Daily Kos

NYT: Rove = Cooper's source; WaPo/LAT: Rove not = Cooper's source

by NotaMandate

Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 08:34:12 PM PDT

I read the story on the NYTimes website earlier tonight about Judith Miller going to jail, but just checked it out again, as it was updated at 10:49pm.  Unless I missed this before (in which case, I'm sorry for posting old news), it appears that Rove is the source that released Cooper from his pledge of confidentiality.

Isn't this big news?  Why is it buried on the second page of the story?  By now, everyone knows Rove was mentioned in the emails, but this seems like additional confirmation of Rove's importance:

"Mr. Cooper's agreement to testify was limited to a single conversation with a single source."  As I read that, and given the other info in the article (see jump), Cooper's only source was Rove.  So doesn't that mean Cooper got the info about Plame from Rove?  Does Rove's defense hang solely on a technicality (i.e., knowingly)?

According to the NY Times:

"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://nytimes.com/2005/07/07/politics/07leak.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5094&en=289ad2f5b111636d& amp;hp&ex=1120708800&partner=homepage Update [2005-7-7 1:35:27 by NotaMandate]: According to a number of posters below, the LAT and WaPo appear to suggest that Rove was not Cooper's source. The NYT and Nightline seem to be saying that Rove is Cooper's source. I've changed the title of the diary to reflect this apparent dispute or parsing or whatever is going on -- it all seems very odd to me.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 26 comments

  •  Didn't see that either (none / 0)

    Well.  I'm going to guess that he wants Cooper to back up his claim that he talked to him after the issue was public.

    Dear Lord, please save me from your followers

    by mz on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 08:40:01 PM PDT

    •  It was posted (none / 0)

      It was in an early afternoon front-page thread.  Here.

      blog | -6.13, -5.95 | Live every week like it's Shark Week.

      by folkbum on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 09:38:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  huh? (none / 1)

        Was that meant to inform me that DK isn't for posting news?  That's how I understand the diary you linked to.

        I want to clarify what you're saying, because the point of my diary was not just to post "news" that you could otherwise find in a headline on CNN or YahooNews... or the NY Times for that matter.

        What I was trying to express (and which I admit I could have done more explicitly) is that it seems to me that it's a REALLY BIG DEAL that Rove is Cooper's only source.  And what I don't understand is why this isn't a story on it's own in the NYT, instead of being buried on the second page of a story that most people probably read when it first came out this afternoon, and won't reread and notice that this info has been added.

        If on the other hand, that blog about DK protocol did contain something about Cooper being Rove's only source, and the lack of media attention to that fact, and I somehow missed that, then I apologize from jumping off the handle.

        by NotaMandate on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 09:49:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Seems to me... (none / 0)

    that the media is too busy lauding the integrity and bravery of Judith Miller for going to prison for her journalistic principles.  They're more interested in this angle than the actual meat of the story involving the leak.  They always get their panties in a bunch over journalists right to protect their sources.  

    by Hounds on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 08:44:35 PM PDT

  •  Maybe Miller knows, (none / 0)

    that Karl really knew Valarie Plame was a CIA agent. That would blow a hole in his lawyers assertions that Karl didn't "knowingly" out a CIA agent. Miller source will fry Rove, so she will not reveal. She is scared to death of Rove and what he will do to her, if she outs him.

    by Vera Lofaro on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 08:44:36 PM PDT

    •  After all this, could he still do anything? (none / 0)

      Could Rove still destroy Miller's career (assuming it's not destroyed already)?

      Wouldn't that be kind of obvious at this point?

      Is Rove really so powerful that he can call the Times and say, in effect, "Fire Miller!" and she's history?

      "This document is totally non-redactable and non-segregable and cannot even be meaningfully described." *

      by dratman on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 09:44:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think it is about her career. (none / 0)

        I think it is something more, perhaps the Chalaibi connection. Don't know what it is but Rove has got to have something on her, and other members of the MSM. Why the hell do they cave to him all the time?

        by Vera Lofaro on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 06:15:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Interesting (none / 0)

    This has me all perplexed.  I guess I can accept that Rove would release Cooper and now Cooper will testify, presumably he got an updated or a more clear interpretation of the release.  (I can't see why Rove would release Cooper if if harmed him.)  

    But I think Miller got the same kind of release.  If you look at Page 14 of the Prosecutor's Brief in Opposition to her motion for reconsideration - I have too much free time on my hand - the Prosecutor compares a situation involving Mark Bowden in a case where the source was not claiming confidentiality and yet Bowden's publisher continued to protect the source.  The Prosecutor states:  "a situation (the Bowden case)analogous to that presented here because the source in this case has waived confidentiality in writing".  It seems to me that Miller got a waiver as well and yet doesn't want to testify.  Why not?  Are the waivers from different people.  Does Rove want Cooper to talk but not Miller.  Is Miller protecting someone or something else other than Rove and is simply using Rove as the excuse.  

    by billj1 on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 08:44:59 PM PDT

  •  Think Douglas Feith... (none / 1)

    a little more intrigue & conjecture, anyone?

    Okay, Feith was busy in the basement of the Pentagon cooking up bad intelligence under the auspices of a custom-created DOJ Office of Special Projects (aka, The Proof's in the Planting). According to a diarist yesterday, the OSP had access to things like Plame's identity, among other things.

    AND the OSP was hand-in-hand with Chalabi.
    AND Judith Miller was allegedly having an affair with same (eewww!) - or had ended one but was nonetheless his favorite scoop recipient.

    It was either Joe Wilson or Ray McGovern (I forget which) who were told that Rove was so angry after the NYT piece he demanded that Scooter Libby "get [me] all the dirt you've got on Wilson".

    Now, we would have to refer to Karen Kozwalski's work to match up the dates, but I'm pretty sure this is the timeframe when Scooter left Cheney's office to go to work with Feith in (drumroll) the OSP.

    The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. - MLK Jr.

    by thecarriest on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 09:58:54 PM PDT

  •  Rove's Lawyer v. NYTimes (none / 0)

    In the Post's piece, there is this:

    Luskin has said that Rove did not identify Plame to Cooper and did nothing wrong.

    In an interview yesterday, he said Rove was not the source who called Cooper yesterday morning and personally waived the confidentiality agreement.

    The Times passage you quote completely contradicts Rove's lawyer:

    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.

    So either Rove's lawyer is lying, or the Times source is wrong.

    I agree with you that this story deserves more attention.  Perhaps draft up a new diary with a catchier title, add the Luskin v. Times point, and bold the key passages.

    Also, there's a whole bunk of new posts over at Huffington that you can link to.  Turn it into a Traitor-Gate Update diary for the overnight crowd.

    by QWQ on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 10:20:46 PM PDT

    •  how could that be? (none / 0)

      Wow, that's a great catch, the contradiction between the WaPo story and the NY Times!  Could it be that Rove was Cooper's only source, but provided something other than Plame's name?  Very odd...

      I'm going to update the title but don't have the energy to repost -- feel free to do so if you like.

      by NotaMandate on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 10:25:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  LA Times also has a Luskin denial (none / 0)

    Asked whether Rove was the source who called the Time reporter to waive his confidentiality, his lawyer, Robert Luskin, said Wednesday night that the strategist had "not contacted Cooper about this matter," but declined to comment further.

    Link

    by QWQ on Wed Jul 06, 2005 at 10:23:59 PM PDT

Permalink | 26 comments