O'Donnell might be pulling this from thin air, but as they say ~ 'developing'... _______ MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Documents Reveal Karl Rove as Source in Plame Case 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. 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 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. 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. link
I was against using jail time in order to force reporters to give up their sources, but anyone who breaks the law like this, especially at a time when we have troops at war deserves jail time. It would be nice if they ended up declaring Karl Rove as an enemy comatant and put him in Gitmo.
I've never understood this. I understand the freedom of press, but that doesn't imply a freedom not to reveal sources in a federal investigation. Is it not a criminal act to withhold information from a grand jury in a federal investigation? If so, I don't see where the whole "the reporters did nothing wrong" thing comes from. Freedom of the press lets you write what you want - it has nothing to do with this investigation, which is centered not around the fact that these reporters wrote about Plame, but that they have material knowledge of a federal crime. It's certainly a slippery slope to be used very carefully, but a person shouldn't be able to use the freedom of the press to reveal national security information and then hide being the anonymous source. What would happen if someone revealed all of our national military secrets and then could be clear and free because they'd just remain anonymous?
It could not have happened to a nicer guy. If Rove does turn out to be the new Deep Throat, GWB's statements wrt finding out who dunit will make good reading. I wonder if GWB will wait for a conviction before he would fire Rove? Of course any conviction would be endlessly appealed until 2008 when GWB would pardon him.
I think it would impede on the press' ability to get inside sources for information. If the press can not get information freely, then all of us suffer, and government abuse of power would increase 10 fold. I agree they shouldn't have revealed the name of a covert operative working for the CIA. It is possible that they should be punished for that, but not for refusing to give up their sources.
So the current internet rumors are that ... Novak gave up Rove to the Grand Jury. Rove lied to the Grand Jury. "Principled lberals" Miller and Cooper refused to give up Rove. (Damn the liberal media.) Prosecuter went after those two to see which one of Novak or Rove lied to a Grand Jury.
From March 2004 American Prospect ... President Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, told the FBI in an interview last October that he circulated and discussed damaging information regarding CIA operative Valerie Plame with others in the White House, outside political consultants, and journalists, according to a government official and an attorney familiar with the ongoing special counsel's investigation of the matter. But Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rather, Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column. He also told the FBI, the same sources said, that circulating the information was a legitimate means to counter what he claimed was politically motivated criticism of the Bush administration by Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Poor Rove, if this is true. One would suspect that lying to the FBI is its own separate offense.
An interesting thing about Rove's statement is that he admits the only reason they criculated the stuff about Plame was political vindictiveness because her husband hadn't said what they wanted him to regarding Iraq buying yellow cake uranium. I'm glad that Bush and his whitehouse are uniters and not dividers. Joseph Wilson told the truth rather than what Bush and company wanted to hear, and someone violates a law and exposes an undercover CIA operative at a time when are involved in the war on terror. I'm glad to see they put the well being of the nation above personal politics.
on a related note... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/ "In early October 2003, NEWSWEEK reported that immediately after Novak's column appeared in July, Rove called MSNBC "Hardball" host Chris Matthews and told him that Wilson's wife was "fair game."
If Karl Rove jeopardized national security by releasing the name of a CIA operative for political gain - what should his punishment entail?
Did you purposely take out the first part of the sentence? Here's the full sentence: <I><B>Luskin said</B>prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "has confirmed repeatedly, most recently last week, that he (Rove) is not a target of the investigation."</I> For reference, Luskin also said... <I>"Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn't disclose Valerie Plame's identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else ... Who outed this woman? ... It wasn't Karl."</I> So either he's lying/misinformed, or the original article in this thread is lying/misinformed.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031006-4.html 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.
As a recent graduate of the Rove School of BBS Posting - RSBP - Basso felt he could edit and manipulate as he pleased, however recent developments indicate that RSBP may not be the online ‘Yale’ that was promised. Basso, next time you RSBP please include an asterisk to indicate that your posts are no longer accredited.
