Posted on 07/02/2005 1:05:55 PM PDT by Pikamax
The Rove Factor? Time magazine talked to Bush's guru for Plame story.
By Michael Isikoff Newsweek July 11 issue - Its legal appeals exhausted, Time magazine agreed last week to turn over reporter Matthew Cooper's e-mails and computer notes to a special prosecutor investigating the leak of an undercover CIA agent's identity. The case has been the subject of press controversy for two years. Saying "we are not above the law," Time Inc. Editor in Chief Norman Pearlstine decided to comply with a grand-jury subpoena to turn over documents related to the leak. But Cooper (and a New York Times reporter, Judith Miller) is still refusing to testify and faces jail this week.
At issue is the story of a CIA-sponsored trip taken by former ambassador (and White House critic) Joseph Wilson to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from the African country of Niger. "Some government officials have noted to Time in interviews... that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," said Cooper's July 2003 Time online article.
Now the story may be about to take another turn. 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
I wonder how long they've been sitting on this waiting to 'reveal' it? I guess they thought that the time when the President will have to choose a new Supreme Court Justice was the perfect opportunity to tie the White House up in knots.
Republican Red: I think Rove should sue O'Donnell for slander / defamation of character. O'Donnell would wet himself in fear.
Here is what O'Donnell said:
"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."
and
"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."
And now we discover that Mr. Luskin, Rove's lawyer, concedes that Rove is a source in Cooper's emails, but not in the original leak.
So, why are you insisting on a "slander and defamation" suit and why does everyone here have their hair on fire?
You absolutely nailed it.
I think this has something to do with it, plus getting the gist of the newsweek story wrong.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/lawrence-odonnell/rove-blew-cia-agents-cov_3556.html
Lawrence O'Donnell
Rove Blew CIA Agent's Cover
....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.
At the CIA, most of the analysts consider their secrecy something of a joke. Officially, most of them can't even say who they work for, even though it's easy to figure out if you want to know.
Just like Newsweak broke the Koran in the toilet story?
I've seen that sentiment a lot, and I'm not buying it. Whatever you think of their individual politics, no reporter who wants to remain in the profession is going to burn a source as big as Karl Rove.
And it's bigger than Rove alone -- if they gave up an anonymous source, they'd have no luck finding anonymous sources in the future.
If O'Donnell's words are false, does that open Rove to a libel suit or defamtion of character suit for saying he committed perjury?
EXACTLY!! The president needs to STOP those bastards in their tracks ONCE and FOR ALL!! He needs to go on the tube and tell it like it is! He needs to rag out the RATS and tell the folk how these SOB are hell bent on destroying the security of America! For once Mr. President take a strong stand against these lying anti-American institution bastards!! None of this bipartisan BS...enough! It's time to fire back! No spitballs plezzzzzzz, we're tired of those!
Like most intel agencies, the CIA has a big PR problem. The major hits scored on the enemy are rarely, if ever, disclosed. Only the failures catch the light of day.
I tend to cut them some slack. It's not an easy game they play.
Then I actually read the article.
Just look at the title--not "It was Rove" or "Rove:The Deep Throat of the Plame Case" or something.
It's an attempt to link Rove to this case, when he was merely someone spoken to about the article.
In other words, bulletin to anyone who speaks to TIME as a source--if they don't like you, they will use any opportunity to throw you to the wolves, even if you are merely talking to them on background.
I rarely say this even about the MSm, but TIME should be ashamed of itself--they are merely trying to taint Rove when he had nothing to do with it, other than HELPING TIME get the facts of their story straight.
First of all, I haven't seen O'Donnell flatly saying that Rove committed perjury. I could have missed it.
But no, generally, it's very difficult for a public figure to prove libel. You have to prove not only that the statements were false, but that they were printed with either negligence or actual malice, and you have to prove damages. All with the caveat that I am not a lawyer.
Yeah, sure, in that sense where "take any opportunity to throw you to the wolves" means "fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court against releasing documents with your name in them."
Today's story was in Newsweek, not Time. Newsweek was under no confidentiality agreement with Rove or anyone else Time spoke to.
So let me get this straight, Plame was not an undercover agent and hadn't been for years, Rove signed a release waiver allowing all corespondence to be revealed. So worst case scenario , what would be the outcome? Certainly not what the DUmmies are talking about. (I just went there for the first time, what a crackup!)
Your screen name is very appropriate. If you actually READ the article and then READ my post you'd see that the POINT is that Rove is NOT the source, but TIME is taking the opportunity to throw him in the mix, as if he actually is the source. What part of that didn't you grasp?
Today's story was in Newsweek, not Time. Newsweek was under no confidentiality agreement with Rove or anyone else Time spoke to.
Uh, yeah. When did I ever mention NEWSWEEK? And since you obviously don't know the most basic ideas about journalism (or, again, this article and my post) keeping sources confidential didn't start with the Plame story, and since we're not even talking about NEWSWEEK, but a TIME story, what the hell are you even bringing NEWSWEEK into it for, anyway?
The answer, of course, is to invent a non-issue to argue against since you're completely uninformed about the facts of this one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.