Posted on 12/11/2005 5:27:56 PM PST by Zeppo
WASHINGTON, Dec. 11 - A lawyer for Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, learned in the first half of 2004 that Mr. Rove had probably been a source for the magazine's July 2003 article that mentioned the C.I.A. officer who has come to be at the heart of the C.I.A. leak case, a Time reporter wrote today.
The Time reporter, Viveca Novak, wrote in a first-person article published on the magazine's Web site that she met with Robert D. Luskin, a lawyer for Mr. Rove, on three occasions in early 2004. She said it was probably during one of these meetings that she raised the possibility that Mr. Rove had discussed the C.I.A. officer with a Time colleague, Matthew Cooper.
Ms. Novak's conversation with Mr. Luskin has been under scrutiny by the special counsel in the leak case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald. In her article, Ms. Novak wrote that the prosecutor sought to question her about the matter after Mr. Luskin told Mr. Fitzgerald of their conversation about Mr. Rove in the belief that the information would help Mr. Rove.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Therefore, an honest headline might be "Lawyer Did Not Know That Rove Was a Source, Reporter Says", which is the opposite of the NYT headline. Now, perhaps there is some twisted, tortured reading of the article that corresponds to the headline, but I don't see it, and most of the NYT readers will be fooled into thinking that this article exposes a "gotcha" against Karl Rove and his lawyer, when of course the opposite is the truth. Of course, the article contains other essentially false information, which is what we've come to expect from the New York Times, and so I haven't bothered commenting on the details in the article beyond the misleading headline...
The upshot is that people who rely on the NY Times for their news are so frequently left in the dark...
they know that no one can follow this case anymore with all these twists and turns - so they can just make up their own version of events for the headlines.
"all the news that fits, we print"
Start a tip board on which Dem Senator reads this into the Record from the Floor of the Senate.
bttt
Just kidding. Enemy research is an important activity in any war.
the NYT is more then just a single newspaper. its the "head of the snake" in the liberal MSM. Bernard Goldberg describes this very well in his books, how the entire structure of the MSM feeds from whatever the NYT publishes - the network news, the liberal cable news, regional newspapers, etc.
Just a bit of harmless confusion on the part of the headline writer, no doubt. He meant to say "Lawyer knew Reporter was Source" but just got a little confused.
:-}
This is a reverse Watergate. Back then, Nixon and co. knew what they knew, and the media was trying to find out what it was. But now, the media knows what it knows, and the government is trying to find out.
Pelosi
Mr. Rove had PROBABLY been a source...
She said it was PROBABLY during one of these meetings...
Like, who cares?
Saw photo of Valerie Plame leaving her driveway recently. Attractive woman, but also seemed to me to be very confidently enjoying the whole thing. Then again what would you expect from an alleged CIA analyst who sends her hubby on an intelligence mission, and then sits on her hands as he lies his butt off about it in public. In other words, just what game is she playing with our national security and why is no one looking into it? She should have been fired Separating her husband's behavior from her is a farce.
At least Miller, Woodward, and Viveca Novak have documented such difficulties with their recollections. And, at least Cooper and Russert have different recollections from those of the administration officials that they talked to, but that is almost certainly a real-life version of Rashomon rather than evidence of criminality. And Mitchell is backpedalling as fast as she can away from her own on-the-record remarks. Wilson has admitted to being confused about when he knew about the Niger documents being a forgery, and how he could have known that the document had the wrong names and dates even without having seen it (although there is a more sinister explanation which anybody with half a brain can figure out). We still do not know who Robert Novak's source was, nor do we know (other than through rumors) who Woodward's source was. Kristof and Pincus and Corn have yet to come clean on all that they know. But the idea that there is one and only one "truth" that can be discerned by a jury is looking ever more laughable by the day.
If all of those reporters (who are supposed to be keeping accurate notes about these things) can not get dates and places and conversations straight, why should someone such as Libby be expected to do so, especially when the underlying matter was not of great importance at the time? To anybody who has been paying attention, Fitzgerald's work has been revealed to be a cruel farce. Too bad that NY Times readers don't have a clue about any of that...
I no longer subscribe to the NY Times, because that is equivalent to giving a contribution to the DNC.
"I would like to have my facts be a little more confirmed than "Probably" and 'Possibly""
And the dems would like you to have your facts be a little more confused with 'probably' and 'possibly'.
Attorney client privilige.
Is she saying that Mr. Rove's attorney breached his attorney client privilige?
That attorney is in a world of hurt if he did.
I doubt Luskin is that stupid.
I doubt it also.
And THAT point is why the article is probably false. Attornies are notoriously tight lipped.
They keep hoping Plamegate is going to interest people. And hoping and hoping and hoping...
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.