Posted on 07/03/2005 10:14:41 AM PDT by summer
Lawrence O'Donnell: Update on Rove
Lawrence O'Donnell 2 hours, 22 minutes ago
On Friday, I broke the story that the e-mails that Time turned over to the prosecutor that day reveal that Karl Rove is the source Matt Cooper is protecting. That provoked Rove’s lawyer, Robert Luskin, to interrupt his holiday weekend to do a little defense work with Newsweek and the Los Angeles Times.
On Saturday, Luskin decided to reveal that Rove did have at least one conversation with Cooper, but Luskin told the Times he would not “characterize the substance of the conversation.” Luskin claimed that the prosecutor “asked us not to talk about what Karl has had to say.” This is highly unlikely. Prosecutors have absolutely no control over what witnesses say when they leave the grand jury room. 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.
CNN's Howard Kurtz on His Reliable Sources covers the subject, scroll way way down to get to it:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/03/rs.01.html
"...................................................................................................................................................................
YORK: I would certainly like to know, but I don't think -- my guess is that -- and I believe Novak has actually said that he's waiting until this thing is resolved, and the case is not resolved at this point. Fitzgerald has given us the idea that most of it has been taken care of, but he was fixing up I believe what he called loose ends. And I think Novak has said, after it's resolved, then he'll talk.
KURTZ: You are referring to Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor...
YORK: Exactly.
KURTZ: ... in the Plame case.
Now, Frank Sesno, "Newsweek's" Michael Isikoff reports this morning that e-mails turned over by "Time" -- these are Matt Cooper's e-mails -- show that Karl Rove, the president's top domestic policy adviser in the White House, was a source for Matt Cooper. But Rove's lawyer, while confirming that he was interviewed by Matt Cooper, says he did not disclose Valerie Plame's CIA status to Matt Cooper or anyone else. So does this story get us very far in understanding...?
SESNO: It certainly gets us to the chapter we might entitle if we writing a book, "be careful what you wish for," because if you're the president of the United States or you're any of the people around the president -- and I've covered White Houses -- they all leak when it serves their interests. When something like this happens, and if the reporter is forced to turn over notes, you don't know what's going to be out there. And we do know that Cooper had conversations, apparently, with Rove. What those conversations were, what those notes contained, obviously we're going to find out more, it appears we'll find out more, in the days ahead.
KURTZ: Right. I mean, obviously this is an explosive story, but I do want to stress, there is no evidence so far that Rove was the one or one of the administration officials who turned over Valerie Plame's name to Cooper or anyone else, but something tells me there will be a lot of follow-ups. ""
When Sidney Blumenthal testified before Ken Starr's Grand Jury, he emerged from the building, stepped up to the cameras and said, "I told them ..." and reeled off his supposed testimony. Of course, later events proved that he lied his ass off about what he actually said in his testimony. So is the fact that he made up what he said about his testimony what saved him from being in violation of some law?
It sounds and looks more like he is bi-polar and off his meds. He has some kind of chemical imbalance. I would suspect Bi-polar seems to be the most likely. He really looks and sounds like he's quite ready for the nearest "rubber room".
However, I STILL like the idea of O'Donnell having a cocaine addiction. I will bet cash money I am right.
If so, this is AGAIN (like the last whoop-de-doo about the yellowcake) while Bush is overseas, guaranteeing that any questions while he is at the G-8 will be about Rove and NOT what he has accomplished at the G-8.
I'll bet he has grilled Bison Burgers with Green Chilis and Chipotle Mayonaisse for his holiday barbeque.
Leni
Hahahaha
I've been using the word "dastardly" to mock the dems' and now I see Schumer actually went and used the word---seriously!
Hahahahahahahahaha
It's really not weird if you understand the dem way of thinking.
The timing of regurgitating this story (it's an old one) is due to the turning over of the notes and the fact that Rove's name will be in them (we knew that, but not as "the source" in question).
The dem trick is to take a story and make talking points. Get mileage for as long as you can. When the baseless charge (as it inevitably is when it's the dems vs. Bush) gets beaten back with truth, they merely bide their time and when an opportune moment arrives, they run it out again.
They'e done it on several issues. Two others that instantly spring to mind are GWB's TANG service and Abu Ghraib.
Sesno is an idiot.
Kurtz is moderately better (but not much).
Well, they or at least their MSM arm, really did it with the Koran story. There were times when I thought AP or Reuters story were Scrappleface stories. It was amazing.
Since the Koran fiasco! Try since 1999.
Federal grand jury testimony is literally a fact-finding mission to ascertain if enough evidence exists to bring forth an indictment. If there is no indictment, all lips are sealed for all time.
That said, as long as Sid Blumenthal did not state what actually and substantively transpired in the jury room, and it was not challenged...then he got away with it.
Gotta watch those legally crafted statements. It's all in the details.
Thanks for that news. I wonder if it's Powell:
He like to leak and has good relationships with the media; the media would protect him.
He wouldn't have done it out of malice, just like, oh, this is why we sent the idiot?
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.