Poop on Rove about to hit the fan

[Gabriella84]

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000972839

MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Documents Reveal Karl Rove as Source in Plame Case

By Greg Mitchell

Published: July 01, 2005 11:30 PM ET updated 1:00 PM Saturday

NEW YORK Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents 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. Friday night, 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.

Today, O'Donnell went further, writing a brief entry at the Huffington Post blog:

"I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's e-mails 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.

"McLaughlin is seen in some markets on Friday night, so some websites have picked it up, including Drudge, but I don't expect it to have much impact because McLaughlin is not considered a news show and it will be pre-empted in the big markets on Sunday because of tennis.

"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."

Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's McLaughlin Group 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.

"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 document 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.

Besides his career at a TV journalist, O'Donnell has served as a producer and writer for the series "The West Wing."

According to published reports, Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the case, has interviewed President Bush and Vice President Cheney and called Karl Rove, among others, to testify before the grand jury.

"The breadth of Fitzgerald's inquiry has led to speculation that it has evolved into an investigation of a conspiracy to leak Plame's identity," the Chicago Tribune observed on Friday, "or of an attempt to cover up White House involvement in the leak."

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.

Miller argued that it was pointless to imprison her because she will never talk. She submitted letters from soldiers and military officers with whom she was embedded during the war in Iraq attesting to that. (Miller's pre-war coverage of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction has drawn much criticism.)

She asked the judge for "very restrictive home detention," if confined at all, including an electronic bracelet and excluding Internet access and cellular phones. As an alternative, she asked to be sent to the federal prison camp for women in Danbury, Conn.

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.

 

[Gem]

I will be positively fascinated to see how this one turns out.

 

[acludem]

Wow....I wonder how the Republicans will try to cover this one up. Maybe this will finally be Karl Rove's comeuppance.

acludem

 

[Gem]

My guess is they will say that it isn't true. I will have to see what evidence the "other side" has before I make up my mind.

Considering that her identity was common knowledge inside the beltway since it was released in the 90's during the Clinton Administration, this might be a tough one to pin on Rove concretely.

If it is not proven concretely...my guess is that Rove will shrug it off and continue...just like he always does.

 

[spillmind]

i say blame it on liberals

 

[Gunny]

Wow....I wonder how the Republicans will try to cover this one up. Maybe this will finally be Karl Rove's comeuppance.

acludem

You base your assumption anyone will try and cover it up on WHAT? If he's guilty, burn his butt. Simple as that.

The REAL problem will be that he will be punished, but because the Republicans do not conduct a purge of the entire party over it you libs will be screaming "coverup" and/or "not enough was done."

 

[MissileMan]

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.

It depends on what the meaning of leak is.

 

[OCA]

Demos will stop at nothing to get Rove, not because he's guilty of anything but because they simply do not have a brilliant political strategist in their camp like him and they currently cannot take him in an election, they know it and thay are shaking in their boots.

 

[Gabriella84]

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

From a statement issued by Bush on Sept. 30, 2003.
Wonder how long it will take him to back track on this.

 

[dilloduck]

From a statement issued by Bush on Sept. 30, 2003.
Wonder how long it will take him to back track on this.

Hell Gabby (if I can call you that)---there's a possibilty that he may not ever backtrack on this one

 

[007]

From a statement issued by Bush on Sept. 30, 2003.
Wonder how long it will take him to back track on this.

You mean act like slick willie?

 

[Annie]

My guess is they will say that it isn't true. I will have to see what evidence the "other side" has before I make up my mind.

Considering that her identity was common knowledge inside the beltway since it was released in the 90's during the Clinton Administration, this might be a tough one to pin on Rove concretely.

If it is not proven concretely...my guess is that Rove will shrug it off and continue...just like he always does.

I'm with you Gem. If he did 'leak' then we'll see what the administration does. My guess, considering O'Donnell, the truth is a bit different. Here's something they may indicate where it's going. There are lots of links here, but I think this one about O'Donnell is worth reading:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000699.htm

And here's O'Donnell on the McLaughlin Group last week sharing his thoughts on troop morale:

MR. O'DONNELL: Look, it's not our job to lie about war to make troops feel good. And I don't care what they feel.

MR. BLANKLEY: I don't --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Let me finish.

MR. O'DONNELL: I don't care what they feel about the truth of this war. If John Kerry thinks this war is a mistake and if the United States of America elects him president, the troops are going to have to live with that. And they know better than anyone else whether it was a mistake or not.

MR. BUCHANAN: The commander-in-chief should not undermine the troops --

MR. O'DONNELL: He's not undermining anything.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Do you want to make a point here?

MR. BUCHANAN: He'd demoralize them.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: All right, the human --

MR. O'DONNELL: I don't care if they're demoralized. They have to go to war and be prepared --

MR. BUCHANAN: The commander-in-chief does care.

MR. O'DONNELL: -- to live with the debate that goes on in the United States about whether it's right or wrong.

MR. BUCHANAN: But if you're going to be commander-in-chief, you cannot be demoralizing the troops in wartime, even if you think the war is a mistake.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=16481_Rove_Talked_to_Reporter_Did_Not_Leak_Name&only

Rove Talked to Reporter, Did Not Leak Name

On this July 4th weekend, left-wing blogs across this great nation are ranting and gloating and salivating over MSNBC partisan hack Lawrence O’Donnell’s accusation that Karl Rove is the source of the Valerie Plame leak. They share a common delusion that Rove is about to be “frog-marched” out of the White House (I’ve seen this term used in at least five places, including here in our comments), and this will start the impeachment snowball rolling down the hill of their dreams. They knew it! Svengali Rove is exposed at last! Bushitler’s next!

Just one problem. According to Rove’s lawyer, Rove is indeed mentioned in the notes turned over by Time magazine’s Matthew Cooper—but not as the source of the leak: Lawyer Says Rove Talked to Reporter, Did Not Leak Name.

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 yesterday.

Rove is identified in Cooper’s notes from that time period, which Time turned over Friday to special prosecutor Patrick J. 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 identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else,” Luskin said. Luskin said the question remains unanswered: “Who outed this woman? . . . It wasn’t Karl.” ...​

Rove answered questions under oath for about two hours before a grand jury on Oct. 15 as part of the special prosecutor’s investigation. According to Luskin, the prosecutor said he believes Rove was candid and forthcoming about his contact with reporters.

“I’ve been assured by the prosecutor they have no reason to doubt the honesty of anything he’s said,” Luskin said.​

Hmm. Would Lawrence O’Donnell deliberately distort the meaning of the appearance of Rove’s name in these notes?

After seeing his disgraceful behavior during the Presidential election, it’s pretty clear that O’Donnell has an advanced case of Bush Derangement Syndrome. And BDS sufferers will say and do anything, without regard for their own safety or credibility. So I think the answer has to be, “yes, he probably would.” Left-wing blogs, of course, think the issue of O’Donnell’s (lack of) credibility is irrelevant—because they’re all afflicted with BDS too.

The other delusion shared by left-wing blogs is that if Rove does turn out to be the source of the leak after all, LGF will be “crushed” or “devastated,” and that we’re going to stick up for Rove at all costs.

Remember how the left immediately circled the wagons around Dan Rather when the TANG memos were shown to be fakes, and even put together lengthy pseudo-intellectual exercises intended to prove that some magical typewriter available in the 1960s could have created them? The amount of absolute nonsense generated by these people, to defend a fraud, was astounding. To this day, many refuse to admit the obvious truth.

The fantasy that LGF will blindly rush to Rove’s defense is pure projection by the lefties, based on their own behavior, demonstrated time and time again. Sorry to disappoint the moonbats, but if Rove did something wrong it will be covered here just like any other news.

UPDATE at 7/3/05 9:27:54 am:

Lawrence O’Donnell reiterates his accusation.

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.​

UPDATE at 7/3/05 10:09:47 am:

Newsweek’s Michael “Koran in a Commode” Isikoff has an article about the flap: The Rove Factor?

A couple of interesting points come out in this piece. First, Karl Rove didn’t simply talk to Time reporter Matthew Cooper; he was interviewed by Cooper. This makes it clear that Cooper sought Rove out, not the other way around.

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.

Second, Rove apparently signed a waiver allowing reporters to speak to the special prosecutor. Seems like odd behavior for someone trying to cover up a crime.

He did say that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury “two or three times” and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him.

 

[Gabriella84]

Demos will stop at nothing to get Rove, not because he's guilty of anything but because they simply do not have a brilliant political strategist in their camp like him and they currently cannot take him in an election, they know it and thay are shaking in their boots.

Sounds very similar to the Whitewater investigation to me. Let's jump straight to the impeachment proceedings and see how it shakes out.

 

[MissileMan]

Sounds very similar to the Whitewater investigation to me. Let's jump straight to the impeachment proceedings and see how it shakes out.

Last I checked, Rove isn't impeachable.

 

[menewa]

You mean act like slick willie?

Of course, run to your little clinton-bashing corner.

 

[Hobbit]

I'm gonna make sure this isn't another Rathergate before I put any stock in it.

 

[theim]

Sounds very similar to the Whitewater investigation to me. Let's jump straight to the impeachment proceedings and see how it shakes out.

uh huh. And how, exactly do you plan to go about impeaching someone who holds no elected office to begin with?

 

[Annie]

uh huh. And how, exactly do you plan to go about impeaching someone who holds no elected office to begin with?

Details, details....

 

[Gunny]

I'm gonna make sure this isn't another Rathergate before I put any stock in it.

Nah ....let's hang him first, THEN investigate.

 

[Gem]

Gunny, Gunny, Gunny...thats not how they do it...get it straight!!!

Step 1: Slander and insinuate. Talk enough shit about whoever you don't like to get the average, uninformed American believing that we wouldn't be talking about this person so much if something wasn't actually wrong with them. Say a whole lot of nothing while your fact checkers scour the books for something actually legitimate and true that you can use against the person. If nothing is found, don't worry. Just continue to talk in vague negative terms about the person.

Step 2: After the suspicions over nothing have been sufficiently shoved down the throats of the average American the evil, still technically innocent person will step down or be forced to resign. The really stubborn ones might stick around...but thats ok...because they will use those people as examples of the nondescript evil still dwelling within the party.

Step 3: Post a miniscule article on page 23 of the NYT explaining that the person slandered really hasn't done anything wrong...oops!