Skip to comments.'NY Times' and 'Wash Post' Differ on Whether Source Who Gave Matt Cooper Waiver Was Karl Rove
Posted on 07/07/2005 7:16:31 AM PDT by Pikamax
'NY Times' Says Source Who Gave Matt Cooper Waiver Was Karl Rove
By E&P Staff
Published: July 07, 2005 8:45 AM ET
NEW YORK "A short time ago, in somewhat dramatic fashion, I received an express, personal release from my source," Matt Cooper of Time magazine told a federal judge yesterday, in dramatic fashion, just before being sentenced to jail. "It's with a bit of surprise and no small amount of relief that I will comply with this subpoena."
But who was this source? According to The New York Times today, "Cooper's decision to drop his refusal to testify followed discussions on Wednesday morning among lawyers representing Mr. Cooper and Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser, according to a person who has been officially briefed on the case."
Rove's lawyer had confirmed over the weekend that his client had turned up as a source in Cooper's documents, which Time turned over to the special prosecutor on Friday, but that did not mean that he was the key source in question.
Recent discussions, the Times reported, "centered on whether a legal release signed by Mr. Rove last year was meant to apply specifically to Mr. Cooper, who by its terms would be released from any pledge of confidentiality he had made to Mr. Rove, the person said. Mr. Cooper said in court that he had agreed to testify only after he had received an explicit waiver from his source.
Richard A. Sauber, a lawyer for Cooper, would not discuss whether Cooper was referring to Mr. Rove, nor would he comment on discussions leading up to Cooper's decision. Rove declined to comment on Wednesday.
Yeah! I really believe anything the Slimes says.
Know what? With what just happened to the innocent people of London this seems so unimportant right now.
If this is so, I'll bet Rove has lawyers who can show that he did not violate the law.
It sure is. But the Slimes is going to keep up the attack of anything Bush or his administration does. That, to the people of the Slimes is worse than any terrorist could be.
My sentiments exactly. Our thoughts and prayers go out to all in London.
Thanks for your thoughtful post.
WHO CARES? Wait, I forgot the DU.
Brit Hume talked about this yesterday. He said that Karl Rove had signed a release "before" so he (Hume) didn't think that the one that had just been signed would have been from Rove. It was speculation on Brit's part, but he made sense. This article doesn't contradict Brit's observation.
Rove isn't an elected official. If he is guilty of this crime, he can resign, and I just don't see much long-term damage being done.
Can he PROVE that Karl Rove was the source?
It doesn't sound like anyone knows what the crime currently under investigation is. It appears that the initial leak may not be the focus now, but potentially perjury during the grand jury testimony. If Rove signed a waiver before and Cooper wanted to hear something directly from Rove (or other sources), that should not be a big deal in, and of, itself.
Assuming Rove did something wrong (which still seems unlikely), I think it is hard to say he can resign and that is the end. We know the left will turn this into some grand conspiracy on the Bush administration and try to link Bush (just as Norah O'Donnell was blabbing about on MSNBC yesterday).
I am guessing Rove did nothing wrong. Who knows? But I do know I will be much happier when this is all over...and hopefully soon.
A lot of people in D.C knew who Valerie Plame worked at the CIA, they were a known couple that went to a lot of D.C cocktail parties.
She wasn't a covert agent.
I don't see what was wrong with pointing out that Wilson's wife was the one that sent Wilson on the trip to Africa.
Maybe Rove did, maybe not. I really don't care either way.
The real problem for the NY Slimes is that they have no credibility.
I heard Brit say that too and me thinks this is nothing but a knee jerk fantasy by the NY Slimes doing any and everything to smear Karl Rove. I do hope they'll be made to look incompetent and foolish once again.
Yesterday Rove's attorney denied that Rove was the person referenced by Cooper.
I doubt Cooper's "express, personal release" was signed, or that it was even a document. More likely it's a fairy tale, designed to cast further suspicion on Rove and/or the administration.
This whole case is about as clear as mud, and the MSM likes it just fine that way.
Liberals make me sick!!!!!
Thats interesting. I believe that contradicts what this article is saying. Do you have a source/link to that comment by Rove's lawyer?? Thanks.
Does Rove confirm or deny?
That's the acid test.
Yeah but he doesn't have the press to get the word out after he is found guilty before the trial.
The basic story line the media has been trying to sell is this: In retaliation for Wilson's column in the NYT, the Bush administration decided to "punish" Wilson by "outing" his wife, either to endanger her or to somehow embarrass or discredit Wilson. As for the second option, it has never been clear to me how "outing" Plame would embarrass or discredit Wilson; it is a non sequitor. As for the former, that they would deliberately try to get Plame harmed, that seems the stuff of wild-eyed conspiracy theorists who watch too much TV. Moreover, Plame's identity as a CIA employee was already known to many in Washington prior to Novak's column. So, to me, the basic premise of this whole thing has never made much sense; it's just a desperate media attempt to create another Watergate.
Whether Rove broke the law or not, I hope he's learned to not talk to reporters from Time or the New York Times.
This has been common knowledge for several days. Everyone knows that Karl Rove gave the interview and also gave a waiver. The prosecutor's office stated clearly yesterday that Karl Rove IS NOT the target of the investigation.
I don't have a link, but there were two big stories on this in the Seattle Times today, one written by Carol Leonnig of the Washington Post. This is a direct quote from her story: "Luskin [Rove's attorney] has said Rove did not identify Plame to Cooper and did nothing wrong. In an interview yesterday, he said Rove is not the source who called Cooper and personally waived the confidentiality agreement."
How about this? They knew that Rove had done nothing wrong over a year ago when this thing first came up, but held back to build suspense, make people think that whoever the leaker is has committed felonies, would go to jail forever when caught, make something out of nothing, to hurt Rove? After all, who believes that these reporters would risk jail to protect Rove?
To finish my thought, the Seattle Times has a free website where you don't need to sign up to see today's stuff, only archived material, so the story is probably there in its entirety, although I haven't checked for sure.
With every edition they publish, the New York Times continues to prove exactly *WHY*, on the morning of September 11th, al Qaeda never considered crashing one of those airliners into the NYT building.
After all, why would you wish to harm your ALLIES?!?
It's only a crime is someone knowingly outs an undercover operative.
1st) she wasn't undercover
2nd) since she wasn't undercover, it's impossible for her to be outed
Yeah, this Plame B would have stopped the London attack if she hadn't been outted. Time for some prospective on what is important and what isn't.
Thanks. I found the link: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002364091_leak07.html
Of course it was the last sentence in the article.
Your almost right. Here's the real truth. If we had a democrat in the white house and he had done everything GW has done, he would be a hero to this country and the world. Since we have a republican in the white house they tell a different story. You see it's the party before what's right and wrong. It's the party before country.
It appears the reporters did not rely on the earlier, formal releases. They knew everyone in the government was made to sign form releases. So it still could be Rove.
Understand your feelings; as much of the news pales, but am wondering why are you posting on this 'title' to begin with? Are you going to offer the same sentiiment on every other 'non-London, bombing thread today?
Life in London is going on. . .that is the good news; and informational postings here should go on as well. It is what FR is all about.
You can sympathize and theorize; on any number of posts re the terrorism in London.
Or perhaps I have just misread your comment here and it is not a criticism. . .
Also, I thought Cooper claimed earlier that he had multiple sources.
Slug a leftist journalist in the guts TODAY - it'll not only make you feel better, it's good for our country!
NYTimes implies that Rove was the source that gave Cooper the last minute release:
"Mr. Cooper's decision to drop his refusal to testify followed discussions on Wednesday morning among lawyers representing Mr. Cooper and Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser, according to a person who has been officially briefed on the case. Mr. Fitzgerald was also involved in the discussions, the person said.
In his statement in court, Mr. Cooper did not name Mr. Rove as the source about whom he would now testify, but the person who was briefed on the case said that he was referring to Mr. Rove and that Mr. Cooper's decision came after behind-the-scenes maneuvering by his lawyers and others in the case.
Those discussions centered on whether a legal release signed by Mr. Rove last year was meant to apply specifically to Mr. Cooper, who by its terms would be released from any pledge of confidentiality he had made to Mr. Rove, the person said. Mr. Cooper said in court that he had agreed to testify only after he had received an explicit waiver from his source."
But the article that Steve_Seattle points out from a WaPo reporter it implies Rove last not the source who gave the last minute release:
"One of the government officials Cooper talked to during that period was Karl Rove, Bush's chief political adviser, according to Cooper's notes and Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin. Luskin has said Rove did not identify Plame to Cooper and did nothing wrong. In an interview yesterday, he said Rove is not the source who called Cooper and personally waived the confidentiality agreement."
So either I am reading this wrong, or someone is lying...the NYT or Luskin (Rove's attorney). Of course the NYT source is unnamed.
Which was exactly Rove's plan! </DUmmie conspiracy theorist>
Rove had the innocent people of London blown up just to cover this news. Just watch, DU will theorize this later today.
I didn't see that story, was there a thread on that specific denial by Rove's attorney regarding what happened yesterday?
In fairness, though, some DUers laid off the politics long enough to express sympathy for the Brits. I never thought I'd say a good thing about DU!
never mind, I see the link now, thanks.
"a" source vs "THE" source.
A direct question and cross examination of the named source would reveal if the Time reporter is lying.
If he is lying then it is perjury.
Somehow I think Rove himself is not the source. However Time magazine has now fed decades of conspiracy theory fires for the left.
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.