CNN Transcript: Lawrence O'Donnell on Aarron Brown, July 5, 2005

Scroll down to last half of transcript for the beginning of the Lawrence O'Donnell segment.

It all began when Joe Wilson made much ado about nothing.

He demanded an investigation. His cohorts in the media joined in the hysterical ranting.

They demanded our AG recuse himself. They demanded a special prosecutor......

And now they're whining.......

It was nice of Larry to clear Rove in this interview:

"O'DONNELL: I think Karl Rove is in a position where he may lose his job, but it is hard for me to see where the crime would be for Karl Rove. I think he's too smart for perjury and I don't think he's actually qualified to have committed the original crime."

Now I am not sure why he asking for Rove to lose his job.

Now I am not sure why he asking for Rove to lose his job.

Same reasoning they use for DeLay. He's effective, so I don't like hime, so he has to go. Interesting 180 by O'Donnell, who is crazy as a bed bug.

((No scrolling necessary, here's the entire O'Donnell exchange with Brown.))

"BROWN: Ahead on the program, with two reporters facing jail for not revealing sources, could one of the sources be none other than the president's top political adviser? Quite an accusation. We'll talk with the accuser.

And later, the story behind the tabloid headline. Don't talk crepe. First, however, the appetizer, from the dining capital of the world, New York. This is NEWSNIGHT.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: We return tonight to the case of Judith Miller, Matt Cooper, Robert Novak and Valerie Plame. If ever there was a story that defied understanding, this surely is it.

It started simply enough. Who told Robert Novak, the columnist and CNN contributor, that Ms. Plame was a CIA operative, and in doing so perhaps committed a crime? That's how it started.

Tonight, Mr. Cooper, who works for "Time" magazine and Ms. Miller of "The New York Times" are a step closer to jail. Mr. Novak is not, though he won't say exactly why, and it isn't exactly clear what crime the prosecutor is looking at anymore. We begin with CNN's Kelly Wallace.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KELLY WALLACE, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In court documents demanding the testimony of the two reporters, federal special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wrote, "journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality. No one in America is." He said the testimony of Matthew Cooper of "Time" magazine remains necessary for his investigation into who leaked the name of a covert CIA agent. Last week, "Time" magazine chose to turn over e- mails and other internal documents. Time, Inc's editor in chief, Norman Pearlstine, told CNN's Soledad O'Brien, he hoped this would mean Cooper was no longer in legal jeopardy.

NORMAN PEARLSTINE, EDITOR IN CHIEF, TIME, INC.: My own view is that by turning over this information, we obviate the need for Matt to even testify, let alone be incarcerated. But I can't speak for Judge Hogan.

WALLACE: The special prosecutor also opposed the requests of Cooper and Judith Miller of "The New York Times" to be placed under house arrest or be sent to a prison of their own choosing.

Wrote Fitzgerald, "forced vacation at a comfortable home is not a compelling form of coercion." Cooper and Miller and their attorneys declined to comment. In an exclusive interview late last month, Miller, who never actually wrote a story about the agent in question, said she would never reveal her confidential sources.

MILLER: This is either a principle, or it's not. And for me, it's a kind of cardinal principle of our profession. You don't rat on sources.

WALLACE: The person who first reported the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame, syndicated columnist Robert Novak, who is also a CNN contributor. Last week on CNN's "INSIDE POLITICS," Novak, whose role in the investigation remains a mystery, said he hoped Miller and Cooper would not go to jail.

ROBERT NOVAK, CNN COMMENTATOR: I deplore the thought of reporters -- I've been a reporter all my life -- going to jail for any period of time for not revealing sources, but did I -- my lawyer said I cannot answer any specific questions about this case, until it is resolved, which I hope is very soon.

WALLACE (on camera): And now the stage is set for a high-stakes hearing in a federal courtroom Wednesday afternoon, with Miller and Cooper facing the possibility of spending the next 120 days behind bars.

Kelly Wallace, CNN, New York.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: Well, now what exactly "Time" turned over has become the subject of considerable speculation and at least one allegation. Political analyst Lawrence O'Donnell claims that one of the sources revealed in Matthew Cooper's notes and e-mails with his bosses is the White House chief political adviser, Karl Rove, that Mr. Rove is a source. Quite an accusation. Mr. O'Donnell, who is also an executive producer of "West Wing," joins us tonight from Los Angeles. How do you know that Mr. Rove did it?

LAWRENCE O'DONNELL, EXEC. PRODUCER, "WEST WING": I learned this months ago, Aaron. And I did not want to reveal it until it was, in effect, something that would not in any way interfere with the grand jury process. I revealed it at exactly the time on Friday that "Time" magazine was handing over their e-mails. So I revealed it then, at a time where the prosecutor would know exactly what I knew. Had I said the same thing a few months ago, I would have then been immediately subpoenaed into the grand jury and would have been asked what you just asked me, which is how do I know this? Which is something that I cannot answer because I have confidential sources on this.

BROWN: Nobody wants to give anything up here.

Here's -- Mr. Rove's lawyer said a couple of things that are interesting, if you really sit down and parse them. He said that Mr. Rove is not a target of the investigation, and he has said that Mr. Rove, while having -- he did, in fact, talk to Mr. Cooper, never knowingly, underscore knowingly here, revealed any classified information. I think the knowingly is important under the law, right?

O'DONNELL: Yes, it is. The law that governs this secrecy requires certain things in order to commit the crime. You have to, first of all, be an authorized person. You have to have a security clearance that authorizes you to know that someone is a covert agent. It's not at all clear, parenthetically, that Karl Rove had that kind of clearance and was an authorized person. Therefore, whatever he said, if not an authorized person, could not be a crime.

The other part is, even if you are an authorized person, you have to know that she is a covert agent. You then have to know that the CIA is taking what the law calls "affirmative measures" to hide her relationship to the CIA. You have to know both of those things in order to commit the crime.

And then, thirdly, she has to actually be a covert agent, and the law itself, not the CIA, defines what that is. The law has very strict requirements to fit the covert agent elements, including having an overseas posting in the last five years. It's very specific. And it's not clear to me that Valerie Plame fits the statutory definition of covert agent that could create the crime in the first place.

BROWN: Now, here's what's not clear to me. There are a couple of things. Is it clear that this is now about who leaked to whomever? To Novak or Cooper or Miller or anybody? Or is this now a perjury investigation?

O'DONNELL: We are probably beyond the leak investigation and on to the perjury investigation.

BROWN: Then it doesn't matter if it was knowingly, whether it was a covert agent, whether it was any of that nonsense?

O'DONNELL: Yes, all those things matter in order to get us past the security violation. Those are the elements that would have -- if they line up the way I suggest they might, which is it may be that Plame is not a covert agent, that's what would eliminate the crime in the first instance. And then what you're left with is a perjury investigation.

The evidence of that is in the prosecutor's own pleadings. Every brief the prosecutor has filed all the way up to the Supreme Court represents to the court that, this is a quote, "the focus of the investigation has shifted." We all know what the initial focus was. The initial focus was this security leak. If it has shifted, what would it have shifted to? They usually shift to perjury investigations.

BROWN: You are a guy that has hung around Washington a long time, knows Washington. Don't you think the president would have called Karl Rove up and said, Karl, look, there's a lot of pressure to get a special prosecutor on this. We could be in kind of deep trouble if you had anything to do with it, so you best tell me now.

O'DONNELL: I think the president wouldn't do that. This is the kind of knowledge that a president doesn't want to have. The president called for a special prosecutor to do that investigation for him. You can't find any examples of presidents, when an investigative question arises in the White House, summoning people in and trying to be the prosecutor themselves. I would be very surprised if this president did that.

BROWN: Ten seconds. Do you think Karl Rove's going down on this?

O'DONNELL: I think Karl Rove is in a position where he may lose his job, but it is hard for me to see where the crime would be for Karl Rove. I think he's too smart for perjury and I don't think he's actually qualified to have committed the original crime.

BROWN: Nice to see you.

O'DONNELL: Thank you.

BROWN: Thank you"

Of course, very few people, if any saw this alleged newscast. With CNN's numbers circling the toilet one has to ask, "If news is broadcast on CNN and no one watches, was it really ever on the air?"

Looks like O'Donnell has gotten back on his meds. At least he seems somewhat coherent in that segment.

Wonder what he'll say if and when it's revealed that a Democrat leaked.

"If news is broadcast on CNN and no one watches, was it really ever on the air?"

LOL!

LOL!

If Aaaron Brown opens his mouth in an empty studio with no camera..does anyone hear him?

"O'DONNELL: I think Karl Rove is in a position where he may lose his job, but it is hard for me to see where the crime would be for Karl Rove. I think he's too smart for perjury and I don't think he's actually qualified to have committed the original crime."

THEN WHO CARES???!!! It's not an issue

Seems to me as if the back pedalling O'Donnell is trying to regain some credibility after five days of slingingshit in Karl Rove's direction.

Democrats are so good at this: Falsely smear a political opponent, make the allegations, so that even when the truth comes out, their false allegations remain "out there", polluting the political air.

The Miller/Cooper hearing is scheduled for today at 2 PM, EST.

"Which is something that I cannot answer because I have confidential sources on this."

Why is it that every time I hear a liberal reporter say they have confidential sources, I feel like, "Well ok, what lie are you trying to feed me now?"

I've often thought "Confidential Source" was reporter-speak for "I'm making this up".

I think Karl Rove is in a position where he may lose his job

Oh, right, that's gonna happen.

"Which is something that I cannot answer because I have confidential sources on this."

I happen to hear this interview last night, as CNN is the only cable they got up at the lake.

When I heard him say that, my first thought was, well, why are Cooper and Time telling ANYBODY except Fitzgerald?

All this proved to me is what we've all been saying: IF it was Rove, Miller and Cooper wouldn't be going to jail for him!

Start packing those bags, Mandy!

and it isn't exactly clear what crime the prosecutor is looking at anymore.

Finally it is dawning on the media.

;)

The Miller/Cooper hearing is scheduled for today at 2 PM, EST.

Thanks for the time--I hadn't heard it before. Will synchronize my watch.

heh