David Corn (The Nation): Rove Scandal: Who's Lying Now?

[Jack Rabbit]

From The Nation
Dated Friday July 15

Rove Scandal: Who's Lying Now?
By David Corn

Who's lying?

That's the question to ask after both The New York Times and The Washington Post published front-page articles that reported that Karl Rove did speak to conservative columnist Bob Novak before Novak wrote an article revealing the CIA identity of Valerie Wilson and that Rove had confirmed to Novak that Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA.

Each account is attributed to a single unnamed source. The Times identifies its sourced as "someone who has been officially briefed on the matter." The Post cited "a lawyer involved in the case." And the account provided is one that apparently would help Rove fend off a criminal charge. Both newspapers say that Novak called Rove on July 8, 2003 (six days before Novak published the piece that outed Valerie Wilson), that Novak said he had learned that Valerie Wilson worked at the CIA (he referred to her by her maiden name, Valerie Plame), and that Rove confirmed that he had heard that, too. Each story says its source claimed that Rove had learned about Valerie Wilson's CIA position from other journalists.

The point here is to show that Rove was not peddling the information, that he had not received it from a classified source, and that he did not have reason to know that Valerie Wilson was working at the CIA under cover. Under the relevant law--the Intelligence Identities Protection Act--it is only a crime for a government official to disclose identifying information about a covert US intelligence officer if the government official received that information from a classified source and is aware that the officer is a clandestine employee of the CIA. Consequently, Rove defenders can cite the account planted in the Times and the Post and claim that he did not violate the law because he had heard about Valerie Wilson from a journalist (not a classified source) and because there is no indication he knew of her covert status.

Read more.

[Canuckistanian]

1. My God, what a tangled web of lies.

I wouldn't be surprised if Novak came out today and said yeah, I told Karl, yeah, that's it, I forgot!

[Jack Rabbit]

2. Except that according to Rove, he merely confirmed the story to Novak

EDITED for typing

On the other hand, Rove was Cooper's primary source.

More than one person was leaking this information to the press. Who was Novak's primary source? Who confirmed Rove's information to Cooper? Possibly the same person? Maybe, maybe not.

Rove leaked to one reporter and confirmed to another while somebody else, perhaps the same person who confirmed Rove's information, leaked to the reporter to whom Rove confirmed the story? Is this a coincidence or a conspiracy.

I wish either Judy Miller would talk or one of the Rove's other press patsies would just come forward.

[Canuckistanian]

3. You make good points

Yes, and just WHO is Novak's primary source?
I think Novak AND Miller in the same room could clear this up.

[KoKo]

6. lol's, that's exactly what happened since your post! n/t

[Starfury]

4. But consider this....

Even if it's true that Rove first learned about VP's employment from Novak (that's believable, right? :eyes:), consider the following legal commentary from John Dean:

There are stories circulating that Rove may have been told of Valerie Plame's CIA activity by a journalist, such as Judith Miller, as recently suggested in Editor & Publisher. If so, that doesn't exonerate Rove. Rather, it could make for some interesting pairing under the federal conspiracy statute (which was the statute most commonly employed during Watergate).

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050715.html

[Jack Rabbit]

5. It looks grim for Rove

There seem to be few scenarios put forward where Rove has a get out of jail free card.

About the only one he's got is the possibility of a presidential pardon. This smear campaign against the Wilson now underway may be something to make that more palatable.

[KoKo]

7. Who did Novak learn it from? It's possible he learned it from Libby or

Bolton, or any number of the pushers who knew. And this doesn't let Rove off the hook because one of the scenarios (floting around our liberal sites) is that Rove was orchestrating the whole thing with "selected leakers" so that none of the leaking could be traced back to him specifically.

So, if Rove created a "network" of each leaker only dealing with one individual member of the Press at a time, then it would figure that Fitzgerald was able to ferret this out by talking with all the reporters involved. If each reporter sited a different source he would know that there must have been a "conspiracy." :shrug:

[jbfam4]

8. Bolton

This must be why Bush didn't give Bolton a recess appointment. They are waiting to see what Fitzgerald knows.

[KoKo]

9. I think it was Bolton, too. And Dems had the inside gossip and that's why

they fought back to delay Bolton. When they asked for more documentatin about Bolton's intercepts that seemed to be the clue that they knew something was coming up.

And, let's face it, DC Powerful know more about the "insider stuff" than we poor disenfranchised voters out here, know. Bush would have gotten Bolton if there wasn't "something" our Dem big wigs knew was coming "down the pike."

Now we have to wait to see what it is...or IF IT IS!

[klyon]

10. If Rove learned from Novak then he couldn't be Novak's confirmation

his second. It can't be both receiver of info and distributer.

KL