Rove: Putting the Pieces of the Puzzle Together
It looks like my pronouncement that "Rove is likely off the hook" was a tad premature. Although the facts revealed in yesterday morning's New York Times and Washington Post articles were largely exculpatory for Rove, subsequent articles may have the White House a bit worried. We learned yesterday morning that Rove was likely not Bob Novak's original source. Indeed, in his grand jury testimony, Rove apparently claimed that when Novak mentioned that Plame worked for the CIA, his response was "yeah, I heard that, too." Under Rove's version of the story, he simply acknowledged that he'd heard the same rumor as Novak. In his testimony, Rove claimed he heard about Plame from another journalist, though he was fuzzy on the details. If this is true, Rove's conduct (at least with respect to Novak) was fairly innocuous. After all, merely acknowledging that you've heard the same rumor is not the same thing as confirming that the rumor is true (for an obvious example, if someone tells me the Richard Gere/gerbil story for the 1000th time, I'd tell them "I heard that one, too," but clearly I wouldn't be confirming that the story is true).
But there's reason to think that Rove's version of the story isn't entirely accurate. First, it doesn't quite square with Novak's version of events. In Novak's columns and public statements, he describes his second source (who we now know was Rove) as confirming for him that Plame indeed worked for the CIA. If Rove merely told Novak that he had heard the same rumor, then Novak's statements are inaccurate (and perhaps his grand jury testimony as well). Alternatively, if Rove really did confirm for Novak that Plame was CIA, that would suggest that Rove had some official source of information, that he didn't merely learn about Plame from other journalists. If so, then Rove may have perjured himself. The fact that Rove claims not to remember who originally told him about Plame, but remembers his conversation with Novak clearly, casts further doubt on his testimony.
These apparent inconsistencies in Rove's testimony may in fact be at the heart of Fitzgerald's investigation. Citing sources familiar with the investigation, independent reporter Murray Waas claims that Fitzgerald's investigation has focused on whether Rove "worked with others to devise a cover story to conceal his role." Fitzgerald has apparently focused on a particular State Department memo provided to Colin Powell which described Plame's role in suggesting that Wilson be sent on the Niger mission. According to the most recent New York Times article, the language from the State Department memo closely tracks what both Novak and Cooper eventually reported. The obvious implication is that Fitzgerald suspects that Rove and perhaps other White House staffers learned about Plame from this memo, not from talking to journalists. This would also explain why Fitzgerald was so determined to have Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller testify. I suspect that none of the other reporters who were called before the grand jury testified to telling Rove about Plame. Fitzgerald likely suspects that Rove is lying about how he learned of Plame's identity, but he needed Cooper and Miller's testimony to prove this conclusively. Since Miller has not yet testified, Fitzgerald presumably can't yet rule out that she was Rove's source, and therefore cannot indict Rove for that false statement.
The New York Times article also confirms that Fitzgerald has focused recently on the role of former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, suggesting that he may have been Novak's original source, or at least involved in the leaks in some way. Fleischer was on the trip to Africa with Colin Powell when Powell recieved the State Department memo which discussed Plame. Fitzgerald may suspect that Fleischer saw the contents of the memo and reported it to either Rove or Novak (or both).
Putting all these pieces together, it would appear that Fitzgerald believes that people in the White House, particularly Rove and Fleischer, may have been less than candid about their roles in this affair when they testified before the grand jury. He may also suspect that when word of the investigation got out, Rove, Novak, and possibly others coordinated their stories so as to minimize their own potential exposure. Though I could be entirely wrong, the clues seem to indicate that Fitzgerald is trying to build a case of either perjury or obstruction of justice against certain White House staffers, most likely Rove or Fleischer. It may turn out, however, that without Judith Miller's testimony Fitzgerald will not have enough evidence to indict the people he suspects of wrongdoing. That would be a shame, particularly given how untenable Miller and the Times' position is on this matter (see here and here).
Bogus Claim Alert
Finally, just to clarify the record, Rove's right-wing defenders have been screaming for the last day and a half that Valerie Plame was not a covert operative and that Joe Wilson admitted this to Wolf Blitzer on CNN. This claim is bogus, and just illustrates that wingnuts don't watch CNN or read particularly well. Wilson said the following on CNN yesterday: "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity." If you merely read this statement quickly from the transcript, it sounds as if Wilson is saying that his wife was not covert at the time Novak published his article. In the context of the program however, it was clear that Wilson was actually saying that his wife ceased to be a covert operative the day Novak blew her cover (i.e. Novak exposed her!). Indeed, just looking at the sentence itself, it clearly would not make sense for Wilson to say that "Novak blew her identity" if he was saying that she wasn't covert at the time. But that obvious fact didn't stop John Podhoretz from pimping this claim repeatedly all day long. The simple fact is this: over two years ago, the CIA referred this case to the Department of Justice because they suspected that a crime may have occurred. I find it inconceivable that they would have done that, and that Fitgerald would have pursued this investigation so doggedly for the past two years if Plame was never a covert agent to begin with. That simply defies all logic.
But there's reason to think that Rove's version of the story isn't entirely accurate. First, it doesn't quite square with Novak's version of events. In Novak's columns and public statements, he describes his second source (who we now know was Rove) as confirming for him that Plame indeed worked for the CIA. If Rove merely told Novak that he had heard the same rumor, then Novak's statements are inaccurate (and perhaps his grand jury testimony as well). Alternatively, if Rove really did confirm for Novak that Plame was CIA, that would suggest that Rove had some official source of information, that he didn't merely learn about Plame from other journalists. If so, then Rove may have perjured himself. The fact that Rove claims not to remember who originally told him about Plame, but remembers his conversation with Novak clearly, casts further doubt on his testimony.
These apparent inconsistencies in Rove's testimony may in fact be at the heart of Fitzgerald's investigation. Citing sources familiar with the investigation, independent reporter Murray Waas claims that Fitzgerald's investigation has focused on whether Rove "worked with others to devise a cover story to conceal his role." Fitzgerald has apparently focused on a particular State Department memo provided to Colin Powell which described Plame's role in suggesting that Wilson be sent on the Niger mission. According to the most recent New York Times article, the language from the State Department memo closely tracks what both Novak and Cooper eventually reported. The obvious implication is that Fitzgerald suspects that Rove and perhaps other White House staffers learned about Plame from this memo, not from talking to journalists. This would also explain why Fitzgerald was so determined to have Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller testify. I suspect that none of the other reporters who were called before the grand jury testified to telling Rove about Plame. Fitzgerald likely suspects that Rove is lying about how he learned of Plame's identity, but he needed Cooper and Miller's testimony to prove this conclusively. Since Miller has not yet testified, Fitzgerald presumably can't yet rule out that she was Rove's source, and therefore cannot indict Rove for that false statement.
The New York Times article also confirms that Fitzgerald has focused recently on the role of former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, suggesting that he may have been Novak's original source, or at least involved in the leaks in some way. Fleischer was on the trip to Africa with Colin Powell when Powell recieved the State Department memo which discussed Plame. Fitzgerald may suspect that Fleischer saw the contents of the memo and reported it to either Rove or Novak (or both).
Putting all these pieces together, it would appear that Fitzgerald believes that people in the White House, particularly Rove and Fleischer, may have been less than candid about their roles in this affair when they testified before the grand jury. He may also suspect that when word of the investigation got out, Rove, Novak, and possibly others coordinated their stories so as to minimize their own potential exposure. Though I could be entirely wrong, the clues seem to indicate that Fitzgerald is trying to build a case of either perjury or obstruction of justice against certain White House staffers, most likely Rove or Fleischer. It may turn out, however, that without Judith Miller's testimony Fitzgerald will not have enough evidence to indict the people he suspects of wrongdoing. That would be a shame, particularly given how untenable Miller and the Times' position is on this matter (see here and here).
Bogus Claim Alert
Finally, just to clarify the record, Rove's right-wing defenders have been screaming for the last day and a half that Valerie Plame was not a covert operative and that Joe Wilson admitted this to Wolf Blitzer on CNN. This claim is bogus, and just illustrates that wingnuts don't watch CNN or read particularly well. Wilson said the following on CNN yesterday: "My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity." If you merely read this statement quickly from the transcript, it sounds as if Wilson is saying that his wife was not covert at the time Novak published his article. In the context of the program however, it was clear that Wilson was actually saying that his wife ceased to be a covert operative the day Novak blew her cover (i.e. Novak exposed her!). Indeed, just looking at the sentence itself, it clearly would not make sense for Wilson to say that "Novak blew her identity" if he was saying that she wasn't covert at the time. But that obvious fact didn't stop John Podhoretz from pimping this claim repeatedly all day long. The simple fact is this: over two years ago, the CIA referred this case to the Department of Justice because they suspected that a crime may have occurred. I find it inconceivable that they would have done that, and that Fitgerald would have pursued this investigation so doggedly for the past two years if Plame was never a covert agent to begin with. That simply defies all logic.
posted by A.L. at 10:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home