More on Rove as (Possible) Plame Outer
Here’s some more detail on the “Karl Rove was the source of the Valerie Plame identity leak” allegations.
From the Washington Post, last Saturday (July 2): Lawyer says Rove talked to reporter, did not leak name. And there’s this from the Sunday LA Times: Rove talked but did not tattle, attorney says.
The gist of this seems to be that Rove’s lawyer, Robert Luskin, made the rounds of the mainstream media over the weekend, giving interviews in which he went on the record saying that:
- Rove did talk to Matthew Cooper in the days before the Novak column that outed Plame.
- Rove didn’t knowingly reveal as part of that conversation that Plame was an undercover CIA agent.
So, reading between the lines on all this, it sounds like Patrick Fitzgerald (the federal prosecutor investigating the Plame outing) may be interested in pursuing perjury charges against Rove, based on his having said one thing during his grand jury testimony and another thing being implied by Cooper’s notes. Or something.
More analysis of this is provided by David Corn, the Bush-hater who was the first mainstream media person to point out the potential legal implications of the Plame outing: Is Rove it?
If Luskin is telling the truth, Rove has nothing to fear. But defense lawyers have been known to spin the facts. The contents of Cooper’s emails and notes might support or challenge Luskin’s account. They might be inconclusive. (You should see my notes sometimes.) That Rove, a top White House aide, spoke to Cooper, who was covering the White House for a major newsmagazine, during this white-hot episode would not be unusual. And the piece Cooper co-wrote covers far more ground than Plame’s post at the CIA (which accounted for only two sentences). It is certainly conceivable that Rove was tossing other anti-Wilson information at Cooper (and others) at this point. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, also talked to Time for this article, and he was quoted by name saying that Cheney had been interested in the Niger allegation but didn’t know about Wilson’s trip to Niger. (After Libby gave permission to Cooper to tell Fitzgerald about their conversations, Cooper did so.)
Rove talking to Cooper days before his piece–and Novak’s–was written is an intriguing lead for Fitzgerald. But this does not solve the mystery. Before anyone can expect to see Rove frog-marching, Fitzgerald will have to determine what was said in these conversations.
And if that’s not exciting enough, you can enjoy the over-the-top (yeah, even for me) partisan japery of Bob Brigham at The Swing State Project: Karl Rove: It’s not the lying, it’s the treason. Brigham looks forward to the Rove investigation leading to a re-opening of the issue of Jeff Gannon’s getting White House press credentials, and Rove’s involvement in that. Brigham posts a transcript of an Air America broadcast he did with Janeane Garofalo back in February, at which Garofalo said:
Janeane Garofalo: May I throw my two cents in Bob, because you’ve be unbelievably polite about this. Here’s exactly is going to happen. Here is what the Gannon/Guckert sexual hypocrisy, whatever the scandal is, beyond the scandal we all know about. My gut feeling is that Karl Rove is either bisexual or gay, Scott McClellan, either bisexual or gay and either one of those two men – I tend to think it is Karl Rove – has had an affair with Ganon/Guckert.
Lies.com: We report. You decide.
July 5th, 2005 at 2:45 pm
I’ve had the same feeling that Janeane did about Rove and Gannon. It just seems to me, if they wanted a shill in the press room, they could have done tons better than Gannon. Wouldn’t they want someone who was above reproach journalistically? Or at least, not a male prostitute whose job with a fake news organization was just hours old? And then there’s the several hundred visits to the WH when there wasn’t an (official) briefing. Heh.
July 6th, 2005 at 5:19 am
I can’t imagine why more people aren’t listening to Air America.
July 6th, 2005 at 10:25 am
Good thing Air America only has an active audience of about a dozen, so Janeane can make wildly slanderous remarks with no negative effects. Imagine a Rush or a O’Reilly shooting from the hip on the sexual orientation of political figures based upon their “gut feeling”?
Here’s a good Las Vegas wager: put Janeane and Tom Cruise in a room to debate a topic and let’s bet on whose head inflates the largest and ultimately explodes, as they desperately try to outdo each other while they display their outsized opinions of themselves as faux intellectuals, political pundits, and condesending vessels of wisdom and truth to the unenlightened masses.
July 6th, 2005 at 12:29 pm
“For decades, liberals were setting the agenda, the pace of change, and the visionary goals. Conservatives were simply reacting to them. But times change..”
Karl Rove
Boy, do they ever!! The world is soooo much better now. NOT.
PS – I just wanted rant about that quote, somewhere.
July 6th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
Craig:
You don’t really want to talk about “wildly slanderous remarks,” now do you? Reminds me of Karl Rove’s push polling on McCain in 2000 – “Would you be less likely to vote for McCain if he was gay and had an illegitimate black child?” Or how about the Clintons, who murdered Vince Foster and were dealing drugs out of the White House? As for “shooting from the hip on the sexual orientation of political figures,” does the name Ed Klein mean anything to you? The sexual hypocrisy of the crapweasel right is breathtaking.
Gannon was a male prostitute with no press background who got into White House press briefings for two years, lobbing softball questions to the President of the United States. Flip that over to the Clinton White House and see how it flies….
July 6th, 2005 at 1:14 pm
Further thought:
Conservatives – what crybabies. “Al Franken cut me off!” “Janeane Garofalo said I might be gay!” Suck it up, losers.
July 6th, 2005 at 1:18 pm
One more and I’ll quit, I promise:
Janeane Garofalo and Al Franken are fake intellectuals and fake pundits, but Hannity, Rush and O’Reilly are real ones? Uh-huh.
July 6th, 2005 at 2:21 pm
I’m progressive and liberal but even Jeanne’s comments seem just a little too fringe for my liking. I mean, I don’t doubt there are closeted men on the right who are in power — they also happen to tend to be the ones who damn homosexuality at every turn. That being said, I wouldn’t bring it up over this matter. It seems just as looney as the idea the Clintons were offing those who disagreed with them.
At any rate — getting back to Rove — I think something that is very pressing is the fact that if Rove did out Plame, did he even have the clearence to this information in the first place? If not, was he fed the data from another White House source? If so, whom? That’s something to ponder with it all, we all know revenge was the motive for outing Plame (political revenge) but who else was involved?
Bah, where is H. Mark Felt when you need him? :(
July 6th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
Whoa, easy there Adam….I don’t recall bringing Franken and Hannity into the discussion, or even talking about the relative intellectual strengths of Rush or O’Reilly. But I guess the point of a discussion shouldn’t get in the way of a rant!
So, because other people have delved into using questionable or slanderous methods, therefore I can’t point out any other specific examples of such actions? I don’t recall saying that only Liberal commentators make slanderous or distorted statements.
I also must have missed the article about how Bill Clinton, as slimy as he is, was actually found guilty of murder. Or was that another rant disguised as a fact?
July 6th, 2005 at 5:43 pm
My point was that Garofalo’s comments aren’t even on the radar in terms of “wildly slanderous remarks.” And as far as Rush and O’Reilly, the idea that they don’t traffic in slander every single day is laughable. You said, effectively, “Imagine if Rush or O’Reilly did something like that!” They do it, and much worse, every. day.
I would ask what you actually thought about Gannon, but I guess I don’t need to hear another “Who cares? What’s the big deal?” response. At this point, the American public wouldn’t care if CNN broadcast a live feed of Bush sodomizing Gannon on the White House lawn, while simultaneously throwing a Palestinian baby into a barbecue pit.
July 6th, 2005 at 9:17 pm
If it is so painfully obvious that they deal in outrageous slander on a daily basis, then I suppose there is a huge list of examples that you can give rather than the “it’s true because I say so” argument. Hey, maybe there really are some times in which they themselves have actually made up a completely unsubstanciated claim about someone that would be devastating and personally injurous to that person. If so, I’ll admit that I used some poor examples to make my point. I don’t listen to either one of them with any frequency whatsoever. But I would imagine that if what you say is true regarding this daily barrage of willful defamation of character, there is also an equally long list of libel suits filed and won against them too. Especially since they command such a large audience and have an impact on public opinion.
Keep in mind that this all doesn’t mean that Rush and O’Reilly aren’t decidedly partisan in their political interpretation of events and their agendas. They obviously are.
This all detracts from my basic original opinion the Janeane is a pretentious, celebrity slogan-regurgitater who’s next thoughtful, considered opinion will likely be her first.
July 6th, 2005 at 9:34 pm
Craig:
As Dean Esmay says, I’m not going to do your research for you – especially for someone who uses O’Reilly and Rush as examples and then says “I don’t listen to them with any frequency.” A start would be to go to mediamatters.org and search on either “Bill O’Reilly” or “Rush Limbaugh.” Lots of good stuff there.
As I’ve said in the past, this whole “Shut Up and Sing” campaign has more than a whiff of jealousy to it. I have no doubt that if the right had cadres of evil pretentious Hollywood celebrities willing to make movies and sing songs and speak out on conservative causes, the whole “damn celebrities and their unwelcome views!” thing wouldn’t exist.
As for the “devastating” claim that Rove is gay and was sleeping with a male prostititute in the White House – hey, if that was the worst thing he did, I might agree with you.
July 7th, 2005 at 7:11 am
It’s funny how people refer others to blantantly politically biased sites that happen to cater to their own viewpoint, to clear up the “truth” in an issue(as if MediaMatters really cares about exposing inaccuracies on all parts of the political spectrum). I’ll make sure I quote the “Accuracy in Media” website the next time I want to seek support from a watchdog organization with a strictly Conservative mission!!!
As far as doing someone else’s research goes, I’d say you have at least an equal share of duty in backing up your statements when you declare the daily slanderous activity by a talking head, as being beyond question. Pointing to that website doesn’t do anything to support your claim.
There is a difference between engaging in political opinion that selectively uses or distorts facts to best represent a person’s viewpoint (which these guys, and most talking heads, do often), and creating an unfounded claim regarding a person that would be considered slanderous and defaming.
And believe me, if a celebrity intellectual poser was constantly spouting off outlandish declarations from the extreme Fundamentalist side of issues and coming off as an arrogant reactionary fool, I’d be wanting to put plenty of distance between them and myself.
July 7th, 2005 at 8:19 am
Web sites (and people) can be politically biased and still be truthful and accurate. And Media Matters has done a heck of a lot of detailed work to expose the gout of filth spewing from the right these days.
I will admit that “slander” is perhaps too specific a sin, although I would definitely lump it in with all the other crap spewed by Rush, O’Reilly, et al. (“Michael Schiavo killed his wife” springs to mind.) If it’s a choice between Janeane “Karl Rove may be gay!” Garofalo and Rush “the Clintons killed Vince Foster” Limbaugh – it’s not even a contest.
July 7th, 2005 at 9:40 am
Craig – Discredit media matters all you want, but there’s live video of Rush and O-Lielly and everyone lese right there for you to view. The video of these guys is what makes me form my opinion of them, not what people say.
Its like when righties say Fahrenheit 9/11 is so one sided its not even worth watching. Well, sorry if the other side isn’t corrupt and doesn’t lie to the public and nobody can make a movie about it to counter. I mean, everything is right there on video, no actors, no imposters.
July 7th, 2005 at 8:41 pm
The “other side” is untainted by corruption and doesn’t lie to the public? I really hope you’re just greatly exaggerating to make a point, and not really that naive.
At the risk of starting a totally irrelevant Mikey Moore discussion, let me just say this about his film. If you are saying that his angle on the Bush Administration and the 9/11 subplots must be true because he uses some real press conference clips and interview sound bites and news article clippings to make his points, then you’re just the unquestioning target audience that Moore was counting on to buy into his flawed story. Propagandists of all stripes love to use such material because they can edit and misrepresent anything and use it to create an illusion of authenticity to their contrived story. He also used enough accurate information to give further legitimacy to the rest of his collection of distortions and out-right lies, which he uses to really drive home his desired message.
Feel free to check out “Fahrenheit fact” and its references to Dave Kopel’s website for some details (just two of many sources). Some of the points made are agruments over technicalities or debatable clips and narration that Moore supporters, in turn, defend as truthful. But there are many serious distortions, editing tricks and purposeful lies used by Moore to support some of his most damming accusations.
If you want to swallow whole this tale created by Moore because it plays into your worldview, then that’s your choice. But I’d advise you to not give Moore or ANY other documentary-maker automatic authority just because they know how to manipulate authentic source material to craft a story.
Now, feel free to complete this endless circle of discussion on F9/11 by defending all of Moore’s accusations and by collectively discrediting his film critics as partisan hacks who are spreading their own set of lies. And so it goes…..
As the great philosopher, Forrest Gump said, “And that’s all I have to say about that.”
July 7th, 2005 at 10:00 pm
In an effort to link a small portion of your posts back to the original topic of John’s: I read somewhere that Rush claims to know for a “fact” that Rove couldn’t possibly be the leaker. Even if he was, Limbaugh didn’t even see this act of treason as really a crime. Yeah, pop some more pills big guy.
So Craig, if it does come out that Rove is in fact the leaker, would it even matter to you? Or would you continue to give the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt?
July 7th, 2005 at 10:25 pm
Come on Sven. Can’t you write Craig’s response yourself?
“Plame wasn’t undercover, so there was no ‘outing.’ And even if she was, who cares? Those lefty fascist Bush Haters ™ like Wilson deserve anything they get. They’re the reason we’re losing in Iraq, not Bush.”
In a weird way the Plame thing plays into the hands of the right, because it distracts from the underlying fact that Bush lied in the State of the Union address about yellowcake. People seem to forget that, in all the hurlyburly.
Yes, he lied. I said the L word. And no, I’m not going to get into a debate about the facts on it, which are clear. Sorry. Move along. Forrest Gump. Etc.
July 7th, 2005 at 10:43 pm
Well, I think it would be more typical of Craig to overstate the wackiness of the other side, setting up a strawman that’s easier to knock down. Which, come to think of it, is kind of what Adam just did to Craig.
It’s the nature of polarizing debates, I guess. Welcome to George Bush’s America.
July 11th, 2005 at 9:40 am
Craig,
“I call on all world leaders to do whatever they can to combat these terrorist killers… now watch this drive.”
That one little clip offered me all I needed to confirm my suspicions of Bush’s sincerity. Now I’m sure you’ll tell me that clip was manipulated by Moore. Now if only you and others had the same passion against the manipulation of intelligence to wage war, America would be a better and safer place. But no. The world is much more dangerous, as evidenced last week in London. Thanks to Bush and supporters like you, the jihadists have the ultimate recruitment tools – Iraq, Abu Gharib, Gitmo, etc…Thanks guys. Thanks a lot.
Sorry for steering off topic, I’m done, my apologies.
July 11th, 2005 at 9:44 am
And if the “other side” was as half as corrupt as this, we’d be hearing about it all over the place. If you mean getting your dick sucked is corrupt, well then I guess you’re right. Though, thousands didn’t die because of that. America didn’t spiral into deficiet. The world didn’t become more dangerous. Ok, I’m done for real now.