Posted on 07/10/2005 12:12:27 AM PDT by West Coast Conservative
It was 11:07 on a Friday morning, July 11, 2003, and Time magazine correspondent Matt Cooper was tapping out an e-mail to his bureau chief, Michael Duffy. "Subject: Rove/P&C," (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation..." Cooper proceeded to spell out some guidance on a story that was beginning to roil Washington. He finished, "please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]" and suggested another reporter check with the CIA.
Last week, after Time turned over that e-mail, among other notes and e-mails, Cooper agreed to testify before a grand jury in the Valerie Plame case. Explaining that he had obtained last-minute "personal consent" from his source, Cooper was able to avoid a jail sentence for contempt of court. Another reporter, Judith Miller of The New York Times, refused to identify her source and chose to go to jail instead.
For two years, a federal prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been investigating the leak of Plame's identity as an undercover CIA agent. The leak was first reported by columnist Robert Novak on July 14, 2003. Novak apparently made some arrangement with the prosecutor, but Fitzgerald continued to press other reporters for their sources, possibly to show a pattern (to prove intent) or to make a perjury case. (It is illegal to knowingly identify an undercover CIA officer.) Rove's words on the Plame case have always been carefully chosen. "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name," Rove told CNN last year when asked if he had anything to do with the Plame leak. Rove has never publicly acknowledged talking to any reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
"This question still hasn't been answered. Who told her name?"
Tenet or one of his stooges. JMO
I couldn't agree more!
It appears that Novak already told Fitzgerald who his source was (otherwise he would be in the slammer as well). Now it is probably more a matter of determining if the Intelligence Identities Protection Act was violated. It appears that the source or sources did not violate it. Fitzgerald may also be looking to see if anyone lied under oath by comparing the various testimonies. The prosecutor is probably turning over every stone so no one can say he did not pursue the investigation to it's fullest. Most likely, there was no crime. But even if the report exonerates the source(s), this will not keep the libs from asking for Rove to resign (which he won't). Bush doesn't care, he does not need to worry about re-election.
Again, I think Rove is innocent of anything illegal (and I wonder of the New York Times will now all of a sudden insist this be treated as a criminal act again, after backpedalling like mad, now that Rove is involved). But let's not be like DUmmies and backpedal either--Wilson and O'Donnell were in fact correct to a limited extent.
Now can the press move on from this retarded non-scandal non-story?
Just to be clear, when I said Bush does not care about the crap flung at Karl, it is under the (very reasonable) assumption no crime was committed.
My best guess as to who the leaker is? None other than Plame’s husband, Joseph Wilson.
She was recalled from covert duties when Aldrich Ames blew her cover. There is a thread about that around here some where.
Totaly agree with you. Isn't this prosecuter a Clinton guy? Why wont the media look into his background? Ive read all sorts of stories about Karl Rove and Judy Miller, but it sure is suspisious that there are no stories about the prosecuter.
Follow the stench. It will probably lead back to Clinton. This smells to me like a chance to get Hillbillary back into the White House.
We need to mail our local newspapers and demand that they explore the clinton connection to this case!
i'd suggest thta "terrance wilkinson" is a cover name for whoever this guy is, if the story is true. a top level cia advisor wouldn't use his real name in an article, it's too dangerous.
similarly, i don't understand all the fuss over this valerie plame thing. if she really were a covert operator, she wouldn't be known as valerie plame, but as say, "susan rogers", or whatever. so, mentioning her name shouldn't be a big deal, unless, the cover name/story is also mentioned.
The story wasn't true. Wilkerson was the creation of an evil and sick mind.
Plame was not a covert operator, and probably half of the top rats in DC knew that she was analyst for the CIA. Probably 95% of those who knew had heard her husband Joe Wilson brag about her working for the CIA.
See here: http://washingtontimes.com/national/20031002-122228-5129r.htm
I clipped this from the page, and copied the link “He is married to the former Valerie Plame and has two sons and two daughters. “
Unfortunately, the link is no longer active, but this was the url, in case someone can use it to find the cached page (I'm web illiterate, so I don't even know if it's possible) http://www.mideasti.org/html/bio-wilson.html
It was "updated 2002".
As far as I'm concerned the only thing that Rove said according to those emails that might have gotten him in trouble was mentioning Plame worked for "the agency", but I do not see anywhere where her job was described as "covert agent", or anything of the kind. Also, Novak explicity stated on a number of occasions that the CIA never warned him that outing Plame would be jeopardizing her cover. It is also important to point out that we have no official confirmation on her status as a covert operative to begin with. If she were covert, it would seem to me that Wilson mentioning her name on his bio, whether he IDd her job or not would have been problematic, if only that it opened the door for something like this to happen.
Look, this is treason, and if we are good conservative Americans, we will see that Rove is kicked out on his treasonous butt!
Got Zot!
'Got Zot!'
No kidding!
Buh, Bye
There's more to being a "good conservative" than just saying you are one. You also have to be able to get through a sentence without saying something completely moronic.
I'd say nice try, but it wasn't.
Leftists are absolutely OBSESSED with destroying him.
Don't they realize that no one except the extreme left even knows or cares who he is?
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.