Who's behind Valerie Plame? Oh, MY...KARL ROVE!

MSNBC Analyst Says Cooper Documents Reveal Karl Rove as Source in Plame Case

By E&P Staff

Published: July 01, 2005 11:30 PM ET

NEW YORK Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Tonight, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.

Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's remarks:

"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury, the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is.

"And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of...for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time magazine's going to do with the grand jury."

Other panelists then joined in discussing whether, if true, this would suggest a perjury rap for Rove, if he told the grand jury he did not leak to Cooper.

Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller, held in contempt for refusing to name sources, tried Friday to stay out of jail by arguing for home detention instead after Time Inc. surrendered its reporter's notes to a prosecutor.

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said Friday that several unidentified Senate Republicans had placed a hold on a proposed resolution declaring support for Miller and Cooper.

``Cowards!'' Lautenberg said of the Republicans. ``Under the rules, they have a right to refuse to reveal who they are. Sound familiar?''

Lautenberg's resolution is co-sponsored by Sens. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) It says no purpose is served by imprisoning Miller and Cooper and that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of the press.
EDIT for Linkee-Doo

Well, this is all the statement of one analyst. I don't know where he got his sources, but analysts shouldn't present themselves as that certain unless they know something (which, given his "I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this," he just may).

I don't consider this to be precise fact, given who's making this claim. If it is true, however, it is perhaps the most delicious thing that has happened in YEARS.

myke.

It was obvious from the beginning that Karl Rove was the leak. They were trying to discredit the husband, probably blackmail. I'm just glad it's becoming public knowledge.

I'm surprised that this thread hasn't erupted yet.

If this is true, then we're all in for a hell of a ride. I'd love to see Rove pay for this. but who knows how this will end, or even if he's the leak?

[quote name='Gothic_Walrus']I'm surprised that this thread hasn't erupted yet.

If this is true, then we're all in for a hell of a ride. I'd love to see Rove pay for this. but who knows how this will end, or even if he's the leak?[/QUOTE]

Well, even among the right, I doubt you'll find many people but the severely brainwashed few that would dare claim Rove didn't have a hand in it.

Also, since this is still a good amount speculation at this point (in other words, if you watch enough 24/7 news channels, you learn to discredit much anything said by someone with "analyst" next to their name).

I have no hangups in saying that I ing hope to god this is true. Fry the motherer.

myke.

There seems to be growing credence that it was Rove that did the leak. I'm not really surprised at all by the news, myself. However, I don't think nearly as much will come of this as it should. Probably the best that can reasonably be hoped for is that the investigation into the matter will dig up other bigger things.

Rove may have indeed leaked this to the media, but he could not have been "the" leak. At the time, Rove did not have clearance for intelligence information. There is speculation that the information was given to Rove by none other than Vice President Cheney himself. Between this and the Downing Street Minutes we are beginning to see the collapse of the Bush administration.

I'd love to see Turd Blossom get indicted for perjury. That would be hilarious.

They have to have a patsy to take the fall.

I bet the leak turns out to be...

Jeff "I'm super thanks for asking" Gannon

[quote name='coffman']Rove may have indeed leaked this to the media, but he could not have been "the" leak. At the time, Rove did not have clearance for intelligence information. There is speculation that the information was given to Rove by none other than Vice President Cheney himself. Between this and the Downing Street Minutes we are beginning to see the collapse of the Bush administration.[/QUOTE]

there were two sources, or that is what Novak claims

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/22/cia.leak/

[quote name='coffman']Rove may have indeed leaked this to the media, but he could not have been "the" leak. At the time, Rove did not have clearance for intelligence information. There is speculation that the information was given to Rove by none other than Vice President Cheney himself. Between this and the Downing Street Minutes we are beginning to see the collapse of the Bush administration.[/QUOTE]

Rove doesn't know when to keep his hands to himself(no pun intended). He got fired from Bush 1's campaign or Presidency for doing something suspect. Looks like the bastard can't resist being a dirty motherer.

[quote name='mykevermin']Well, even among the right, I doubt you'll find many people but the severely brainwashed few that would dare claim Rove didn't have a hand in it.

Also, since this is still a good amount speculation at this point (in other words, if you watch enough 24/7 news channels, you learn to discredit much anything said by someone with "analyst" next to their name).

I have no hangups in saying that I ing hope to god this is true. Fry the motherer.

myke.[/QUOTE]

Waiting for PittsburghAfterDark to disprove all these crazy liberal alligations by saying how we're all dumbass idiots for questioning Karl Rove's superiority.

[quote name='mingglf']Waiting for PittsburghAfterDark to disprove all these crazy liberal alligations by saying how we're all dumbass idiots for questioning Karl Rove's superiority.[/QUOTE]

Hmm, it'll probably be a while. PAD currently seems to be taking his medication, so he's at least moderately rational at the moment. It seems like he can only afford the prescription maybe one month out of every 3 or 4, but it'll probably be a couple of weeks before the current refill runs out and he's back to his insane self.

[quote name='mingglf']Waiting for PittsburghAfterDark to disprove all these crazy liberal alligations by saying how we're all dumbass idiots for questioning Karl Rove's superiority.[/QUOTE]

Well, I'm still waiting for him to admit that he was wrong about the article on Fox News ratings that he posted. He was very proud of himself for disproving the liberal conspiracy to speak to the downward trend of viewership on Fox. Then I pointed out that the article he cited only referred to increasing viewership for a 3-hour timeslot, and he's not been back since.

PAD knows when he's been licked, and he ain't coming anywhere hear that thread or this one.

myke.
...since when has Novak been talking about the case?!?!

Licked? Hardly.

The whole idea that Rove is behind this is completely laughable. This story was one that broke in 2003. The fact that Time employees sat on Rove as a "confidential source" is a complete fallacy. If the media was willing to air forged documents, fail to look into the Swift Boat Veterans claims do you honestly think a couple of mainstream reporters would fail to nail Karl Rove over Valerie Palme on something so trivial as..... principle?

Yeah, Time has such high journalistic standards that they sat on this fact through the election and their employees are willing to serve jail time to protect a much maligned Republican advisor. Principle and honesty protecting a Bush White House staffer was much more important to these reporters than being hailed as the next Woodward and Bernstein that may have played a part in bringing down a presidency.

Oh, and monkeys are currently exiting my spinchter at a rapid rate.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Licked? Hardly.

The whole idea that Rove is behind this is completely laughable. This story was one that broke in 2003. The fact that Time employees sat on Rove as a "confidential source" is a complete fallacy. If the media was willing to air forged documents, fail to look into the Swift Boat Veterans claims do you honestly think a couple of mainstream reporters would fail to nail Karl Rove over Valerie Palme on something so trivial as..... principle?

Yeah, Time has such high journalistic standards that they sat on this fact through the election and their employees are willing to serve jail time to protect a much maligned Republican advisor. Principle and honesty protecting a Bush White House staffer was much more important to these reporters than being hailed as the next Woodward and Bernstein that may have played a part in bringing down a presidency.

Oh, and monkeys are currently exiting my spinchter at a rapid rate.[/QUOTE]

Your theory simply cannot be true. I hope you'll be comfortable with the fact that you are absolutely, uneqivocally (I love that ultra-pretentious word) wrong. Ready?

Your theory is premised upon the insistence that in no way, shape, or form would the three people (two and a half, since Novak's hiding out in the shade at the moment) hold out on releasing a government source, in a Republican administration, given the potential career-making Woodward-and-Bernsteinian (?) kind of collegial kudos that these three would get for spilling the beans. In other words, our media is so frothing mad with liberals that Cooper and Miller would undoubtedly blow their proverbial wads with excitement at the opportunity to up this administration severely, by outing a perjurer (perjurist?).

So, in a short sense, you think that, ceteris paribus in the MSM, nobody could withold information about this administration's wrongdoings for any period of time, correct?

Alright, you're going to have to live with a fact. Although I'm not angry, and I'm actually feeling very paternalistic at the moment, I'm going to type this in caps so that it comes out crystal clear.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE FACT THAT IT WAS A REPUBLICAN MEMBER (OR MEMBERS) OF THIS REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION THAT HELPED COOPER, MILLER, AND NOVAK OUT VALERIE PLAME AS POLITICAL PAYBACK TO THE WORDS OF HER HUSBAND, JOSEPH WILSON.

whew...alright. Settle down, have a glass of lemonade, breathe deeply. According to your theory (MSM would sell their children to bring down this administration), these journalists would have outed Hobie Jones, administrative coffee-fetcher to the person who works under the manager of the white house bathroom cleaning staff, if it meant bringing down this administration. However, we do have two things: (1) perjury, and (2) no leakie of the sourcie. How can we reconcile these facts? Your theory is basically this: "It is impossible for what is currently happening to have happened because the media is liberal." Given that these people have refused to reveal their sources, your argument denies the very reality of what has actually happened since Novak, douchebag of liberty, outed Plame.

Enjoy that lemonade. We look forward to your nonresponse, just like we did in the Fox News ratings post you started.

Until my theory is proven false that's what I'm rolling with.

So take this non-response, grease it up and give yourself a good spinchter massage with it because your theory isn't holding up under examination.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Until my theory is proven false that's what I'm rolling with.

So take this non-response, grease it up and give yourself a good spinchter massage with it because your theory isn't holding up under examination.[/QUOTE]

*sigh*

The very fact that these people are witholding their sources, sources who are ostensibly administration official(s) (despite what little he's said, Bob Novak seems to indicate that it was more than one person), refutes your theory.

You remind me of a sportscaster, whose job is to speculate what might have happened if the circumstances that happened in the past did not happen (e.g., if the Reds hadn't left seven men standing on base during the game, they might have won). Your argument is simply denying what has actually transpired. You're welcome to stick with your argument, but I'm just helping you become aware that you'd be closer to the truth arguing that 2+2=5.

Rove's lawyer has already begun what many to be his criminal defense, saying that his client never "knowingly" divulged such information. The speculation is that Rove did this under the guise of an innocent buffoon who didn't know he was committing treason by ruining the work of an undercover CIA operative working on antiproliferation.

On another tangent, I'm frankly surprised (full disclosure: no, of course I'm not surprised people are towing the party line) that more people aren't upset or concerned about (1) a leak in our government, (2) administration members who are politically vindictive enough to ruin the work done by a CIA operative whose job was to find information and work to prevent the development of WMDs, in particular in this day and age. Why no furor over that?

A picture of events to come:

Looks like Judith Miller is on her way to jail right now. CNN breaking right now.

[quote name='E-Z-B']Looks like Judith Miller is on her way to jail right now. CNN breaking right now.[/QUOTE]

Totally bullshit, a journalist needs to be able to protect their sources. Seriously, how many people are going to blow the whistle on corrupt organizations and superiors if they risk being found out. The whole point of giving anonymous leads and evidence goes out the window if the journalist can be forced to give away your anonymity.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Totally bullshit, a journalist needs to be able to protect their sources. Seriously, how many people are going to blow the whistle on corrupt organizations and superiors if they risk being found out. The whole point of giving anonymous leads and evidence goes out the window if the journalist can be forced to give away your anonymity.[/QUOTE]

That's true to a degree. While I hope this doesn't set a political precedent, the information she was given is perjury. It is imperative that we investigate it.

If she wants to keep quiet, I respect her decision at the same time that I want to know whodunnit.

That slug Cooper opened his craw. Let the crucifixion of Rove commence!

That's why you mail documents anonymously to news organizations

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Totally bullshit, a journalist needs to be able to protect their sources. Seriously, how many people are going to blow the whistle on corrupt organizations and superiors if they risk being found out. The whole point of giving anonymous leads and evidence goes out the window if the journalist can be forced to give away your anonymity.[/QUOTE]

Those whistleblowers are exposing government corruption and will be protected under the Constitution. Judith Miller is covering for someone who not only broke the law by exposing a CIA operative, but also betrayed the country. Protecting government corruption is totally different.

[quote name='mykevermin']That's true to a degree. While I hope this doesn't set a political precedent, the information she was given is perjury. It is imperative that we investigate it.

If she wants to keep quiet, I respect her decision at the same time that I want to know whodunnit.

That slug Cooper opened his craw. Let the crucifixion of Rove commence![/QUOTE]

Who cares who they're protecting, these things shouldn't be thrown out as soon as they become inconvenient. If you can find another way to find out then go for it, it should not come from her or that guy who's taking the stand.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Who cares who they're protecting, these things shouldn't be thrown out as soon as they become inconvenient. If you can find another way to find out then go for it, it should not come from her or that guy who's taking the stand.[/QUOTE]

What EZB said.

[quote name='mykevermin']What EZB said.[/QUOTE]

His argument has a point, but it's simply not one I agree with.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']His argument has a point, but it's simply not one I agree with.[/QUOTE]

I work with Classified Info everyday. If I exposed "information" to a reporter about some of our defense systems, and was published in a manner that damaged our national security, should the reporter not be held in contempt for revealing who the traitor was that betrayed our national security? Are I and that reporter both protected?

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- A federal judge on Wednesday ordered a New York Times reporter jailed after she refused to name her source to a grand jury probing the leak of an undercover CIA agent.

Separately, Time White House correspondent Matthew Cooper said he would testify, breaking two years of silence, after his source Wednesday morning, in a "very sudden development" consented.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B9F727F3D-5F7C-41B4-A802-70E2AB294DBE%7D&siteid=google

[quote name='E-Z-B']I work with Classified Info everyday. If I exposed "information" to a reporter about some of our defense systems, and was published in a manner that damaged our national security, should the reporter not be held in contempt for revealing who the traitor was that betrayed our national security? Are I and that reporter both protected?[/QUOTE]

There are some things that should be protected, this is one of those areas in my mind. Here I'd say the same thing, the reporter should have no obligation to reveal who the source was, and, as a journalist, she shouldn't reveal it.

Though, if the source really did consent to have it released, then it's safe to assume that karl rove wasn't the source.

[quote name='CheapyD']NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- A federal judge on Wednesday ordered a New York Times reporter jailed after she refused to name her source to a grand jury probing the leak of an undercover CIA agent.

Separately, Time White House correspondent Matthew Cooper said he would testify, breaking two years of silence, after his source Wednesday morning, in a "very sudden development" consented.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B9F727F3D-5F7C-41B4-A802-70E2AB294DBE%7D&siteid=google[/QUOTE]

That won't be Karl Rove then. There's no way he would openly allow cooper to reveal him. He probably had cooper pin it on some lessor administrative official.

This is a deeper issue than I think many want to see. 1) Freedom of the press--it pains me to see a judge order a reporter to jail for failing to reveal her sources. 2) Yet a federal crime has taken place with the revelation of an undercover agent. This leak MUST be found as it is against the law to reveal confidential information.

I can see the point of view of the prosecutor... as the gov't cannot have CIA operatives identities made known..

But I can also see the point of view of the reporter (which in this case NOVACK, and not the people threatened with jail time) should have known better and not released the operative's name. But a confidential source can help to reveal ultimate corruption in government which must be reported.

Yes, I don't particularly understand the 'principle' in this case. If we were talking about a case where somebody in the goverment wanted to find and punish a whistleblower, that's one thing. In cases like that, the press definitely deserves protection in order to protect their sources. That's not even remotely what the case is about.

The case is about a source who leaked classified information in order to cause problems for a political opponent. It isn't just that a source like that doesn't deserve any protection: its that in a just world, the reporters who made this information public should be on trial for treason. I believe in freedom of the press and all that, but reporters simply should NOT be publicizing information that damages national security, and no matter how you slice it, revealing the identity of an undercover agent qualifies as damaging national security.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Licked? Hardly.

The whole idea that Rove is behind this is completely laughable. This story was one that broke in 2003. The fact that Time employees sat on Rove as a "confidential source" is a complete fallacy. If the media was willing to air forged documents, fail to look into the Swift Boat Veterans claims do you honestly think a couple of mainstream reporters would fail to nail Karl Rove over Valerie Palme on something so trivial as..... principle?

Yeah, Time has such high journalistic standards that they sat on this fact through the election and their employees are willing to serve jail time to protect a much maligned Republican advisor. Principle and honesty protecting a Bush White House staffer was much more important to these reporters than being hailed as the next Woodward and Bernstein that may have played a part in bringing down a presidency.

Oh, and monkeys are currently exiting my spinchter at a rapid rate.[/QUOTE]

The latest on Karl

Rove apparently told Cooper that it was "Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip," according to a story in Newsweek's July 18 issue.

Click to expand...

PAD, are you going to name all the monkeys and dress them up in little suits? :lol:

I read that Rove claims he never revealed a name. And when he said "Wilson's wife", it could be ANY one of his wives. :lol:

EDIT: MBE's link must've been where I read this.

WOOOHOOO

Finally the Bush Administration is going to have their very own scandal!

While I don't like the fact that this whole case brings into question the freedom of press. I don't feel that the reporter can claim to be completely innocent in this case. Why, in this day and age, would you reveal an undercover CIA agent? That's just irresponsible and a sad attempt to gain attention. That's expecially true if this really was just as a way to payback Wilson for his report that Iraq never tried to buy nuclear material from Nigeria.

I hope Rove does jail time for this, if he is reponsible. That damn Bush will probably pardon him on the way out though so that Rove can run Jeb's campaign at some point in the future.

in politics. Its ALL garbage

Oh, and by the way I read on the wikipedia listing for Valeria Plame that the front company that she worked for was Brewster Jennings & Associates. I didn't realize that the CIA really did have front companies, I thought that was just something that shows like Alias made up.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']While I don't like the fact that this whole case brings into question the freedom of press. I don't feel that the reporter can claim to be completely innocent in this case. Why, in this day and age, would you reveal an undercover CIA agent? That's just irresponsible and a sad attempt to gain attention. That's expecially true if this really was just as a way to payback Wilson for his report that Iraq never tried to buy nuclear material from Nigeria.[/QUOTE]
Let's remember that Novak is the one who first "outed" Plame in a report. Miller and Cooper received the tip from the "White House Source" (Turd Blossom) but didn't report it. Miller only wrote her story after Novak had outed Plame. Cooper never wrote a story.

In 1992 Karl Rove was kicked off of Bush Sr.'s campaign for leaking a story to...Robert Novak. Dubya has a bad habit of hiring the worst of his father's old employees.

I was under the impression that Cooper *did* write an article naming Mrs. Wilson, but Miller did *not.* Am I wrong?

[quote name='RedvsBlue']Oh, and by the way I read on the wikipedia listing for Valeria Plame that the front company that she worked for was Brewster Jennings & Associates. I didn't realize that the CIA really did have front companies, I thought that was just something that shows like Alias made up.[/QUOTE]

The CIA/FBI have done some crazy stuff.

Inventing LSD and getting Tim Leary hooked, having a blackmailing cross-dresser as chief, and training Osama and troops back in the day come to mind.

[quote name='mykevermin']I was under the impression that Cooper *did* write an article naming Mrs. Wilson, but Miller did *not.* Am I wrong?[/QUOTE]
My bad. I got Miller's and Cooper's roles switched.

Here's a link with all the info

Look out Karl, the fridge is falling!
White House won't comment on Rove, leak inquiry

So in the two years since this story broke, Bush has promised to find out who the leak was. Did he never ask Karl or did Karl lie the whole time? Either way, he's toast.

[quote name='MrBadExample']So in the two years since this story broke, Bush has promised to find out who the leak was. Did he never ask Karl or did Karl lie the whole time? Either way, he's toast.[/QUOTE]

I'm convinced that Rove will ride the "unknowingly" defense all the way to an acquittal. No way will he serve time.

[quote name='mykevermin']I'm convinced that Rove will ride the "unknowingly" defense all the way to an acquittal. No way will he serve time.[/QUOTE]
Even if he is convicted, Dubya will pardon him January 19, 2009 when he has nothing to lose politically. That's Dubya's big thing - loyalty - loyalty to crooks, liars and incompetents.

I havent really been following much, but it seems this Rove guy gets blamed for a lot.

I blame him for cancer!

[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I blame him for cancer![/QUOTE]
Considering the amount of scientific research the White House is 'editing' to cover up for the benefit of their rich corporate buddies, this accusation is most likely at least partially correct.

From DU/Rawstory: Here's Scotty's Bad Briefing in it's Bloody Entirety just for laughs

snippet:

Q Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliott Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this" -- do you stand by that statement?

MR. McCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time, as well.

Q Scott, I mean, just -- I mean, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us after having commented with that level of detail and tell people watching this that somehow you decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium, or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: And again, David, I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said, and I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation --

Much, much more of the transcript here, including the video: http://rawstory.com/news/2005/TRANSCRIPT_WHITE_HOUSE_GRILLED_0711.html

Looks like Scotty refused to answer the question 23 times!

Yeah EZB, I just finished watching this snippet:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Scotty_Rove.mov

Sounds like the press is finally speaking up and calling people on things. Do you think anything will really come of this? Will justice be served, or will this be swept under the carpet?

[quote name='MrBadExample']So in the two years since this story broke, Bush has promised to find out who the leak was. Did he never ask Karl or did Karl lie the whole time? Either way, he's toast.[/QUOTE]


No, he didn't ask Karl because Karl didn't tell him to ask...