Oh, Matt Cooper!!... nevermind...
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.
Slug a leftist journalist in the guts TODAY - it'll not only make you feel better, it's good for our country!
NYTimes implies that Rove was the source that gave Cooper the last minute release:
"Mr. 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. Mr. Fitzgerald was also involved in the discussions, the person said.
In his statement in court, Mr. Cooper did not name Mr. Rove as the source about whom he would now testify, but the person who was briefed on the case said that he was referring to Mr. Rove and that Mr. Cooper's decision came after behind-the-scenes maneuvering by his lawyers and others in the case.
Those discussions 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."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/politics/07leak.html?pagewanted=2
But the article that Steve_Seattle points out from a WaPo reporter it implies Rove last not the source who gave the last minute release:
"One of the government officials Cooper talked to during that period was Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, according to Cooper's notes and Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin. Luskin 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."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002364091_leak07.html
So either I am reading this wrong, or someone is lying...the NYT or Luskin (Rove's attorney). Of course the NYT source is unnamed.
Which was exactly Rove's plan! </DUmmie conspiracy theorist>
Rove had the innocent people of London blown up just to cover this news. Just watch, DU will theorize this later today.
I didn't see that story, was there a thread on that specific denial by Rove's attorney regarding what happened yesterday?
In fairness, though, some DUers laid off the politics long enough to express sympathy for the Brits. I never thought I'd say a good thing about DU!
never mind, I see the link now, thanks.
"a" source vs "THE" source.
A direct question and cross examination of the named source would reveal if the Time reporter is lying.
If he is lying then it is perjury.
Somehow I think Rove himself is not the source. However Time magazine has now fed decades of conspiracy theory fires for the left.
Good analysis. Yes, I've read things pointing away from Rove as well. I believe the WP quoted sources yesterday that in many instances it was the reporters who told government officials about Plame, not the other way around. I was just pointing out the earlier signed form releases did not mean it wasn't Rove. I heard the reporter last night saying they did not consider those releases to be voluntary. We can howl all we want but that was a principled decision by the reporters if you accept the premise they should protect their sources.
I am sure that some did, they are not all completely evil, just most. It just burnt me that there were those who were mad because it put Rove on the back burner.
They are lieing. Trying to milk this DNC hatched chirade for one last mile.
Are you saying this is the equivalent of Clinton bombing an aspirin factory on the eve of Monica's testimony before the grand jury? (sarcasm)
What stops a reporter from including some big names as sources in their notes? nothing
What stops a reporter from lying about the actual source? (X called me as said they were "insert name here")
It is apparent that left wingnut conspiracy theories will be believed by the michael more democrat niche.
(the circumstance is similar to a madame including a few political names in her client book as insurance regardless of truth.)
You're right. The New York Times is the "mouth piece" for the DemoRat party. It just irks me that they consider themselves objective journalist. However, I do take great pleasure in knowing that their influence has been steadily declining over the past decade. ;-)
Fabricated stories are not new to la-la land. I wouldn't be surprised that "sources" are fabricated too. This could account for all the blah-blah-blah, they don't want to admit it to a court and risk a much larger penalty.
___jason blair did it___
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.