Rove's Story Doesn't Make Sense
Today Karl Rove testified for the fifth time before a federal grand jury in connection with the Valerie Plame leak investigation.
As those of you who've been following this story know, Rove came very close to being indicted last December just before the term of the previous grand jury expired. Rove, like Scooter Libby, had failed to tell the grand jury about an important conversation he had with a reporter about Valerie Plame.
Rove was able to avoid Libby's fate, however, because his attorney, Robert Luskin, approached Fitzgerald at the last second with what he claimed was exculpatory information. Luskin told Fitzgerald about a conversation he had with another TIME Magazine reporter, Viveca Novak, in early 2004. Luskin told Fitzgerald that Novak suggested to him over drinks that Rove was one of Matt Cooper's sources for his story about Valerie Plame, a revelation that took Luskin by surprise.
It wasn't entirely clear at the time just how this story was suppose to help Rove, partly because various anonymously sourced stories placed the date of the Luskin-Rove conversation anywhere from January 2004 to early Fall 2004. What was clear was that Luskin's version of the story was sufficient to give Fitzgerald pause about indicting Rove. So instead he indicted Libby, continued his investigation, and eventually empanelled a new grand jury.
Today the Washington Post finally provides the Rove-Luskin version of the story.
If this is indeed the story that has so far managed to keep Rove from being indicted, he should be very worried.
First, a key aspect of this story--the date--does not appear to have been corroborated by Viveca Novak. Rove testified for the first time in February 2004. But according to Novak's account, she testified that she thought the conversation in question most likely took place in March or May of 2004. She wrote:
And then later:
A contemporaneous WaPo article had this to say about the dates:
If this conversation indeed took place after Rove's testimony, the entire story falls apart.
But even if the grand jurors believe that Rove and Luskin are right about the timing of the conversation, they may not see it as being exculpatory. Rove is claiming that he would have been crazy to lie because he had reason to believe that the truth would eventually come out, that Cooper would tell the grand jury whatever he knew. But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. In February 2004, Cooper had not even been subpoenaed to testify; no journalists had. It's true that Fitzgerald had subpoenaed the White House for documents relating to a number of reporters, including Cooper, but Rove had little reason to expect that reporters would be called upon to testify about their confidential sources. That almost never happens. And even if Rove anticipated that development, he knew that Cooper, like any reporter, would fight to protect his sources, as he ended up doing, all the way to the Supreme Court and up until the eve of being jailed for contempt.
So contrary to Rove's spin, it doesn't seem at all crazy that someone in his position would lie. He may well have figured that the odds of Cooper ever having to tell his story to the prosecutor were slim.
Moreover, are we really supposed to believe that when Luskin informed Rove of what Novak had told him, it didn't trigger any recollection on Rove's part about his conversation with Cooper? That's pretty hard to believe, especially considering Rove eventually did remember the conversation many months later when Luskin belatedly "discovered" his email to Stephen Hadley. If I were a grand juror, I'd be highly skeptical of this account.
And finally, I still find it very hard to believe that Rove could have forgotten this conversation in the first place. I know he is a busy man and that he talks to a lot of people, but let's review the circumstances. Within a week of his conversation with Cooper, Rove and everyone else at the White House were put on notice by various media reports that any conversations they had with journalists regarding Joe Wilson's wife were potentially criminal. In other words, shortly after the conversation took place, various external events would have caused any reasonable person to think long and hard about what they said about Plame and to whom. I find it very hard to believe that Rove could have forgotten about his conversation with Cooper in less than a week, especially considering Cooper published the information Rove provided to him just a few days later in an article that was very critical of the White House.
Long story short, Rove's version of events, at least as reported publicly, does not strike me as being very plausible. Rove better hope the grand jurors disagree.
BONUS: The New York Times article on Rove's testimony ends with this bizarre revelation:
That's certainly new. If this is true, I wonder why Novak was called to testify so recently. Perhaps it had to do with Rove. Or perhaps his original source (which may or may not be the same person who was Bob Woodward's source) is also still being investigated.
As those of you who've been following this story know, Rove came very close to being indicted last December just before the term of the previous grand jury expired. Rove, like Scooter Libby, had failed to tell the grand jury about an important conversation he had with a reporter about Valerie Plame.
Rove was able to avoid Libby's fate, however, because his attorney, Robert Luskin, approached Fitzgerald at the last second with what he claimed was exculpatory information. Luskin told Fitzgerald about a conversation he had with another TIME Magazine reporter, Viveca Novak, in early 2004. Luskin told Fitzgerald that Novak suggested to him over drinks that Rove was one of Matt Cooper's sources for his story about Valerie Plame, a revelation that took Luskin by surprise.
It wasn't entirely clear at the time just how this story was suppose to help Rove, partly because various anonymously sourced stories placed the date of the Luskin-Rove conversation anywhere from January 2004 to early Fall 2004. What was clear was that Luskin's version of the story was sufficient to give Fitzgerald pause about indicting Rove. So instead he indicted Libby, continued his investigation, and eventually empanelled a new grand jury.
Today the Washington Post finally provides the Rove-Luskin version of the story.
Fitzgerald suspected that Rove wasIn other words:
acknowledging what had happened only because
new evidence was surfacing, according to
lawyers in the case. But Rove and his lawyer
have presented an alternative explanation: that
Rove genuinely did not remember his
conversation with Cooper, and testified to that
effect even though he was aware of rumors that
he was one of Cooper's sources. . . .
Rove testified yesterday about a conversation
Luskin had with former Time magazine reporter
Viveca Novak, the source said. . . . Luskin had
informed Fitzgerald about that conversation
last October, a few days before Libby was
indicted, in a last-ditch effort to save Rove from
the same fate.
Luskin told the prosecutor that Viveca Novak
had informed him that she had heard from other
Time reporters that Rove was Cooper's source for
a July 2003 story on Plame. Luskin shared this
information with Rove -- before Rove testified
that he did not recall his conversation with Cooper.
Yesterday, Rove told the grand jury that it would
make no sense for him to lie in February, knowing
that all of this would soon be public, the source
said.
Rove testified, in essence, that "it would have
been a suicide mission" to "deliberately lie" about
his conversation with Cooper because he knew
beforehand that it eventually would be revealed,
the source said.
If this is indeed the story that has so far managed to keep Rove from being indicted, he should be very worried.
First, a key aspect of this story--the date--does not appear to have been corroborated by Viveca Novak. Rove testified for the first time in February 2004. But according to Novak's account, she testified that she thought the conversation in question most likely took place in March or May of 2004. She wrote:
Fitzgerald wanted to know when this conversation
occurred. At that point I had found calendar entries
showing that Luskin and I had met in January and in
May. Since I couldn't remember exactly how the
conversation had developed, I wasn't sure. I guessed
it was more likely May.
And then later:
Fitzgerald had asked that I check a couple of dates
in my calendar for meetings with Luskin. One of
them, March 1, 2004, checked out. I hadn't found
that one in my first search because I had
erroneously entered it as occurring at 5 a.m., not
5 p.m. . . .
The problem with the new March date was that
now I was even more confused - previously I had
to try to remember if the key conversation had
occurred in January or May, and I thought it was
more likely May. But March was close enough to
May that I really didn't know.
A contemporaneous WaPo article had this to say about the dates:
A source familiar with Novak's account said she
believes the conversation took place in March or
May, and definitely took place after February 2004,
when Rove first testified before the grand jury.
If this conversation indeed took place after Rove's testimony, the entire story falls apart.
But even if the grand jurors believe that Rove and Luskin are right about the timing of the conversation, they may not see it as being exculpatory. Rove is claiming that he would have been crazy to lie because he had reason to believe that the truth would eventually come out, that Cooper would tell the grand jury whatever he knew. But that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. In February 2004, Cooper had not even been subpoenaed to testify; no journalists had. It's true that Fitzgerald had subpoenaed the White House for documents relating to a number of reporters, including Cooper, but Rove had little reason to expect that reporters would be called upon to testify about their confidential sources. That almost never happens. And even if Rove anticipated that development, he knew that Cooper, like any reporter, would fight to protect his sources, as he ended up doing, all the way to the Supreme Court and up until the eve of being jailed for contempt.
So contrary to Rove's spin, it doesn't seem at all crazy that someone in his position would lie. He may well have figured that the odds of Cooper ever having to tell his story to the prosecutor were slim.
Moreover, are we really supposed to believe that when Luskin informed Rove of what Novak had told him, it didn't trigger any recollection on Rove's part about his conversation with Cooper? That's pretty hard to believe, especially considering Rove eventually did remember the conversation many months later when Luskin belatedly "discovered" his email to Stephen Hadley. If I were a grand juror, I'd be highly skeptical of this account.
And finally, I still find it very hard to believe that Rove could have forgotten this conversation in the first place. I know he is a busy man and that he talks to a lot of people, but let's review the circumstances. Within a week of his conversation with Cooper, Rove and everyone else at the White House were put on notice by various media reports that any conversations they had with journalists regarding Joe Wilson's wife were potentially criminal. In other words, shortly after the conversation took place, various external events would have caused any reasonable person to think long and hard about what they said about Plame and to whom. I find it very hard to believe that Rove could have forgotten about his conversation with Cooper in less than a week, especially considering Cooper published the information Rove provided to him just a few days later in an article that was very critical of the White House.
Long story short, Rove's version of events, at least as reported publicly, does not strike me as being very plausible. Rove better hope the grand jurors disagree.
BONUS: The New York Times article on Rove's testimony ends with this bizarre revelation:
The identity of Mr. Novak's original source for
the column that triggered the entire case is still
unknown, at least to the public. Mr. Novak has
testified to the grand jury since Mr. Rove's last
appearance in October 2005.
That's certainly new. If this is true, I wonder why Novak was called to testify so recently. Perhaps it had to do with Rove. Or perhaps his original source (which may or may not be the same person who was Bob Woodward's source) is also still being investigated.
posted by A.L. at 10:49 PM
10 Comments:
AL
Actually, if Rove thought there was evidence out there that pointed from Cooper to him, I think he would have reason to worry about Cooper testifying. I need to go back to review Comey's speech announcing Fitzgerald, but I'm fairly certain when he describes why they're doing it as a special prosecutor, he says its so Fitzgerald has wide subpoena authority--even for journalists.
That said, I'm most struck by Rove's confidence the Cooper email wouldn't show up in the subpoena search in January 2004. As I suggest here, there's evidence what Fitz is really after (in addition to perjury charges for Turdblossom), is the conspiracy to bury the Cooper conversation. Rove seemed to know (big surprise, huh?) that Libby would testify that he, Libby, told Cooper of Plame's identity. So until Cooper denied that in August 2004, Fitzgerald had no real pressing reason to look for all the evidence of a Rove-Cooper conversation (which had, anyway, been tampered with).
Intriguingly, the particles seem to be moving ever so slowly toward some variation of a conspiracy. I am reminded that up until the last 6 months BushCo was enjoying a high degree of arrogance which empowered them to feel untouchable. Rove just simply never thought he'd get caught. He has historically outthought all his opposition and Fitzgerald's methodical dissection of this must drive Rove to drink, hey there's a thought, to drink.
Rove testified, in essence, that "it would have
been a suicide mission" to "deliberately lie" about
his conversation with Cooper because he knew
beforehand that it eventually would be revealed,
the source said.
Your position is that Rove really remembered both the conversation and the email, but knew they would stay buried so it wasn't really a 'suicide mission".
His story amounts to saying that, if he *had* remembered the email, he would have also suspected that it would eventually surface, as in fact it did.
As a non-techie, my impression is that fully deleting emails (or anything else) is even harder than eradicating dandelions.
We seem to have competing circles of logic - some folks know there was a conspiracy to delete emails and rig Libby's testimony, because otherwise how could he have thought to get away with it?
Other say, how do you prove a person did not forget?
And memory experts will scoff at your notion that he couldn't have forgotten a mere week later. Apparently (I have gleaned) memories that don't make a quick hop from short to long term storage never make the hop.
Cooper's article was only on-line, not print; there was a near-blcakout in the media on the Plame leak until late September; and the initial DoJ document/contact request *also* forgot to ask about Cooper.
Tom Maguire
Your position is that Rove really remembered both the conversation and the email, but knew they would stay buried so it wasn't really a 'suicide mission".
While I do think that Rove remembered his conversation with Cooper, I'm not at all sure he remembered that he had memorialized it in an email. I think it's possible that when he testified in February he didn't think there were any records of the conversation. If so, Rove may have figured there was little chance anyone would ever contradict his testimony.
Cooper's article was only on-line, not print; there was a near-blcakout in the media on the Plame leak until late September; and the initial DoJ document/contact request *also* forgot to ask about Cooper.
By the time Rove testified, he claims he knew (via V.Novak) that he was rumored to be Cooper's source. Surely that prompted Rove to review Cooper's article. Are we really supposed to believe that even after reading Cooper's article he still had no memory of the conversation? But that he suddenly remembered months later when the email surfaced?
And Cooper's article, though it only appeared online, was highly critical of the White House's "war on Wilson." Given their obsession with Wilson at the time, surely Rove read the article. And while the mainstream media didn't really focus on the issue until September, David Corn accused the Plame leakers of committing a felony in an article that was published just days after Bob Novak's column. Corn isn't a total nobody. It's not everyday that White House staffers get accused by a well-known journalist of committing very specific felonies. Plus, Wilson himself was clearly Corn's source for the story, which also would have drawn the White House's attention. Do you really think Corn's story went totally unnoticed by Rove? It's possible, but I doubt it. And Corn's story would have prompted any reasonable person to think long and hard about what they said about Plame that week.
By the time Rove testified, he claims he knew (via V.Novak) that he was rumored to be Cooper's source.
I didn't quite grasp the point you were making about how the timeline does not work - Rove had second and third appearances with (as I recall) one March date and one uncertain date, then a fourth appearance in Oct. 2004.
Cooper may have been discussed at one of those, which means the WaPo is hazy or wrong.
And the reporters were subpoenaed over the summer of 2004, so even if Rove were confident in Feb, he would have been less so later (well, I guess that is the argument - did he change his story under pressure of discovery?)
Tom Maguire
Maguire-you don't have to prove Rove did not forget to universal certainty, only to the point at which there can be no reasonable doubt that his "forgetting" was perjury, emphasis on reasonable.
If the jury is composed of simple minded naifs, Rove may skate. I'm sure he hopes you're in the jury box.
I didn't quite grasp the point you were making about how the timeline does not work - Rove had second and third appearances with (as I recall) one March date and one uncertain date, then a fourth appearance in Oct. 2004.
Cooper may have been discussed at one of those, which means the WaPo is hazy or wrong.
I don't think so. When Cooper was deposed about Libby, Fitzgerald apparently had no idea that Rove was Cooper's original source. Previous reports indicate that Rove didn't testify to having discussed anything with Cooper until his Oct. 2004 appearance, after the email has surfaced.
And I think you're right that Fitzgerald thinks Rove's story only started to change when the investigation began zeroing in on Cooper, in mid-summer.
Could explain this headline at Raw Story:
MSNBC: ROVE CALLS TESTIMONY 'HELL,' BELIEVES HE IS IN LEGAL JEOPARDY; JURY MEETS FRI...
Karl Rove has described his three and a half hour meeting with a grand jury as grueling, and is more worried about being prosecuted than ever, MSNBC is reporting.
RAW STORY has also learned that an MSNBC report tonight will reveal that one of Rove's lawyers said the presidential adviser described his fifth grand jury appearance as "hell." MSNBC's David Shuster is expected to be live on Keith Olbermann's 8pm show this evening, sources say.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/MSNBC_reports_Rove_believes_he_in_0427.html
Clearly Rove needs the "services" of a good hooker to help him get over his "trauma, republican style:
Wade Got Hookers for Duke -- and Others?
Ken Silverstein reports at Harper's blog on the spreading Cunningham-Wade-Wilkes prostitute scandal. He says more lawmakers, past and present, are being investigated. Sounds like he thinks House Intel Chair-turned-CIA Director Porter Goss is one of them:
I've learned from a highly-connected source that those under intense scrutiny by the FBI are current and former lawmakers on Defense and Intelligence comittees -- including one person who now holds a powerful intelligence post.
Yowzah.
Actually, make that a double-yowzah: Remember that Goss is the one who plucked one of Wilkes' old San Diego friends, the unusual and colorful Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, out of CIA middle-management obscurity to be his #3 at the agency. At the time of Foggo's appointment, no one could figure out where he came from, or how Goss knew him.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000494.php
Of course, perhaps he would prefer to use homosexual male prostitute gannon/guckert.
Yup, gotta love the "values voters" leadership...
whether apocraphyl or not, i can't say, but here's a little tidbit i remember reading some time back which
it bears directly on rove's capacity to remember.
as i recall,
the story is that rove has an unusual memory.
his sister has said that when they were children, rove's siblings would play a game to test that extraordinary memory. the game consisted of omitting a word from a page rove had read and then seeing if he could identify that missing word.
personally, i think the memory lapse defense is a poor choice given that all of us learn from childhood the extreme uselfulness of lying and saying "i forgot".
"sorry, mom, i forgot to take out the trash."
but especially in rove's case,
i would sure be careful about using the "i forgot" defense with a client whose extraordinary memory might be easy to demonstrate.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home