Posted on 07/07/2005 7:16:31 AM PDT by Pikamax
'NY Times' Says Source Who Gave Matt Cooper Waiver Was Karl Rove
By E&P Staff
Published: July 07, 2005 8:45 AM ET
NEW YORK "A short time ago, in somewhat dramatic fashion, I received an express, personal release from my source," Matt Cooper of Time magazine told a federal judge yesterday, in dramatic fashion, just before being sentenced to jail. "It's with a bit of surprise and no small amount of relief that I will comply with this subpoena."
But who was this source? According to The New York Times today, "Cooper's decision to drop his refusal to testify followed discussions on Wednesday morning among lawyers representing Mr. Cooper and Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser, according to a person who has been officially briefed on the case."
Rove's lawyer had confirmed over the weekend that his client had turned up as a source in Cooper's documents, which Time turned over to the special prosecutor on Friday, but that did not mean that he was the key source in question.
Recent discussions, the Times reported, "centered on whether a legal release signed by Mr. Rove last year was meant to apply specifically to Mr. Cooper, who by its terms would be released from any pledge of confidentiality he had made to Mr. Rove, the person said. Mr. Cooper said in court that he had agreed to testify only after he had received an explicit waiver from his source.
Richard A. Sauber, a lawyer for Cooper, would not discuss whether Cooper was referring to Mr. Rove, nor would he comment on discussions leading up to Cooper's decision. Rove declined to comment on Wednesday.
Does Rove confirm or deny?
That's the acid test.
Yeah but he doesn't have the press to get the word out after he is found guilty before the trial.
The basic story line the media has been trying to sell is this: In retaliation for Wilson's column in the NYT, the Bush administration decided to "punish" Wilson by "outing" his wife, either to endanger her or to somehow embarrass or discredit Wilson. As for the second option, it has never been clear to me how "outing" Plame would embarrass or discredit Wilson; it is a non sequitor. As for the former, that they would deliberately try to get Plame harmed, that seems the stuff of wild-eyed conspiracy theorists who watch too much TV. Moreover, Plame's identity as a CIA employee was already known to many in Washington prior to Novak's column. So, to me, the basic premise of this whole thing has never made much sense; it's just a desperate media attempt to create another Watergate.
Whether Rove broke the law or not, I hope he's learned to not talk to reporters from Time or the New York Times.
This has been common knowledge for several days. Everyone knows that Karl Rove gave the interview and also gave a waiver. The prosecutor's office stated clearly yesterday that Karl Rove IS NOT the target of the investigation.
I don't have a link, but there were two big stories on this in the Seattle Times today, one written by Carol Leonnig of the Washington Post. This is a direct quote from her story: "Luskin [Rove's attorney] has said Rove did not identify Plame to Cooper and did nothing wrong. In an interview yesterday, he said Rove is not the source who called Cooper and personally waived the confidentiality agreement."
How about this? They knew that Rove had done nothing wrong over a year ago when this thing first came up, but held back to build suspense, make people think that whoever the leaker is has committed felonies, would go to jail forever when caught, make something out of nothing, to hurt Rove? After all, who believes that these reporters would risk jail to protect Rove?
To finish my thought, the Seattle Times has a free website where you don't need to sign up to see today's stuff, only archived material, so the story is probably there in its entirety, although I haven't checked for sure.
With every edition they publish, the New York Times continues to prove exactly *WHY*, on the morning of September 11th, al Qaeda never considered crashing one of those airliners into the NYT building.
After all, why would you wish to harm your ALLIES?!?
It's only a crime is someone knowingly outs an undercover operative.
1st) she wasn't undercover
2nd) since she wasn't undercover, it's impossible for her to be outed
Yeah, this Plame B would have stopped the London attack if she hadn't been outted. Time for some prospective on what is important and what isn't.
Thanks. I found the link: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002364091_leak07.html
Of course it was the last sentence in the article.
Your almost right. Here's the real truth. If we had a democrat in the white house and he had done everything GW has done, he would be a hero to this country and the world. Since we have a republican in the white house they tell a different story. You see it's the party before what's right and wrong. It's the party before country.
It appears the reporters did not rely on the earlier, formal releases. They knew everyone in the government was made to sign form releases. So it still could be Rove.
Understand your feelings; as much of the news pales, but am wondering why are you posting on this 'title' to begin with? Are you going to offer the same sentiiment on every other 'non-London, bombing thread today?
Life in London is going on. . .that is the good news; and informational postings here should go on as well. It is what FR is all about.
You can sympathize and theorize; on any number of posts re the terrorism in London.
Or perhaps I have just misread your comment here and it is not a criticism. . .
Also, I thought Cooper claimed earlier that he had multiple sources.
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.