned reporters to divulge Plame's iden y.
Exactly.
Today's editorial on the Plame leak in the Express-News clearly shows which way the local SA fishwrap swings.....what liberal media?
Express NewsEditorial: Jailing of reporters damages free press
Web Posted: 07/06/2005 12:00 AM CDT
San Antonio Express-News
In one of its final acts of the 2005 session, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the case of two reporters facing jail time for refusing to disclose confidential sources.
The clock is now running out on Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine.
The prosecution of Miller and Cooper stems from an investigation into the disclosure by administration officials of the iden y of a CIA officer. Miller never wrote about the information she received. Cooper only repeated what a third journalist, Robert Novak, had already made public in his syndicated column.
Novak, at this point, faces no prosecution.
It is unclear whether Time Inc.'s decision to turn Cooper's notes over to a prosecutor will negate his refusal to testify in the eyes of the courts.
Lost in the debate about the journalistic privilege to protect anonymous sources is a fundamental issue: No law has been broken. A violation of the Intelligence Iden ies Protection Act would require the deliberate disclosure of the iden y of a covert agent whom the government is taking "affirmative measures" to conceal.
Nothing close to that has transpired, not even from the pen of Novak.
Rather than come up empty handed after a two-year investigation, special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald seems intent on putting people behind bars, even if they had nothing to do with the commission of this noncrime and even if it strikes a blow at the function of a free press.
No remedy exists for the Supreme Court's apparent indifference to this prosecutorial zeal. Congress, however, can establish a federal shield law to protect legitimate uses of confidential sources. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have similar laws on the books.
The Free Flow of Information Act would allow testimony to be compelled from journalists only after all nonjournalistic sources had been exhausted and only if such testimony was essential to a criminal or civil case. The measure has bipartisan support and should be enacted immediately.
The miscarriage of justice in the case of Miller and Cooper goes beyond the narrow issue of two innocent individuals serving jail time.
If prosecutors can capriciously send journalists to jail for refusing to disclose anonymous sources, the ability of the press and the people to know what transpires behind the closed doors of government will be fundamentally impaired.
Spin away Express-News. Spin away.
Judith Miller and Matt Cooper are not shielding an anonymous whistle-blower. They are shielding a criminal. Revealing the iden y of Valerie Plame WAS the crime. Cooper and Miller are WITNESSES to this crime. Had the information not been offered them, there would be no crime.
This is absolutely the opposite of a whistle-blower case, in which a witness discloses to a reporter the criminal actions of others. Is Valerie Plame's career as an undercover CIA operative criminal? That's the only way that the leakers could be considered whistle-blowers. Since it is not, the leakers are simply treasonous criminals who used classified information to try to PREVENT a whistleblower, Joseph Wilson, from talking about what he knew to be true - that there was no Iraq/Niger uranium deal. So in effect you are siding against the whistle-blower.
You have it wrong. The Express-News should reconsider this campaign.
Last edited by Nbadan; 07-06-2005 at 12:03 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
