Posted on 12/03/2005 8:18:32 AM PST by frankjr
A reporter for Time magazine told Karl Rove's attorney in early 2004 that the White House deputy chief of staff might be in more legal trouble than he originally thought, according to sources familiar with the conversation. Now, Rove is relying on that casual exchange as part of a broad effort to convince a prosecutor he did not lie about his role in the CIA leak case, the sources said.
Over drinks, [Viveca] Novak told Luskin that Time employees were buzzing that Rove had talked to her colleague Matthew Cooper about CIA operative Valerie Plame in July 2003, sources familiar with the conversation said.
It is not clear why, or if, the information from Novak could help clear Rove, but Luskin used it and other information to persuade Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald to rethink indicting Rove in late October, according to a source briefed on the matter.
One person familiar with the case said the Novak-Luskin conversation is not what prompted Rove to change his testimony in the case. In fact, this person said, Novak told Luskin about the Rove-Cooper connection before Rove's first appearance before the grand jury in February 2004. ...Luskin personally conducted a review of thousands of e-mails Rove had sent during the crucial weeks in 2003...
Amid the e-mails, Luskin found one sent from Rove to Stephen J. Hadley...in which Rove mentioned his conversation with Cooper. The e-mail was written from Rove's government account, which investigators searched early in the inquiry. It is unclear why the e-mail was not discovered at that time.
Once found by Luskin, the e-mail was shared with Rove and then quickly turned over to Fitzgerald, the source said. Rove then testified that the e-mail "established that he had in fact had a conversation with Cooper," the source said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I screwed up. Please change source from NY Times to Washington Post. Thanks.
Gossip, gossip, meaningless gossip.
The bigger question most people want to know about this case is - who cares?????!!!!
The bold text is a lie. Fitzgerald's investigation had NOTHING to do with the reasons for going into Iraq... in fact, he dismissed that at his press-conference in October.
The MSM has been lying about this from the git-go!
Sub -
You are correct about the duplicate. The two source articles used different Headlines (why I did not see in search), but body appears to be identical).
Moderator -
Feel free to delete. Thanks.
If Fitzgerald is investigating whether Rove "remembered" the Cooper conversation at the time he first testified at the GJ, he is really on a fishing trip. Speaking of fish, I had some great cajun fried fish last night along with spinach and rice for dinner. I remember that now. Put me on the stand under oath, and I may or may not remember what I had for dinner last night. Two words, Mr. Fitzgerald: reasonable doubt.
That's what they do for a living................. they are murdering this country......... and it's time to IDENTIFY this conscious effort! .............
***
The old established/liberal/socialist media is America's most ruthless, relentless, and destructive enemy.
***
This sounds like that kids game where one kid tells another something and around it goes till it is different than the original....what a waste of energy,time,money etc.
Yep, good catch. The authors, Jim VandeHei and Carol D. Leonnig, are shameless liars and scumbags.
(I have added them to the 'reporters with no credibility' list.)
Luskin may have screwed up by talking to that reporter.
I agree. Jim VandeHei seems to get a lot of things wrong, and his articles seem to be a lot of "wishful thinking" supporting his bias.
When are Republican politicians going to learn that MSM "reporters" and "journalists" are not our friends? They are the enemy of the American people.
"Over drinks, [Viveca] Novak told Luskin that Time employees were buzzing"
Luskin and Novak were drinking together? I'm fairly cynical, but even I can't buy that one.
Your right, Fitzzzzzzzzz is on a fishing trip, that is to say, he is trying to "save his ass". It must be embarrassing to spend over two years and literally have nothing to show for it except contrived perjury crap. Perjury based on memory of a small incident over years is a lame attorney's way to say "gotcha". What an a@@. It's too late for this nut to quit now. He'll have to try to bring the entire Administration down so he can say, I'm king, screw with me and I'll get ya!
Fifth Column.
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.