A Rove Perjury Rap? The speculation grows intense — without any evidence (CIA LEAK)

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE.COM ^ | JULY 26, 2005 | BYRON YORK

[CHARLITE]

Recent news reports and commentary have suggested that top White House adviser Karl Rove might be under investigation for perjury in the Plamegate affair. But sources familiar with the probe say the most frequently cited evidence for such speculation — an apparent inconsistency between Rove's and Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper's accounts of a July 11, 2003, telephone conversation — falls far short of being the basis for any prosecution, much less a perjury charge.

Two days ago, in a front-page story headlined "Testimony By Rove And Libby Examined; Leak Prosecutor Seeks Discrepancies," the Washington Post reported that Plamegate special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "has been reviewing over the past several months discrepancies and gaps in witness testimony in his investigation of the unmasking of CIA operative Valerie Plame." One such discrepancy, the Post reported, involved vice-presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby. The other involved Rove:

Prosecutors have also probed Rove's testimony about his telephone conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in the crucial days before Plame's name was revealed in a syndicated column by Robert D. Novak.

Rove has testified that he and Cooper talked about welfare reform foremost and turned to the topic of Plame only near the end, lawyers involved in the case said. But Cooper, writing about his testimony in the most recent issue of Time, said he "can't find any record of talking about" welfare reform. "I don't recall doing so," Cooper wrote.

The apparent discrepancy, first reported by Bloomberg News, is, according to the Post, evidence that Fitzgerald's investigation "has ranged beyond his original mission to determine if someone broke the law by knowingly revealing the identity of a covert operative." Another Post account, citing the Cooper-Rove discrepancy, quoted an informed source saying that Fitzgerald is now " looking at a coverup: perjury, obstruction of justice, false statements to an FBI agent.'"

But speculation that Rove's conversation with Cooper might somehow form the basis of a perjury charge has no basis, according to knowledgeable sources. There are two reasons. The first is that there is solid evidence to support Rove's version of events. The second is that, even if Rove's account were incorrect, a conflict in testimony about welfare reform is not material to the Plamegate case.

First the evidence. Two weeks ago, Rove lawyer Robert Luskin told NRO that Cooper called Rove on July 11, 2003, and that Cooper began the conversation by talking about welfare reform. After a brief talk about that issue, Luskin explained, Cooper then changed the subject to WMDs and the controversy surrounding former ambassador Joseph Wilson.

But when Cooper testified before the grand jury, he said he did not recall talking to Rove about welfare reform — "I can't find any record of talking about it with him on July 11," Cooper wrote in his Time account of his testimony, "and I don't recall doing so." That, plus Cooper's statement that he was questioned closely about the issue during his grand-jury testimony, led to the current speculation that Rove might have given a false account of the conversation before the grand jury.

But there is more to the story. Just moments after finishing his conversation with Cooper, Rove wrote a description of the talk in an e-mail to Stephen Hadley, who was then the deputy national-security adviser. The e-mail indicates that the two men did indeed begin their conversation with welfare reform. "Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare reform story coming," Rove wrote in the e-mail, which was first reported by the Associated Press. "When he finished his brief heads-up he immediately launched into Niger..."

The e-mail appears to be solid, at-the-time evidence that the two men discussed welfare reform. "It appears that Rove's recollection of a conversation having been initiated about welfare reform is consistent with a contemporaneous e-mail he wrote to Hadley moments after he hung up the phone with Cooper," says a knowledgeable source.

In addition, in a less-quoted section of his article in Time, Cooper himself acknowledged that he might have inquired about welfare reform. Cooper wrote that after reviewing his e-mails from the days in question, "it seems as if I was, at the beginning of the week, hoping to publish an article in Time on lessons of the 1996 welfare-reform law." Cooper also wrote that, "I may have left a message with his office asking if I could talk to him about welfare reform." (The welfare story, Cooper wrote, was ultimately pushed aside by other news.)

It was not until Cooper went before the grand jury and was questioned at length about the welfare-reform issue — did he discuss it with Rove? — that Cooper got the idea that the topic might be important. The questioning, Cooper wrote, "suggested that Rove may have testified that we had talked about welfare reform." But Cooper had no memory of that being part of the conversation.

Hence the conflict. But it is a conflict, at least from what is publicly known, between an account — Rove's — that is supported by an e-mail written at the time, and an account — Cooper's — that is based on a lack of recollection, hedged by Cooper's concession that he had, in fact, been working on a welfare reform story. That is not, experts suggest, the stuff of perjury.

"Even if [Rove] didn't have that contemporaneous e-mail, it has to be about something material," says Victoria Toensing, a former federal prosecutor who also, as a Capitol Hill aide, helped draft the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. "Whether [Cooper] called [Rove] about welfare reform or the price of milk, it wasn't at the heart of what the testimony was about, which was Valerie Plame. It would never be considered material."

Rather, Toensing says, the difference between Rove's and Cooper's account of their conversation falls within the normal differences in recollection that often occur when two people are asked about the same event. And if such differences were the basis for a perjury prosecution, Toensing says, one might as well speculate that Matt Cooper could face such charges. Both scenarios, she suggests, are ridiculous. "Somebody remembers something as happening on Tuesday, and somebody remembers it happening on Wednesday. People differ in their memory. It's not perjury."

Byron York, NR's White House correspondent, is the author of the book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They'll Try Even Harder Next Time.

[Phsstpok]

the difference between Rove's and Cooper's account of their conversation falls within the normal differences in recollection that often occur when two people are asked about the same event

there would be a crime if Matt Cooper destroyed notes that confirmed Rove's account in an attempt to "get" Rove. Cooper has said that he originally told investigators that he had notes of the conversation but when he testified before the grand jury he had no notes from the conversation (except his "double secret" email to his boss).

I think Cooper may be the one facing charges.

In a post on another thread I waxed lyrical about my dream of the entire democrat party facing RICO or treason charges over this rather obvious conspiracy.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

[massgopguy]

On page 39 of the Senate Committee Report on Niger it says that the Reports Officer testified that the former ambassador's wife recommended her husband name to the Chief of the CPD. That person made the decision to send him. Check the CIA web-site to find out this person's name.

[MizSterious]

Wouldn't surprise me. This thing first reared its ugly head around election time; they needed an "issue," even if was based on anonymous sources (aka, "the voices in my head").

[Politics4Fun]

"I don't recall doing so"...this guy's born for politics. Rove is doing the right thing and affirming all discussions and context, meanwhile, everyone else is throwing in ambiguities and all other kinds of garbage.

Give me a break.

[Paradox]

This Rove thing is nothing but a giant circle jerk for the media. Its hilarious and disgusting at the same time..

[YaYa123]

It's good to read this one over again. Byron York deserves a medal, (or at least an attaboy), for keeping me from over-reacting to spit and spin from the drooling left.

And speaking of "drool", I think Chris Matthews will die of despair when Scooter Libby is not indicted!

[JmyBryan]

And the irony is that the left is always going after the CIA, the heart of the capitalist empire builders. But now, the CIA is beyond reproach. Russert says on MTP - we should let the CIA determine who is covert and who isn't - like the media never questions what the CIA says.

This whole thing stinks. The CIA/State angle is going to be exposed - the question is when.

[NRA1995]

I sure wish they'd stop adding "-gate" to the end of every so-called scandal.....getting old, it is.....

[DaiHuy]

"It will be an excellent (another) club for the GOP candidate to use against the "VERACITY" of the left..."

They have a box full of excellent clubs, they just never open it and select one.

[Steve_Seattle]

York is correct: slightly differing recollections of a year-old telephone conversation do not rise to the level of perjury, not even close, even if Rove did not have the corroborating email. Just more grasping at straws by the Bush haters.

[Steve_Seattle]

"I sure wish they'd stop adding "-gate" to the end of every so-called scandal.....getting old, it is....."

I've been saying this for years; it's neither clever nor accurate. It doesn't make any sense at all.

[Jonah Johansen]

Big Question/Worry for me is WHY ARE THE DEMOCRATS GOING SO FAR OUT ON THE LIMB?
If Rove is not indicted or severely criticized by the Grand Jury report, then the Democrats and their media allies are going to have egg on their face big time. The media and the Democrats have already tried and convicted him. They are really taking a big chance, unless they know something we do not.
I have to suspect they have a source in the investigation who has told them Rove will be indicted. I find it hard to believe they would risk so much if there was the possibility of it backfiring.

I was hoping that Fitzgerald’s target was actually leaks by Democrats or those opposed to the Administration. Judith Miller’s past history of undermining his investigation into fake Islamic charities would explain why he insisted on her jailing and why she would choose jail rather than revealing a source. I was hoping the source she was protecting was the person who revealed the information to her, (possibly someone in Fitzgerald’s office), which hurt Fitzgerald's earlier investigation.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Once again, Plame WAS NOT A "COVERT AGENT" and hence was not "protected."

This is exactly the point that the MSM media (36 major organizations) made in their own "amici curiae" legal brief in the Miller/Cooper case last March. The duplicity is astounding. In that brief, they argued that Plame was not covert, had not been for many years, that the CIA was not trying to protect her identity, and that Wilson was not qualified for the Niger assignment. Moreover, they argued it was a misuse of the CIA statute to apply it in this case. While the MSM was privately arguing that there was probably no crime, they were publicly claiming there was definitely a crime and were trying to hang someone - anyone - in the Bush administration.

[Steve_Seattle]

"If Rove is not indicted or severely criticized by the Grand Jury report, then the Democrats and their media allies are going to have egg on their face big time."

In the minds of Freepers they will, but the general public won't take much notice. They have largely ignored the whole thing. Moreover, the media is not going to apologize about this or hang their head in sorrow; they'll just move on to something else. The whole thing will just quietly fade away. So there's no risk for the MSM in being wrong about this.

[slowhand520]

Matt Cooper is a fat slime ball that is 1/10th of a man.

[CyberAnt]

Everybody keeps leaving out the other major player in this STAGED event = HILLARY.

While she may have been campaigning for Kerry - secretly she HAD TO MAKE HIM LOSE - because she needed a clear field for her run in 2008.

[EagleUSA]

They have a box full of excellent clubs, they just never open it and select one.
------
Is it not sad? A plethora of weapons to use against the libs, and they never do. I just hope before I am gone, that I get to see a REAL PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, with the courage, patriotism and fire of a Zell Miller, run against the slimey leftists and generate a landslide victory that puts the libs out of business for good.

[ken21]

time mag's already got him convicted.

[EagleUSA]

secretly she HAD TO MAKE HIM LOSE....
-----
Of course, and we sure did not hear the fire and brimstone from the Clintons during the so-called Kerry campaign, did we??

No -- just the din from the victory party at Hitlery's house when Kerry lost!!!