"This past weekend, Michael Isikoff of Newsweek reported that the
emails and notes turned over by Time indicated that "one of Cooper's
sources [for Time's article that named Plame] was White House deputy
chief of staff Karl Rove." Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, confirmed
that Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for that article. But Luskin
maintained that Rove "did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame
worked for the CIA." (But does that statement cover all possibilities?
Might Rove have confirmed Valerie Plame had a job at the CIA? Might he
have said that "Valerie Wilson"--not Plame--worked for the CIA?)"
BLOG | Posted 07/07/2005 @ 5:33pm
More Trouble for Rove in CIA Leak Case?
What happened on Wednesday in Courtroom 8 at the federal district
courthouse in Washington, DC, gave rise to more questions than answers
about the shrouded-in-secrecy Plame/CIA leak investigation. But those
questions may not be good for Karl Rove.
The most dramatic moment of the hour-plus hearing was when federal
District Court Judge Thomas Hogan ordered New York Times reporter
Judith Miller to jail for failing to reveal a source to special
prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who has been trying to find out which
Bush administration officials outed undercover CIA officer Valerie
Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of the
Bush White House. Conservative columnist Bob Novak first published the
leak in a July 14, 2003 article that cited "two senior administration
officials." Three days later, Time magazine posted a piece cowritten
by Cooper that noted that "government officials" had told Time about
Valerie Wilson's employment at the CIA. Miller wrote no article on
this matter but apparently she talked to at least one source about it.
Her decision to honor her pledge of confidentiality to her source and
resist a court order might have afforded her source--whoever that
might be--a measure of protection. But minutes earlier, Cooper--who
had also been held in civil contempt for not cooperating with
Fitzgerald--made a dramatic statement that could lead to trouble for a
source he had previously protected, and that source might be Rove.
Cooper told the court that he had left home that morning--after saying
good-bye to his six-year-old son and telling the boy that he might not
see him for a while--resolved not to comply with Fitzgerald's request
that he testify before the grand jury. (Time had already surrendered
Cooper's notes and emails to Fitzgerald--over Cooper's objections--but
Fitzgerald still sought Cooper's testimony.) But on the way to the
courthouse, Cooper said to the judge, his source had contacted him and
provided what Cooper called a "personal and unambiguous waiver to
speak before the grand jury." So Cooper declared that he was now
prepared to answer Fitzgerald's questions. He would not be sent off to
the hoosegow.
What does this mean for Cooper's source--a person apparently of
intense interest to Fitzgerald?
This past weekend, Michael Isikoff of Newsweek reported that the
emails and notes turned over by Time indicated that "one of Cooper's
sources [for Time's article that named Plame] was White House deputy
chief of staff Karl Rove." Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, confirmed
that Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for that article. But Luskin
maintained that Rove "did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame
worked for the CIA." (But does that statement cover all possibilities?
Might Rove have confirmed Valerie Plame had a job at the CIA? Might he
have said that "Valerie Wilson"--not Plame--worked for the CIA?)
Is Rove indeed the Cooper source being pursued by Fitzgerald and the
person who apparently gave Cooper the greenlight to tell all to the
grand jury? After Cooper's announcement, Rove's lawyer told Newsweek
that Rove and Cooper had not "spoken" about waiving confidentiality
prior to the court hearing. Luskin may have been playing it cute.
Perhaps the communication between Rove and Cooper was an email. And
The New York Times reported that lawyers representing Cooper and
Rove--not Cooper and Rove--had talked prior to hearing. Or could it be
that another Cooper source is Fitzgerald's target?
What's come out so far still points to Rove. And it does seem clear
that only one Cooper source is in the middle of this imbroglio. In a
recent court filing, Fitzgerald repeatedly noted that he needed
Cooper's testimony regarding "a" source (not more than one). And in
Cooper's last-minute courtroom drama, he noted that his "source"--one
person, that is--had released him.
******
Don't forget about DAVID CORN's BLOG at www.davidcorn.com. Read recent
postings on Supreme Court pessimism, blaming Hillary, and Safire's
latest mis-fact.
*******
This focus on one person is curious. The Time story written by Cooper
reported,
And some government officials have noted to TIME in interviews, (as
well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife,
Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction.
Note the plural "officials." And Novak's column cited "two" senior
Bush administration officials. Given this, shouldn't Fitzgerald be
asking Cooper about more than one source? Shouldn't Cooper have to
obtain waivers from more than one person? Cooper's article did carry
two other bylines--Massimo Calabresi and John Dickerson--and it's
possible that Calabresi and/or Dickerson spoke to other sources about
Valerie Wilson. But neither have been subpoenaed by Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald apparently has reason to believe that Cooper is the fellow
responsible for the two-sentence portion of the article that covers
Valerie Wilson.
So who else told Time about Wilson/Plame? I can think of explanations
that might render this question moot. Perhaps the story was mis-edited
in a fashion that mistakenly pluralized the sourcing on the key
sentence. Maybe one government official disclosed Valerie Wilson's CIA
identity to Time prior to the Novak column, and another merely
confirmed it after Novak had published the leak. But inquiring minds
should want to know: what happened to Time's other source(s)?
But for now the most critical question is, what will Cooper tell the
grand jury? Presumably, he will have to say which "government
officials" talked to Time about Valerie Wilson and what they said.
Will that place his source (or sources) in legal jeopardy? Fitzgerald
has vigorously argued that Cooper's information is important for his
investigation. Since no White House official has acknowledged
revealing Valerie Wilson's CIA identity to any reporter, if Cooper
fingers any one of them, that will be bad news for the White House.
Any official named might be able to wiggle out of an indictment due to
the narrow nature of the relevant law. (I explained how this might be
done in my previous column.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=4581)
Still, outing a CIA officer to score a political point ought to be a
firing offense at any White House, even this one.
Which brings us to another intriguing wrinkle. Cooper's source only
granted him a waiver to speak before the grand jury. He is not free,
Cooper told me after the hearing, to discuss in public this source and
the contents of his conversation with this source. In essence, the
source made sure that Cooper--if he were going to cooperate with
Fitzgerald--would not be able to ID him (or her) in public. Not that
Cooper seemed about to do so. Before the hearing, it seemed that
Cooper was prepared to go to jail, even though Time had turned over
his notes and emails and Newsweek had identified his source as Rove.
But could it be that his source was not so sure of this and wanted to
cut a deal (your freedom for your continuing public silence)? Or could
it be that Cooper's source simply felt bad about Cooper being placed
in the slammer? Or could it be that the source believed that Cooper's
testimony might actually be beneficial for him or her? Or could it be
that the source assumed he or she was already in legal peril and did
not want also to be blamed for Cooper's incarceration?
There are plenty of avenues of conjecture. But one thing is for
certain. Fitzgerald, who does seem devoted to the task of
investigating the leak and who does not appear to be pursuing (rightly
or wrongly) reporters merely for the hell of it, will now be able to
obtain Cooper's testimony--information that he says is critical in
determining what happened in the leak episode and whether a
prosecutable crime was committed. The betting has to be that this is
reason for the White House to be more nervous and not less.
*****
And what of Novak? How has he managed to escape the clutches of
Fitzgerald? Why does he not face the same legal dilemma as Miller?
Well, he must have cooperated with Fitzpatrick. But to what end? And
what did he say?For speculative answers to these and other questions
about Novak's role in this affair, see the piece I posted at
TomPaine.com by clicking here.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050707/novak_squealed.php
--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.intellnet.org
Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com
Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods,
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,'
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
