Skip to comments.Questions Remain on the Leaker and the Law
Posted on 07/08/2005 1:04:55 PM PDT by Fido969
Questions Remain on the Leaker and the Law Rove's Talks With Time Writer May Be a Focus
By Dan Balz Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, July 8, 2005; A02
Now, a fast-moving series of decisions over the past week involving Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper have brought a renewed public focus on what role White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove may have played in disclosing the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
A White House spokesman long ago asserted that Rove was "not involved" in disclosing Plame's identity. Rove, who has testified before a grand jury investigating the case, likewise has maintained that he did not break the law, saying in a television interview, "I didn't know her name, and I didn't leak her name."
But Fitzgerald still appears to want more answers about Rove's role.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
This looks to me like backtracking on the "Rove Told" story the 'rats were peddling earlier this week. Now it's "what role he MIGHT have played" and "questions remain" which is 'rat talk for "there's nothing there, but we are going to spend a lot of energy smearing with innuendo.
I mean, if not for innuendo, the 'rats wouldn't have anything going for them at all.
Could be chaff, but Cooper's two articles discussed more than Iraq.
In an interview with The Washington Post on Wednesday, Luskin denied that Cooper had received a call from Rove releasing him from his confidentiality pledge. Yesterday, however, Luskin declined to comment on a New York Times report that the release came as a result of negotiations involving Rove's and Cooper's attorneys, nor would he speculate that Cooper was released from his pledge in some other fashion than a direct conversation with Rove. "I'm not going to comment any further," Luskin said.
Very shifty. Cooper expressly stated he talked with his "source." It was not lawyers. Luskin shouldn't comment further seeing how his every word is twisted.
"I didn't know her name, and I didn't leak her name."
Begs the question, "Yes, but did you say "wife."" Seemed all of Washington was.
Same response this as to all the other "scandals"" the Hysteric Left tries to manufacture. SO WHAT????? Guess what DUmmies. EVEN if every one of your dranged fantasies were true about Rove, you don't have the votes in Congress do a thing about it. If the Left stays on it's current trajectory, it will do something I don't know has ever been done. They will lose, 3 elections in a row, seats in both the US House and Senate when the sitting President belongs to the opposition party. Off Year elections are suppose to GAIN, not lose, seats for the opposition party!
(On second thougt don't tell them. Durbin, Kerry et al are the best Republican vote recruiters we got)
Since the Dinasour Media, and the Hysteric Left, confuse Polls with Reality, they better go read the Pew poll. 36% of the DEMOCRATS polled think the "News" Media, the mouth piece of the Hysteric Left, is actively hurting our war effort. Elections are won on ideas. You got to have ones that appeal more then the other guys and these people only thought is hysteric opposition to Bush. This too will end up with a big YAWN from the American people
I don't think so.
Although the president has encouraged full cooperation with the special prosecutor, administration officials have not appeared eager to explain fully their roles in the Wilson matter. A number of them have signed waivers of confidentiality freeing reporters with whom they have spoken from maintaining confidentiality, although Cooper and others have said they did not regard that waiver as specific enough. In other cases, administration officials have given reporters specific waivers.
The fact that administration officials turned over every bit of information requested and signed waivers releasing reporters from confidentiality and still the WaPo arrives at they "have not appeared eager".
Beam me up.
LOL (laugh or you'll cry)
The answer is "nothing". The WH officials did nothing to discredit Wilson. His lies did that all by themselves.
What sickening tripe.
Nobody in the WH knew that Joe Wilson went to Niger until his op-ed. Once that was revealed, they still would not be privy to his wife's role.
So, no...parsing out the name vs. "his wife" still doesn't get a WH official as the source.
"Once that was revealed, they still would not be privy to his wife's role."
Not until Judith Miller made calls...
Well who told her?
The RATS think we care...think their making head way with the public...the more they continue with their crapola...the more and more they're driving Americans in the opposite direction. You'd think they'd have figured that out after the election of 2004...again proving how stupid they really are....
Well, she had a lot of liaison with intel...
Say someone high up?
Perhaps an information officer with the State Dept. Intelligence division? That officer's husband is sure writing and talking a lot lately about his part in the affair, as if trying to get his story down.
No one else is, like Chris Mathews.
Some say Judith has outed sources before...
""They charge her with forcing her bylines onto stories, staunchly arguing for the addition of her name after adding mere dribs and drabs of information. Shes not afraid to get her byline by bigfooting. In fact, thats how she gets many of them, charges one of her colleagues.
But when there is trouble, it appears shes more than happy to pass around the responsibility. One incident that still rankles happened last April, when Miller co-bylined a story with Douglas Jehl on the WMD search that included a quote from Amy Smithson, an analyst formerly at the Henry L. Stimson Center. A day after it appeared, the Times learned that the quote was deeply problematic. To begin with, it had been supplied to Miller in an e-mail that began, Briefly and on backgrounda condition that Miller had flatly broken by naming her source. Miller committed a further offense by paraphrasing the quote and distorting Smithsons analysis. One person who viewed the e-mail says that it attributed views to Smithson that she clearly didnt hold. An embarrassing correction ensued. And while the offense had been entirely Millers, there was nothing in the correction indicating Jehls innocence.
Interesting. That underscores that when she does go to the length of risking imprisonment to conceal a source, the motive must be strong indeed.
Also, I think Rove might have talked to Cooper about "Wilson's Wife," but in a responsive way like Libby. But before or after Novak's article??
Also, Wilson's book mentions that a week before Novak's article was published, he heard from a friend that Novak was going around saying, "Wilsons an [expletive deleted]. The CIA sent him. His wife, Valerie, works for the CIA. Shes a weapons of mass destruction specialist. She sent him." If this is true, there was a week after Novak received the information in which other parties not necessarily involved in supplying Novak with the information could've been spreading it around Washington. In short, even if Rove and Cooper discussed "Wilson's wife"--which of course remains to be demonstrated--it doesn't determine who Novak's source was.
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.