Rove's Tangled Web
Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas of Newsweek have a new article out discussing Karl Rove's latest trip to the grand jury (hat tip Empty Wheel). There's not a whole lot of new information in it, but the article does help refine the timeline of significant events somewhat.
First, Isikoff and Thomas clear up the mystery of when Rove made his second trip to the grand jury:
As for the timing of the conversation between Viveca Novak and Bob Luskin, the article notes:
The article then repeats what has become a standard bit of conventional wisdom, but makes absolutely no sense: that the conversation with Novak led Luskin to "make a renewed search of Rove's files" and "[t]hat's what turned up the e-mail to Hadley."
Do Isikoff and Thomas really not see the glaring problem with this chronology? Luskin is claiming that a conversation that took place between October 2003 and January 2004 prompted him to search through Rove's files and find an email in October 2004. Why did it take him the better part of a year to find that email? It just doesn't make any sense.
While reading through the article, I thought of something else that doesn't make sense. Matt Cooper (along with Judy Miller) engaged in a protracted court battle to avoid having to testify about his conversations with Karl Rove. This battle lasted almost a year, from August 2004 to July 2005, when, having exhausted all possible legal options and facing jail for contempt, Cooper approached Rove and secured a waiver to testify.
Rove, via Luskin, has claimed that he has been cooperating with Fitzgerald's investigation from the beginning and that he did not realize that he was the source Cooper was fighting to protect. When Cooper announced that his source had finally given him a waiver, Luskin pushed back somewhat angrily, claiming that his client had long ago provided a general waiver and that he had merely reaffirmed the validity of that waiver to Cooper's attorney.
But doesn't the Viveca Novak story put the lie to this defense? According to Rove himself, his attorney informed him in January 2004 that the word at TIME magazine was that Rove was Cooper's source. How can Rove claim not to have known, or at least strongly suspected, that he was the source Cooper was protecting? Moreover, even after stories began surfacing in the summer of 2005 indicating that Rove was Cooper's source, Rove still made no attempt to contact Cooper and clear up the confusion. It wasn't until Cooper's attorney contacted Luskin on the eve of Cooper being jailed that a waiver was secured.
Rove had reason to suspect for over a year and a half that Cooper was protecting him and he did nothing. He was perfectly content to allow Cooper to go to jail. What a guy.
First, Isikoff and Thomas clear up the mystery of when Rove made his second trip to the grand jury:
In February 2004, Rove testified beforeRove's first two appearances were apparently back-to-back. Rove's initial appearance probably just ran long, and Fitzgerald had him come back a few days later to finish up. Mystery solved. Isikoff and Thomas also pinpoint when the infamous Rove-Hadley email was finally turned over to Fitzgerald:
Fitzgerald's grand jury--twice.
Then, in October 2004, Rove, through his lawyer
Luskin, suddenly turned over to the special
prosecutor an e-mail, sent to Stephen Hadley, then
deputy national-security adviser, that clearly
showed that Rove had spoken to Cooper.
As for the timing of the conversation between Viveca Novak and Bob Luskin, the article notes:
Luskin told the prosecutor that sometime between
October 2003 and January 2004 he'd had a drink
with Time reporter Viveca Novak.
The article then repeats what has become a standard bit of conventional wisdom, but makes absolutely no sense: that the conversation with Novak led Luskin to "make a renewed search of Rove's files" and "[t]hat's what turned up the e-mail to Hadley."
Do Isikoff and Thomas really not see the glaring problem with this chronology? Luskin is claiming that a conversation that took place between October 2003 and January 2004 prompted him to search through Rove's files and find an email in October 2004. Why did it take him the better part of a year to find that email? It just doesn't make any sense.
While reading through the article, I thought of something else that doesn't make sense. Matt Cooper (along with Judy Miller) engaged in a protracted court battle to avoid having to testify about his conversations with Karl Rove. This battle lasted almost a year, from August 2004 to July 2005, when, having exhausted all possible legal options and facing jail for contempt, Cooper approached Rove and secured a waiver to testify.
Rove, via Luskin, has claimed that he has been cooperating with Fitzgerald's investigation from the beginning and that he did not realize that he was the source Cooper was fighting to protect. When Cooper announced that his source had finally given him a waiver, Luskin pushed back somewhat angrily, claiming that his client had long ago provided a general waiver and that he had merely reaffirmed the validity of that waiver to Cooper's attorney.
But doesn't the Viveca Novak story put the lie to this defense? According to Rove himself, his attorney informed him in January 2004 that the word at TIME magazine was that Rove was Cooper's source. How can Rove claim not to have known, or at least strongly suspected, that he was the source Cooper was protecting? Moreover, even after stories began surfacing in the summer of 2005 indicating that Rove was Cooper's source, Rove still made no attempt to contact Cooper and clear up the confusion. It wasn't until Cooper's attorney contacted Luskin on the eve of Cooper being jailed that a waiver was secured.
Rove had reason to suspect for over a year and a half that Cooper was protecting him and he did nothing. He was perfectly content to allow Cooper to go to jail. What a guy.
posted by A.L. at 11:49 PM
5 Comments:
I know this issue is really important and I'm glad that people are covering it, but the Plamegate story really bores me. I already know the administration pays no attention to accuracy or national security or the law when it releases classified information, so the whole issue is kind of superfluous.
On the other hand, I really hope the courts confirm what I know about Bush and company, and it's great that bloggers and investigators and reporters are looking into it.
I already know the administration pays no attention to accuracy or national security or the law
Remember, that is why they get away with things like this, people get sick of the crap and disenfranchised. Not trying to diss ya', just saying that they count on your reaction.
Besides, while outing Plame served their purpose in Iraq by covering the lies that were used to take this nation into an illegal war; the bigger purpose it served was to dismantle all WMD intelligence about Iran.
This will make it easier to "catapult the propaganda" to start that illegal war.
I hope Americans will not let chimpy win on this by letting this stand.
I think the most important part of the Newsweek story is that Rove in 10/04 didn't testify that he told Cooper about Plame as was widely reported in 7/05.
Rove did not mention Plame at all in his 10/04 GJ testimony according to this Newsweek article. He tesified to the welfare angle and telling Cooper not to get to far out on Wilson, in other words the contents of the email.
Rove did not mention that he possibly mentioned Plame to Cooper until 10/05, after Cooper testified.
I offer this commentary on your earlier post on the INR memo
The INR Memo is still the first place known that most probably informed the WH that Plame worked at the CIA. The CIA documents faxed to the OVP on 6/9/03 did not mention Plame.
The INR Memo and it's attachments contain all parts of the leaks except that Plame worked in counterproliferation. Novak had the counter proliferation piece coming from his nonpartisian gunslinger source in his 10/1/03 column
Great comment BTW on FDL on the delay in putting out the Viveca story.
Pollyusa
The article then repeats what has become a standard bit of conventional wisdom, but makes absolutely no sense: that the conversation with Novak led Luskin to "make a renewed search of Rove's files" and "[t]hat's what turned up the e-mail to Hadley."
Do Isikoff and Thomas really not see the glaring problem with this chronology? Luskin is claiming that a conversation that took place between October 2003 and January 2004 prompted him to search through Rove's files and find an email in October 2004. Why did it take him the better part of a year to find that email? It just doesn't make any sense.
Some of that delay could be explained by what I recall as Luskin's comment that, at first, he just didn't belive Novak and thought she was trying to bait him into chatting about Rove.
So maybe as the train moved down the tracks they took her tidbit more seriously.
However, I can't explain the hang-up with Cooper's waiver.
However, I wonder about this:
Moreover, even after stories began surfacing in the summer of 2005 indicating that Rove was Cooper's source, Rove still made no attempt to contact Cooper and clear up the confusion.
Just from memory, I think Lawrence O'Donnel at The Huggington Post broke that just a few days before Cooepr finally got his waiver. I don't recall a big lag.
In fact, July 3 for the O'Donnell post, July 6 for the waiver and drama on the courthouse steps.
In fact, July 3 for the O'Donnell post, July 6 for the waiver and drama on the courthouse steps.
A good point. Assuming Rove really didn't suspect Cooper was protecting him prior to the O'Donnell scoop (which I don't believe), he really didn't have that much time to act.
We'll never know, but my hunch is that had Cooper not approached Rove for a waiver, Rove would have let him go to jail.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home