Karl Rove
 

Newsweek is reporting that Rove may be implicated in the Vlaerie Plame leak :eek: -- which of course Rove's lawyers deny and Rove will not publicly comment on but he did give grand jury testimony. This is unfolding into something that could be huge.

Sweet Jesus!!!!! :xoxo: :blob2: :blob2: :blob2:

Holy crap, he actually got his hands dirty? About time.

Lawrence O'Donnell: Update on Rove
 

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...4_200507031044

Lawrence O'Donnell
Sun Jul 3,10:44 AM ET

On Friday, I broke the story that the e-mails that Time turned over to the prosecutor that day reveal that Karl Rove is the source Matt Cooper is protecting. That provoked Rove’s lawyer, Robert Luskin, to interrupt his holiday weekend to do a little defense work with Newsweek and the Los Angeles Times.

On Saturday, Luskin decided to reveal that Rove did have at least one conversation with Cooper, but Luskin told the Times he would not “characterize the substance of the conversation.” Luskin claimed that the prosecutor “asked us not to talk about what Karl has had to say.” This is highly unlikely. Prosecutors have absolutely no control over what witnesses say when they leave the grand jury room. Rove can tell us word-for-word what he said to the grand jury and would if he thought it would help him. And notice that Luskin just did reveal part of Rove’s grand jury testimony, the fact that he had a conversation with Cooper. Rove would not let me get one day of traction on this story if he could stop me. If what I have reported is not true, if Karl Rove is not Matt Cooper’s source, Rove could prove that instantly by telling us what he told the grand jury. Nothing prevents him from doing that, except a good lawyer who is trying to keep him out of jail.

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Newsweek magazine is reporting that e-mails between Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and his editors show that Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, spoke to Cooper in the days before a CIA operative's identity was revealed in the media, but it wasn't clear what Cooper and Rove discussed.

Rove's attorney told CNN his client did not disclose any confidential information.

Attorney Robert Luskin confirmed that Cooper called Rove in July 2003 but said he's "not characterizing the subject matter of that conversation."

A special prosecutor is investigating whether senior Bush administration officials leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame to the media in retaliation after her husband wrote an opinion piece critical of the administration.

Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller face jail on civil contempt charges for refusing to reveal their sources to a federal grand jury. Judge Thomas Hogan has set a final hearing on Wednesday and will make a decision after that.

Time Inc. announced Thursday that it would hand over subpoenaed documents, including Cooper's notes, after the Supreme Court refused to hear the reporters' appeals in the case.

Cooper's attorneys argued that Time's decision "should obviate" the contempt citation against him because the material gives the grand jury the information and makes his testimony "duplicative and unnecessary."

Time Inc. is a unit of Time Warner, which is also CNN's parent company.

Luskin said prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "has confirmed repeatedly, most recently last week, that he (Rove) is not a target of the investigation."

Added Luskin, "Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn't disclose Valerie Plame's identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else ... Who outed this woman? ... It wasn't Karl."

Luskin said Rove "certainly did not disclose to Matt Cooper or anybody else any confidential information."

Rove has testified at least twice as part of the inquiry, but sources involved previously told CNN that while Rove acknowledged talking to reporters about the issue, he said he never knowingly disclosed classified information.

Luskin stressed that his client has cooperated fully with the government.

"I've been assured by the prosecutor they have no reason to doubt the honesty of anything he's said," he said.

The case stems from a July 14, 2003, column by Robert Novak in which he revealed Plame's identity as a CIA operative. Novak, who also is a CNN contributor, attributed the information to two senior administration officials.

Plame's husband is Joe Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Wilson charged that his wife's name was leaked to retaliate against him after he disputed Bush administration statements that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium in Africa.

Federal law makes it a crime to deliberately reveal the identity of a CIA operative.

The subpoena issued to Time sought documents relating to "conversations between Cooper and official source(s) prior to July 14, 2003, concerning in any way" Wilson, Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger, Plame, and any affiliation between Plame and the CIA.

Under federal law, civil contempt can carry up to 18 months in jail or the length of the grand jury's term, whichever is shorter. Hogan said the term of the grand jury in this case expires in October, so Miller and Cooper only face up to four months in jail.

As part of his probe, Fitzgerald subpoenaed a number of journalists to testify about their sources. Miller and Cooper and their news organizations decided to fight the subpoenas, although Cooper did reveal one unnamed source who released him from a confidentiality pledge.

Miller faces jail time for refusing to reveal sources she developed during her reporting, even though she never actually wrote a story on Plame or Wilson. But Novak -- who has refused to discuss the case on the advice of his attorney -- has not been held in contempt.

CNN's John King contributed to this report.

I saw a good documentary on Rove/Bush today....it was called BUSH'S BRAINS..It was on Sundance, VERY good..anyone seen it?

Chris

Yes, I have. Rove goes all the way back to the days of ...Nixon. He was a young college Republican then. He learned all his tricks from the late Lee Atwater who, on his deathbead from brain cancer, asked for forgiveness for all the horrible things he had done over the years.
Rove's comeuppance, should it be his time now, has been a long time coming. :nod:

I hope that fuc&er falls and falls hard and then gets a big - and I mean BIG - minority boyfriend at CLub Fed :mad:

If Rove goes down, then the whole house of cards goes down with him. This goes directly to the office of the Vice President and we all know George had to sit on his lap while they had their little interview with the special prosecutor so...

I hope the pasty-faced piece of filth goes down, but I'm sure he'll lie, cheat and slime his way out of it. :mad:

I don't think so. He has many enemies. I'm sure some of them will be more than happy to contribute to his political demise. After all, he f*cked with the CIA like it was some kind of frat boy prank and those are not the kind of people you do that to. These people take down governments, for Christ's sake. They're not above taking this one down, either. Those people take their jobs very, very seriously.

Plus, they LOVE to eat their own :shrug: Politics is a hard game and no one is sacred :nod: Ask Clinton :cool:

Which brings me to this-I can't help but thinking that there is a reason that Clinton is running around with Poppy. An ulterior one.

THAT on top of Billy Graham commenting that Clinton should preach the work of Jesus and Clinton's wife should run the country - BIZARRE :eek:

I don't get hopeful often, but I really think this is it for him.

- Jake

Karma my friend - I mean this is the man who made an entire country hate gay people more than they already do -- all in an effort to hide W's BS war in Iraq and the fallacy and misguided farce that it became. I hope it hits him hard and hurts trememdously - and I am ashamed to have that hate in my heart :(

Oh yeah. Now there's something going on there. But where does Poppy fit in?

Well, Clinton, esp. Hillary, seemingly has more to gain from that. So, I think Clinton has some goods on ole Poppy :shrug: Or - maybe, as has long been thought by some, they were always in bed together.

Chris, you might find this interesting about Rove. If I remember correctly, it wasn't in Bush's Brain:

Copyright 2003 The Houston Chronicle Publishing Company
The Houston Chronicle

November 09, 2003, Sunday 4 STAR EDITION

SECTION: A; Pg. 33 MetFront

LENGTH: 611 words

HEADLINE: Karl and Bob: a leaky history

SOURCE: Staff

BYLINE: RICK CASEY

BODY:
ONE OF THE great pleasures of studying history is the discovery that the interesting stuff is often in the footnotes.

That's where you find material not important enough for the main text, but too much fun to omit altogether.

This is such a footnote. It has to do with one of the great controversies of this political season - columnist Robert Novak's outing of CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame - and the controversy's Houston connection.

There were reports last week that the FBI's probe into what may be a criminal offense of disclosing the name of an intelligence operative has expanded.

Agents have questioned a number of high White House officials, and with good reason.

James Reston, former New York Times Washington bureau chief and columnist, once described government as "the only vessel that leaks from the top."

Novak brought that quip to mind when he wrote that "two senior administration officials" told him of Plame's profession.

The disclosure appeared to be part of an effort to discredit Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who publicly debunked a White House contention that Iraq had been trying to buy uranium to build nuclear weapons from Niger.

Washington gossip mills immediately focused on President Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, as the possible leaker to Novak.

And in Houston, some eyebrows raised.

The reason: The Rove-Novak speculation seemed an echo from the 1992 re-election campaign of President George H.W. Bush.

Novak wrote a column then describing a secret Dallas meeting in which Houstonian Rob Mosbacher was stripped of his authority as state campaign manager for Bush because "the president's re-election effort in Texas has been a bust."

Novak wrote that the meeting was called by then-U.S. Sen. Phil Gramm.

"Also attending the session was political consultant Karl Rove, who had been shoved aside by Mosbacher," wrote Novak.

Mosbacher met with top leaders of the campaign, including George W. and Dallas Republican heavyweight Fred Meyer, who assured him they did not consider the campaign to be a bust.

Mosbacher laid out his suspicion that Rove was the source of the Novak column.

Rove, a direct mail specialist, had the entire contract for that service in Bush's 1988 campaign, Mosbacher recalled recently.

"I thought another firm was better," he said. "I had a million dollars for direct mail. I gave Rove a contract for $ 250,000 and $ 750,000 to the other firm."

"I said Rove is the only one with a motive to leak this," Mosbacher recalled. "We let him go."

Novak has since denied Rove was the source of that leak. In a profile last spring, Texas Monthly quoted Rove as saying, "As far as I know, Mosbacher still thinks I am the one who did it."

He's right.

"I still believe he did it," says Mosbacher, who is not pleased to have the matter resurrected.

Mosbacher does believe Rove's denials this time, however.

"I think he's a smart guy, and I don't believe he would break the law," he says.

That 1992 Novak column echoed again last week when former President Bush riled some conservative Republicans by presenting the George Bush Award for Excellence in Public Service to Sen. Ted Kennedy at the Bush Library at College Station.

"The right grumbles that moderate Republican Tom Luce, Ross Perot's lawyer and chairman of his aborted presidential campaign, was feted by the Bushes with an overnight White House stay," wrote Novak. "Luce still has not endorsed Bush at this writing, while right-wing activists who labor for the president are snubbed."

Current President Bush, with Rove at his side, clearly has taken Novak's warning to heart.

So, now we have a pattern. What do you all think he will be charged with?
When was the last time anyone was charged with treason?

Other than the "liberals" who dared to even think about questioning the War in Iraq and the Dixie Chicks :eek:

Oh boy. Like all the other scandals that this Administration has, it never did s*** because it was under Rove's control. However, since he may be implicated in the Plame case, this ought to finish Bush blow by blow. Impeachment/resignation can happen some time. It's still four more years.

:lol: No seriously. Was Benedict Arnold the last guy to be charged with treason?

The Jewish couple in WWII - Streep played her in Angels in America.

True but they are completely neutralized by this. They will be essentially powerless and not only on a national scale but a global one as well.
Finally, the youngin's might get a taste of what Watergate was like and how it paled in comparison to what is going on now.
Did you know that one of the four articles of impeachment drawn up against Nixon was for bombing Cambodia?
I think Bush might actually be foolish enough to try to cowboy this out. I also think his father and Clinton might see the writing on the wall. If this thing really blows, the Republican Party will be castrated for the next decade.

The Rosenbergs. Roy Cohn f*cked those people badly. I think he went to a very special place in Hell.

thank goodness he just fuc&ed guys and was not gay :rolleyes:

I know. He was in denial right up until the end. I wonder how many people he infected. :(

Newsweek: Rove spoke to reporter before leak
Bush adviser didn't reveal confidential information, attorney says
From Elaine Quijano
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Newsweek magazine is reporting that e-mails between Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper and his editors show that Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, spoke to Cooper in the days before a CIA operative's identity was revealed in the media, but it wasn't clear what Cooper and Rove discussed.

Rove's attorney told CNN his client did not disclose any confidential information.

Attorney Robert Luskin confirmed that Cooper called Rove in July 2003 but said he's "not characterizing the subject matter of that conversation."

A special prosecutor is investigating whether senior Bush administration officials leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame to the media in retaliation after her husband wrote an opinion piece critical of the administration.

Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller face jail on civil contempt charges for refusing to reveal their sources to a federal grand jury. Judge Thomas Hogan has set a final hearing on Wednesday and will make a decision after that.

Time Inc. announced Thursday that it would hand over subpoenaed documents, including Cooper's notes, after the Supreme Court refused to hear the reporters' appeals in the case.

Cooper's attorneys argued that Time's decision "should obviate" the contempt citation against him because the material gives the grand jury the information and makes his testimony "duplicative and unnecessary."

Time Inc. is a unit of Time Warner, which is also CNN's parent company.

Luskin said prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald "has confirmed repeatedly, most recently last week, that he (Rove) is not a target of the investigation."

Added Luskin, "Karl did nothing wrong. Karl didn't disclose Valerie Plame's identity to Mr. Cooper or anybody else ... Who outed this woman? ... It wasn't Karl."

Luskin said Rove "certainly did not disclose to Matt Cooper or anybody else any confidential information."

Rove has testified at least twice as part of the inquiry, but sources involved previously told CNN that while Rove acknowledged talking to reporters about the issue, he said he never knowingly disclosed classified information.

Luskin stressed that his client has cooperated fully with the government.

"I've been assured by the prosecutor they have no reason to doubt the honesty of anything he's said," he said.

The case stems from a July 14, 2003, column by Robert Novak in which he revealed Plame's identity as a CIA operative. Novak, who also is a CNN contributor, attributed the information to two senior administration officials.

Plame's husband is Joe Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Wilson charged that his wife's name was leaked to retaliate against him after he disputed Bush administration statements that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase uranium in Africa.

Federal law makes it a crime to deliberately reveal the identity of a CIA operative.

The subpoena issued to Time sought documents relating to "conversations between Cooper and official source(s) prior to July 14, 2003, concerning in any way" Wilson, Wilson's 2002 trip to Niger, Plame, and any affiliation between Plame and the CIA.

Under federal law, civil contempt can carry up to 18 months in jail or the length of the grand jury's term, whichever is shorter. Hogan said the term of the grand jury in this case expires in October, so Miller and Cooper only face up to four months in jail.

As part of his probe, Fitzgerald subpoenaed a number of journalists to testify about their sources. Miller and Cooper and their news organizations decided to fight the subpoenas, although Cooper did reveal one unnamed source who released him from a confidentiality pledge.

Miller faces jail time for refusing to reveal sources she developed during her reporting, even though she never actually wrote a story on Plame or Wilson. But Novak -- who has refused to discuss the case on the advice of his attorney -- has not been held in contempt.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/03/co...ove/index.html

Okay, this is what is insane about this whole thing. Novak writes the column but Miller and Cooper are held in contempt and face jail time? And why did the Supreme Court refuse Miller's appeal? This is very frightening. "Freedom of the press" is long gone. Why did Novak reveal Plame's identity? Just because someone tells you who an operative is does not mean you should print it. :confused: This whole story stinks of something really awful.

Oh yes. This thing could go in a lot of different directions, none of them pretty.
It was speculated for a while that Plame was actually outed because her WMD work was leading her in the direction of Cheney.

Heh. All Luskin did was reveal what Rove had already told the grand jury.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblo...inha_3637.html

07.04.2005 Lawrence O'Donnell

Rove's I-did-not-inhale Defense
Karl Rove's lawyer, Robert Ruskin, had his holiday weekend ruined on Friday when I broke the story that the e-mails that Time delivered to the special prosecutor that afternoon reveal that Karl Rove is the source Matt Cooper has been protecting for two years. The next day, Luskin was forced to open the first hole in the Rove two-year wall of silence about the case. In a huge admission to Newsweek and the Los Angeles Times, Luskin confessed that, well, yes, Rove did talk to Cooper. It is a huge admission in a case where Rove and Luskin have never, before Friday, felt compelled to say a word about Rove's contact with Cooper or anyone else involved in the case.

Luskin then launched what sounds like an I-did-not-inhale defense. He told Newsweek that his client "never knowingly disclosed classified information." Knowingly. That is the most important word Luskin said in what has now become his public version of the Rove defense.

Not coincidentally, the word 'knowing' is the most important word in the controlling statute ( U.S. Code: Title 50: Section 421). To violate the law, Rove had to tell Cooper about a covert agent "knowing that the information disclosed so identifies such covert agent and that the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States."

So, Rove's defense now hangs on one word—he "never knowingly disclosed classified information." Does that mean Rove simply didn't know Valerie Plame was a covert agent? Or does it just mean that Rove did not know that the CIA was "taking affirmative measures" to hide her identity?

In Luskin's next damage control session with the press, let's see if any reporter can get him to drop the word 'knowingly' from the never-disclosed-classified-information bit.

and the def. of "is" is . . . :laugh: What an ass.

Ah, the wonder boy may have made a HUGE tactical error..... :blob2: I tell you, if he does go down, there may be a glimmer of hope yet for this country, for without the puppet master, the puppet is nothing more than wood and string.....
Let us pray........... :angel:

Well, he's still got Cheney to prop him up. But it look like if Karl goes down, this would pretty much lead to Cheney's door so we shall see.

Sharks Smelling the Blood in the Water :eek:

_________________________________________________

Plame Prosecutor Demands Time Journo Testify

Tuesday, July 05, 2005



WASHINGTON — A federal prosecutor on Tuesday demanded the grand jury testimony of Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper (search), even though Time Inc. has surrendered e-mails and other documents to the investigation into the leak of a CIA officer's identity.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald (search) also opposed the request of Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller (search) to be granted home detention — instead of jail — for refusing to reveal their sources.

Fitzgerald said allowing them home confinement would make it easier for them to continue to defy a court order to testify.

Special treatment for journalists may "negate the coercive effect contemplated by federal law," Fitzgerald wrote.

"Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality — no one in America is," Fitzgerald wrote in filings with the court.

Miller and Cooper could be ordered to jail as early as Wednesday when U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan will hear arguments from Fitzgerald and lawyers for the reporters about whether they should testify.

Hogan has found the reporters in contempt of court for refusing to divulge their sources and he indicated last week that he is prepared to send them to jail if they do not cooperate.

In his court filings, Fitzgerald said it is essential for courts to enforce their contempt orders so that grand juries can get the evidence they need.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161595,00.html

and another:

Prosecutor: Time reporter must testify about CIA leak

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal prosecutor on Tuesday demanded that Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper testify before a grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA officer's identity, even though Time Inc. has surrendered e-mails and other documents in the probe.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald also opposed the request of Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller to be granted home detention -- instead of jail -- for refusing to reveal their sources.

Allowing the reporters home confinement would make it easier for them to continue to defy a court order to testify, he said. Special treatment for journalists may "negate the coercive effect contemplated by federal law," Fitzgerald wrote in filings with the court.

"Journalists are not entitled to promise complete confidentiality -- no one in America is," Fitzgerald wrote.

Fitzgerald is investigating who in the administration leaked the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Plame's name was first published in a 2003 column by Robert Novak, who cited two unidentified senior Bush administration officials as his sources. Novak has refused to say whether he has testified or been subpoenaed.

Miller and Cooper could be ordered to jail as early as Wednesday when U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan will hear arguments from Fitzgerald and lawyers for the reporters about whether they should testify.

Hogan has found the reporters in contempt of court for refusing to divulge their sources and he indicated last week that he is prepared to send them to jail if they do not cooperate.

In his court filings, Fitzgerald said it is essential for courts to enforce their contempt orders so that grand juries can get the evidence they need.

The case is among the most serious legal clashes between the media and the government since the Supreme Court in 1971 refused to stop the Times and The Washington Post from publishing a classified history of the Vietnam War known as the Pentagon Papers.

Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have shield laws protecting reporters from having to identify their confidential sources. Legislation to establish such protection under federal law has been introduced in Congress.

Time Inc. is owned by Time Warner, which is the parent company of CNN.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/07/05/ci....ap/index.html

I guess if you read between the lines Novak must have talked and whatever he said pointed to the other two reporters. However, he's not saying anything so it is hard to tell. Also, by forcing these reporters to reveal sources, isn't that inhibiting the freedom of the press as protected in the first amendment?

First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Here's another story:

Reporters argue against jail after Time surrenders notes

By The Associated Press
07.05.05

WASHINGTON — Time magazine and New York Times reporters, held in contempt for refusing to name sources, tried to stay out of jail on July 1 by arguing for home detention instead after Time Inc. surrendered its reporter’s notes to a prosecutor.

Producing the documents makes it unnecessary for Time reporter Matthew Cooper to testify to the federal grand jury investigating the leak of a CIA officer’s identity, Cooper’s attorneys argued in papers filed with a federal judge.

“The decision of Time Inc. to comply with the special counsel’s demand should obviate the need to enforce the subpoena served on Mr. Cooper and the contempt citation against him,” the court papers stated. “Mr. Cooper submits that his testimony would be duplicative and unnecessary.”

New York Times reporter Judith Miller will never reveal her sources and depriving her of her freedom “offers absolutely no realistic likelihood” that she will tell the prosecutor what she knows, her attorneys wrote.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan found the two reporters and Time Inc. in contempt for refusing to cooperate in the investigation of who in the Bush administration disclosed the identity of CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Plame’s name was first published in a 2003 column by Robert Novak, who cited two unidentified senior Bush administration officials as his sources. Novak has refused to say whether he has testified or been subpoenaed.

Cooper, who wrote a subsequent story naming Plame, and Miller, who gathered material but never wrote an article, could be ordered to jail at the conclusion of a hearing before Hogan tomorrow.

Time turned over the documents four days after the Supreme Court refused to consider the case.

If Hogan refuses to lift his civil contempt order, a term of home detention would be appropriate for Cooper and Miller, the court papers stated. In the alternative, Cooper should be sent to the Federal Prison Camp in Cumberland, Md., and Miller to the Federal Prison Camp for women in Danbury, Conn., lawyers for each said.

Home detention would restrict Cooper’s activities “without unduly punishing” his wife and very young son, his lawyers said.

Nine members of the Army with whom Miller spent time when she was covering the war in Iraq submitted letters on her behalf, saying that she is someone who keeps her word and would never reveal secrets or her confidential sources under any circumstances.

One of the letters was from Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, who is in command of training Iraqi security forces.

On Capitol Hill, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said on July 1 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 that no purpose would be served by imprisoning Miller and Cooper and that the First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees freedom of the press.

Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have shield laws protecting reporters from having to identify their confidential sources. Legislation to establish such protection under federal law has been introduced in Congress.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=15517

It's on! :woohoo: