Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'NY Times' and 'Wash Post' Differ on Whether Source Who Gave Matt Cooper Waiver Was Karl Rove
Editor and Publisher ^ | 07/07/05 | E&P Staff

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cialeak; karlrove
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 next last

1 posted on 07/07/2005 7:16:31 AM PDT by Pikamax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

Yeah! I really believe anything the Slimes says.


2 posted on 07/07/2005 7:18:00 AM PDT by Piquaboy (22 year veteran of the Army, Air Force and Navy, Pray for all our military .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Piquaboy

Know what? With what just happened to the innocent people of London this seems so unimportant right now.


3 posted on 07/07/2005 7:19:56 AM PDT by stopem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

If this is so, I'll bet Rove has lawyers who can show that he did not violate the law.


4 posted on 07/07/2005 7:20:21 AM PDT by Paradox (Ipsum Pablum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
Probably true.

What many don't understand is that Cooper probably would have rather gone to jail than to admit that Rove did nothing wrong. Rove released all reporters from confidentiality a long time ago.

Bottom line: Cooper is a pussy, and Judith Miller is going to be exposed as a liar.
5 posted on 07/07/2005 7:21:58 AM PDT by Pukin Dog (Sans Reproache)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stopem

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.


6 posted on 07/07/2005 7:22:24 AM PDT by Piquaboy (22 year veteran of the Army, Air Force and Navy, Pray for all our military .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: stopem

My sentiments exactly. Our thoughts and prayers go out to all in London.

Thanks for your thoughtful post.


7 posted on 07/07/2005 7:23:27 AM PDT by jos65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

WHO CARES? Wait, I forgot the DU.


8 posted on 07/07/2005 7:25:50 AM PDT by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: Pikamax

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.


10 posted on 07/07/2005 7:28:38 AM PDT by Humal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

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.


11 posted on 07/07/2005 7:29:57 AM PDT by nj26
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nj26

Can he PROVE that Karl Rove was the source?


12 posted on 07/07/2005 7:34:53 AM PDT by massgopguy (massgopguy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nj26

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.


13 posted on 07/07/2005 7:35:27 AM PDT by NathanBookman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nj26

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.


14 posted on 07/07/2005 7:37:15 AM PDT by johnmecainrino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

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.


15 posted on 07/07/2005 7:37:25 AM PDT by An American In Dairyland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Humal

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.


16 posted on 07/07/2005 7:39:17 AM PDT by demkicker (A skunk sat on a stump; the stump thunk the skunk stunk; the skunk thunk the stump stunk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Humal

Yesterday Rove's attorney denied that Rove was the person referenced by Cooper.


17 posted on 07/07/2005 7:40:02 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Humal
he (Hume) didn't think that the one that had just been signed would have been from Rove

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.

18 posted on 07/07/2005 7:41:10 AM PDT by browardchad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly; Owl_Eagle; Sam's Army; holdonnow
You are right, the DU cares. They were complaining this morning that the London train bombing took attention away from Rove. They do not care that terrorists have committed another violent act. They do not care that lives were lost and that people were wounded. They are mad that the Rove story was put on the back burner.

Liberals make me sick!!!!!

19 posted on 07/07/2005 7:42:29 AM PDT by Jersey Republican Biker Chick (People too weak to follow their own dreams, will always find a way to discourage yours.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

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.


20 posted on 07/07/2005 7:42:58 AM PDT by NathanBookman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

Does Rove confirm or deny?

That's the acid test.


21 posted on 07/07/2005 7:44:06 AM PDT by Petronski (BRABANTIO: Thou art a villain! ---- IAGO: You are--a senator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
If this is so, I'll bet Rove has lawyers who can show that he did not violate the law.

Yeah but he doesn't have the press to get the word out after he is found guilty before the trial.

22 posted on 07/07/2005 7:44:08 AM PDT by Nov3 ("This is the best election night in history." --DNC chair Terry McAuliffe Nov. 2,2004 8p.m.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

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.


23 posted on 07/07/2005 7:45:12 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paradox

Whether Rove broke the law or not, I hope he's learned to not talk to reporters from Time or the New York Times.


24 posted on 07/07/2005 7:46:42 AM PDT by Repealthe17thAmendment (Is this field required?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: An American In Dairyland
You get no argument from me when you say the New York Times has zero credibility. However the real problem is that the New York Times is "anti-American," duplicitous, spiteful, seditious and run by a pack of liberals who hate the United States and its heroic fighting men and women. They will undermine our efforts in Iraq and our War on Terrorism at every turn. Are they the next worst thing to traitors, or are they traitors? It is a really close call.
25 posted on 07/07/2005 7:48:34 AM PDT by daviscupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

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.


26 posted on 07/07/2005 7:50:06 AM PDT by TommyDale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NathanBookman

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."


27 posted on 07/07/2005 7:50:10 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

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?


28 posted on 07/07/2005 7:50:13 AM PDT by weezel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NathanBookman

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.


29 posted on 07/07/2005 7:52:50 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

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?!?


30 posted on 07/07/2005 7:53:20 AM PDT by Mad Mammoth (JennyHatch = Too afraid to take the Mad Mammoth $1000 Challenge to prove her claims.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nj26

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


31 posted on 07/07/2005 7:54:33 AM PDT by threeleftsmakearight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

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.


32 posted on 07/07/2005 7:55:49 AM PDT by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

Thanks. I found the link: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002364091_leak07.html

Of course it was the last sentence in the article.


33 posted on 07/07/2005 7:57:36 AM PDT by NathanBookman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: NathanBookman
"Of course it was the last sentence in the article."

LOL Yes, in fact, I was on the verge of pointing that out myself.
34 posted on 07/07/2005 7:59:07 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
See! The London bombing was planned by our own government to distract from the Karl Rove thing. I knew it!

/DU rant
35 posted on 07/07/2005 8:00:03 AM PDT by Antoninus (Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini, Hosanna in excelsis!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
"The London bombing was planned by our own government to distract from the Karl Rove thing. I knew it!"

Someone actually said that?
36 posted on 07/07/2005 8:02:12 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: daviscupper

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.


37 posted on 07/07/2005 8:04:44 AM PDT by kempo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Humal

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.


38 posted on 07/07/2005 8:11:12 AM PDT by Williams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: stopem; jos65
"Know what? With what just happened to the innocent people of London this seems so unimportant right now."

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. . .

39 posted on 07/07/2005 8:11:45 AM PDT by cricket (Just say NO U.N.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

Also, I thought Cooper claimed earlier that he had multiple sources.


40 posted on 07/07/2005 8:14:08 AM PDT by savedbygrace ("No Monday morning quarterback has ever led a team to victory" GW Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: kempo
That's why Americans have sent the DemocRATs packing, and why they no longer control the White House or either the House or Senate. Dims are powerless right now, as long as Republicans with BACKBONE act as if they are in power. The media is POWERLESS and is only convincing the weak sheeple leftists that they still have a voice. We shall overcome.

Slug a leftist journalist in the guts TODAY - it'll not only make you feel better, it's good for our country!

41 posted on 07/07/2005 8:15:58 AM PDT by mallardx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Williams
"So it still could be Rove."

Yesterday, Rove's attorney told a Washington Post reporter (see above) that Rove was NOT the person Cooper was referring to.
42 posted on 07/07/2005 8:17:10 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax


Oh, Matt Cooper!!... nevermind...
43 posted on 07/07/2005 8:17:23 AM PDT by LIConFem (A fronte praecipitium, a tergo lupi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Williams

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."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/politics/07leak.html?pagewanted=2

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."
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002364091_leak07.html

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.


44 posted on 07/07/2005 8:18:35 AM PDT by NathanBookman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: stopem
"Know what? With what just happened to the innocent people of London this seems so unimportant right now."

Which was exactly Rove's plan! </DUmmie conspiracy theorist>

45 posted on 07/07/2005 8:19:35 AM PDT by Fabozz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: stopem

Rove had the innocent people of London blown up just to cover this news. Just watch, DU will theorize this later today.


46 posted on 07/07/2005 8:19:37 AM PDT by REDWOOD99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

I didn't see that story, was there a thread on that specific denial by Rove's attorney regarding what happened yesterday?


47 posted on 07/07/2005 8:19:47 AM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jersey Republican Biker Chick

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!


48 posted on 07/07/2005 8:21:17 AM PDT by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle

never mind, I see the link now, thanks.


49 posted on 07/07/2005 8:21:25 AM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax

"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.


50 posted on 07/07/2005 8:22:54 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-82 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson