But wait, according to Rove's own attorney, Rove and Cooper did speak, so Rove could, by his attorney's own admission, be in the notes. Rove was indeed "a source" for Cooper. What we have are two very explicit, no wiggle-room, denials by Rove's attorney that this info to Cooper involved identifying Valerie Plame (Coper and Rove could have talked about a dozen other things). If this attorney is not telling the truth, then there's going to be heck to pay. If he is telling the truth, then this whole story continues not to make any sense. Rove releases Cooper and testifies that he talked to him. Who is Cooper protecting? What I think may be going on is that someone leaked an interesting but unimportant tidbit about Rove to throw people off the trail about Mr or Ms X, who Cooper is really protecting, and to embarrass Rove. Who is X?
Wilson claimed Rove would be frog-marched out of the WH in handcuffs when the story broke. Now why would he say that ...
Cooper and Miller are in trouble, but they are protecting Democrats who are in even bigger trouble ...
O'Donnell may not even know ..., which makes this hilarious. The SC said they have to testify or go to jail. They want to go to jail rather than testify because of the damage their truthful testimony would do to the liberals ...
Just a reminder, the same thing happened with Libby. He signed waivers and reporters still balked at testifying.
They had spoken to him but it has come out (via press releases, for example---the grand jury has been tight as a drum except for court filings or if a reporter or his employer issues a statement) that all admitted finally that he never mentioned Plame.
You can bet that the same holds true for Rove. The grand jury wanted reams of notes from Cooper (and Miller) not just on discussions with sources on Plame, but the trip to Niger and yellowcake. So while Rove's name is indeed in Cooper's notes, it was thrown out (again) as a red herring to the crux of the issue the grand jury is looking at.
Mandy Gruenwald?