Posted on 07/12/2005 9:31:17 PM PDT by oc311
Byron York has a vital detail in his must-read piece right now on the main part of the NRO website. Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, tells Byron that Time's Matt Cooper called Rove to talk about something else and that only secondarily did the subject of Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame come up.
This is important, because it suggests Rove wasn't "retailing" the information about Wilson and Plame -- wasn't reporter-shopping to drop a dirty dime on those involved -- but was rather a passive source, answering a phone call at the reporter's behest and presumably changing topics to the sexier one at issue at the reporter's behest as well.
Since Rove-centric psychos can devise any scenario whereby he manipulates people into doing everything he wants, I doubt this detail will change any minds in Daily Kos-ville. But it offers an important and nagging clue to the continuing antics of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. What do I mean?
It means that clearly information was circulating around Washington about the identity of Wilson's CIA operative wife Valerie Plame. The presumption has thus far been in most quarters that the only people who could have known about this were administration officials.
But what if that's not right? What if the original source for the "Wilson got the job from his CIA wife" was, in fact, a reporter? After all, we know that the vice president's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, has testified he learned of Plame's identity from a journalist.
Wilson had gotten very cozy with a couple of them -- Walter Pincus of the Washington Post and Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times among them. What if he spilled the beans to enhance his own standing in the story somehow, to bolster his supposed findings?
What if -- and here's where it gets really interesting -- what if the real object of interest where Fitzgerald's investigation is concerned is now none other than the jailed Judith Miller of the New York Times? What if she let it all slip and in the giant game of telephone around the nation's capital, Miller was the original source of the "Plame's in the CIA" info? What if Fitzgerald needs her notes to discern whether Miller knew or didn't know of Plame's supposedly covert status?
Fitzgerald already has a major bone to pick with Miller. He believes she materially and dangerously impeded his investigation into a terrorist-financing scheme run by the Holy Land Foundation.
When Miller found out that Fitzgerald was on the verge of indicting Holy Land, she called the Foundation for comment -- and right after her call Fitzgerald believes the Foundation may have commenced a shredding party that ensured prosecutors would find little paperwork to go on when they raided the Holy Land offices.
As the Washington Post put it, "On Dec. 3, 2001, Times reporter Judith Miller telephoned officials with the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a Texas-based charity accused of being a front for Palestinian terrorists, and asked for a comment about what she said was the government's probable crackdown on the group. U.S. officials said this conversation and Miller's article on the subject in the Times on Dec. 4 increased the likelihood that the foundation destroyed or hid records before a hastily organized raid by agents that day."
Fitzgerald sought her phone records on that occasion to uncover the source of a potential leak in his own office and was blocked by a liberal New York judge named Robert Sweet. Miller didn't get so lucky this time. Fitzgerald thinks Miller has a loose tongue, and for good reason. It's possible he's trying to figure out what other mischief her loose tongue might have caused.
No--once again you cherrypick and simply ignore all those many points I made and pretend I didn't go through your last post point by point and answer them. You skip all that. And you're still skipping it.
Uh, you mean THIS senate intelligence committee report?
http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf
No, never did. When did I say that? You suddenly brought that up as a diversion--unless you're saying the Senate Intel Report supports your assertions about Rove, which it does not, it merely contains the information about the Plame case. It says not one word about Rove doing the things you claim he did.
Off your rocker, with an overinflated opinion of your destructive capacity.
Please see post 35. Funny how you stopped replying to me point by point all of a sudden.
I'm glad you have such a high opinion of your posts, but I'm still standing, without a scratch.
As for substantive information, you have none. If you consider asking you to keep the discussion on what is known as opposed to your fantasies about Rove "bizarre rambling" then it's quite obvious who's still standing, and who's jsut making things up.
Since you haven't responded to the "bizarre rambling" of three posts--if it's so bizarre, why can't you refute the points, including the link to the senate report...which is so classified that it was linked in online articles four days after it appeared?--then obviously you realize you have no argument, are simply making it all up, and you know it.
By your own admission you have no facts; your behavior shows all you've got is grudge against Rove. All that proves is you have an ax to grind, and that's fine. The rest of us will rely on reality. Enjoy being the master of your own warped view of reality.
I think you are either off your rocker or intentionally attempting to create misdirection. So, tell you what. Any so-called 'point' you want me to respond to - put it out there. Don't simply refer to your earlier ramblings. You got a point you want a response to - ask it. I'll respond directly. Have at it.
This is the best info yet!
Bump.
Gore v/s Bush. The little c***s***er spread all manner of untruths about W.
The comment Rove supposedly made that Wilson's wife was "fair game" is what Wilson said Chris Matthews said Rove told Matthews.
There are two degrees of grandstanding interpretation in that report. First of all, we don't know that Matthews accurately relayed the comment to Wilson (and it seems highly unlikely to me that Rove would have used such inflammatory language in a conversation with Matthews). Secondly, anything Wilson reports is always done in a drama-queen style, as can be seen from his media appearances and reading excerpts from his book.
So, I would take the "fair game" comment with a very large grain of salt.
The DUI incident was one in which Chris Lehane was involved. Those records were sealed. Someone mamnaged to get them out of the courthouse. Chris Lehane, coincidentally, is from Maine, and his sister worked at the courthouse. The guy who shopped them to the press was a stooge, IMHO.
And there you go. Thanks Miss M!
Thanks Miss Marple. I could not put my finger on the specific incident.
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.