Karl Rove

[ShangriLaTroubl]

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.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by ShangriLaTroubl

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.

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

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.

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. This whole story stinks of something really awful.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

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. 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.

[strandinthewind]

Sharks Smelling the Blood in the Water

_________________________________________________

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

[strandinthewind]

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

[SuzeQuze]

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

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

and another:

Prosecutor: Time reporter must testify about CIA leaak

It's on!

[irishgrl]

ok....I dont know where this is going but I will say this: Reporters are RABID about protecting sources and will willingly endure jail so as not to reveal them.... including my Grandmother, the first woman reporter for the Oakland Tribune...

if its up to the reporters, then its jail time......if the paper gives it up, what's the point????

in any event, I hope and pray Rove and the entire row of dominoes goes D.O.W.N.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

ok....I dont know where this is going but I will say this: Reporters are RABID about protecting sources and will willingly endure jail so as not to reveal them.... including my Grandmother, the first woman reporter for the Oakland Tribune...

if its up to the reporters, then its jail time......if the paper gives it up, what's the point????

in any event, I hope and pray Rove and the entire row of dominoes goes D.O.W.N.

Well, since, I think, the 70's, they have no Const. right to keep a source a secret if it is relevant evidence in a criminal case. That is the law and it was just reiterated by the USSC. I mean we cannot pick and chose which USSC decision to apply or we are back to half of Georgia being declared by The Court to belong an Indian nation and the President (Jackson I think) saying, oh yea, well let The Court go enforce its verdict because I and the Congress are not

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

ok....I dont know where this is going but I will say this: Reporters are RABID about protecting sources and will willingly endure jail so as not to reveal them.... including my Grandmother, the first woman reporter for the Oakland Tribune...

if its up to the reporters, then its jail time......if the paper gives it up, what's the point????

We're talking about a couple of different things here. First of all, Time magazine, who Matt Cooper works for was asked by Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald for his notes or they would be penalized on daily basis.
Wanting to avoid that and hoping to grease the wheels a bit for Cooper, Time handed them over. Fitz said that's nice but Cooper and Judith Miller of the New York Times still need to testify. He also pretty much laughed off Miller's request for house arrest.
Now, I'm not sure if you're aware of what Miller's role in all of this is. She never published a story. But the New York Times issued an unprecedented apology due to a string of Miller stories in the run up to the war that were complete propaganda.
http://www.manticeye.com/article.php?id=303_0_4_0_C

When George W. Bush and Tony Blair made their fraudulent case to attack Iraq, the Times, along with most corporate media outlets in the United States, became cheerleaders for the war. And while Jayson Blair was being crucified for his journalistic sins, veteran Times national security correspondents Judith Miller and Michael Gordon were filling the Times' front pages with unchallenged government propaganda. Unlike Blair's deceptions, Miller and Gordon's lies provided the pretext for war. Their lies took lives.

The White House war propaganda blitz was launched on September 7, 2002, at a Camp David press conference. British Prime Minister Tony Blair stood side by side with his co-conspirator, President George W. Bush. Together, they declared that evidence from a report published by the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) showed that Iraq was "six months away" from building nuclear weapons.

But there was no such IAEA report. But the following day, "evidence" popped up in the Sunday New York Times under the twin byline of Gordon and Miller. Their article began "More than a decade after Saddam Hussein agreed to give up weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today."

The Bush administration knew just what to do with the story it had fed to the Newspaper of Record. The day the Times story ran, Vice President Dick Cheney made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows to advance the administration's bogus claims. On NBC's Meet the Press, Cheney declared that Iraq had purchased aluminum tubes to make enriched uranium. It didn't matter that the IAEA refuted the charge both before and after it was made. But Cheney didn't want viewers just to take his word for it. "There's a story in The New York Times this morning," he said. "And I want to attribute the Times."

This was the classic disinformation two-step: the White House leaks a lie to the Times, the newspaper publishes it as a startling exposé, and then the White House conveniently masquerades behind the credibility of the Times.

Much of The Times coverage of Iraq in the build-up to the invasion relied on Iraqi dissidents, most prominently Ahmed Chalabi-head of the Iraqi National Conference. This week's New Yorker has a piece on Chalabi called "The Manipulator," which looks at Chalabi's role. The piece quotes a key Chalabi aide Francis Brooke as saying "This war would not have been fought had it not been for Ahmed Chalabi."

Brooke told The New Yorker that Chalabi's sophisticated marketing operation at the I.N.C. was "an amazing success." Brooke met Chalabi when they both worked at the Rendon Group's Iraq project, a London-based C.I.A.-funded program to influence global opinion on Saddam Hussein. According to Brooke, the Rendon Group signed a secret contract with the C.I.A. that guaranteed the company a ten-per-cent management fee on top of whatever money it spent on the campaign.

The New Yorker also revealed that Ahmad Chalabi's niece, Sarah Khalil, was hired last year by Patrick E. Tyler, the chief correspondent for The New York Times, to be the paper's office manager in Kuwait. The magazine cites Chalabi's daughter Tamara as saying that Khalil actively supported her uncle's efforts while she was working for the Times. In April, 2003, after Chalabi was stranded in the desert shortly after U.S. forces airlifted him into the country, he used a satellite phone to call his niece for help. According to the magazine, Khalil commandeered money from I.N.C. funds and rounded up a convoy of S.U.V.s which she herself led across the border into Iraq, while she was working for the Times. Khalil was dismissed when word of her employment reached editors in New York.

So while you're going to watch the corporate media whores spin that this is about protecting sources, I can assure you that it is not.
We are talking about national security here. These journalists not only betrayed the CIA and Valerie Plame, they betrayed the public whose best interest they are supposed to be working in.
Plame's duties included work with WMD'S and nuclear proliferation. Ponder for just a minute how long it has taken to put that network together. With a vengeful little phone call, in fact many phone calls, Plame was outed as a CIA agent and everyone who ever came in contact with, and everyone who came in contact with them and so on was suspect. We have no idea how many people have been killed because of this. It's effectively destroyed a good part of our intelligence network on WMD'S and nuclear proliferation, making us less safe as a nation.
Again, this is not about protecting a journalist's sources. This trumps that. Whoever did this put our country's security at stake. And isn't that a big part of W's line? He's gonna make us safer. The red state folks think he'll keep us safer?
I'll get into the part where this could very well lead to the vice president later.