Monday, May 01, 2006

Your daily Plame fix: NEWSWEEK on Fitz, Rove and lies

Recommended at Booman Tribune

Every once in a while, Michael Isikoff doesn't act like a total Republican shill tool. In the new Newsweek (presumably out today), he has a good article on L'affair Plame that gives us Plameaholics a bit of new news, but even more important, some more exposure to one of the most dangerous and wide ranging of the high crimes and traitorous acts of Dear Leader and his merry band of criminals.

Of course, the general public (at least those that can read more than picture books and above an 8th grade level) doesn't get exposed to the excellent reporting of Murray Waas, or even the usually solid but sometimes speculative reporting by Jason Leopold and Larisa Alexandrovna so a major publication re-highlighting the petty, nasty and vindictive outing of a covert CIA operative and her network of contacts who were investigating Iran and nuclear materials is pretty big.

Plus, it gives us more of our fix as we wait for the next installment of Fitzmas.

The article is more of a slant about how Fitzgerald's methodology of interrogating Rove, how Rove's story has changed and morphed over time, and why Fitz thought that fat Karl was full of shit from early on. This angle is oh-so-satisfying to me, since it hits to the core of these blackhearted thugs who have done their damndest to ruin this great country of ours.

Not much is said by way of background in the story, since even my republican dentist friend on Long Island even thinks that Bush is the worst president ever, even without the "whole Plame thing". So to cut right to the latest chapter - and hopefully the "Rove frogmarch", we get some insight into Fitz's process and methodology towards Rove and his testimony.

The article isn't too long of a read, and I am sure that we will read, re-read, digest, chew it up and dissect it as we do with every bit of Plame news, so of course I highly recommend reading it. But some tidbits are below to whet your appetite.

It starts by talking about how Fitz came to realize that Libby wasn't Matt Cooper's original source and what his thought process was from there (emphasis mine):

But according to Cooper, Libby had been offhand, passive--"Yeah, I've heard that, too," Libby allegedly replied when Cooper asked him about the role played by Wilson's wife. In other words, Libby was not Cooper's original source. Well, then, who was?

Fitzgerald seemed to be "surprised," according to a knowledgeable source who declined to be identified discussing a criminal investigation. He broke off the questioning to consult with a colleague, and then began to question Cooper over and over, methodically trying to make sure he wasn't missing something. The prosecutor had to wonder: was someone else in the administration besides Libby a player in this drama? Fitzgerald is the sort of prosecutor whose very being is offended by deception and who will go to great lengths to pursue the truth. Ultimately, Fitzgerald discovered that Cooper's original source was Karl Rove.

He's so good (and I know all you ladies out there will add how dreamy he is too....). What a bulldog. Hammering and hammering away from all angles until he is comfortable that he has gotten to the truth. Such a breath of fresh air in this foul stench of a world that Chimpy McCrybaby has created.

While Isikoff does say that it is "impossible to know if Fitzgerald will make a case against Rove", he does point out (what I find to be the ultimate irony) the fact that this administration is so quick to investigate and trigger leak investigations but here it is "bommeranging" on them.

Some more background on what I think has turned out to be a brilliant move by Fitz to catch KKKarl in his lies - keep bringing him back and make him try and get all of his lies straight, or twist in the wind when he is tripped up (nothing we didn't already know, but gives it to you in one neat place):

In February 2004, Rove testified before Fitzgerald's grand jury--twice. He told of speaking briefly to columnist Bob Novak about the Wilson trip. But Rove never mentioned any conversation with Time's Cooper. 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. Reappearing before the grand jury that month, Rove acknowledged that he must have spoken to Cooper, but he still didn't remember doing so. Rove's e-mail to Hadley suggested that Cooper had telephoned him in July 2003 about something else--welfare reform--and then switched the conversation to Wilson. Rove, according to the e-mail, didn't say much more to Cooper other than to warn him that Time shouldn't get "far out front" on the story Ambassador Wilson was telling--that the Bush administration was lying about WMD in Iraq and that, specifically, Wilson, on his trip to Niger, had found no evidence that Saddam was trying to buy uranium for atom-bomb making.

I wonder how many people will be hearing or reading this for the first time when they open up their magazines over the next couple of days. While it is unfortunately not on the front page, Isikoff usually has a high profile article in the magazine, and hopefully it is featured prominently in the Contents page. Regardless, this CAN'T be a good thing to be coming out now. I would love to see what newest "official shill" (say that 5 times fast...) Tony Snow has to say when shit-meets-fan with respect to old Turd Blossom.

The article then talks about how Rove must have forgotten about talking to Cooper about "Wilson's wife", and also goes into a conversation that Time reporter Viveca Novak had with Rove attorney Robert Luskin (a great commentary on this is at firedoglake).

Luskin told the prosecutor that sometime between October 2003 and January 2004 he'd had a drink with Time reporter Viveca Novak. An old friend of Luskin's, Novak (who is no relation to the columnist of the same last name) surprised Luskin by telling him that Rove might have been Cooper's source. Last week, in an interview with NEWSWEEK, Novak described the conversation. Luskin, Novak recalls, said that Rove "didn't have a Cooper problem," meaning that Rove had not been Cooper's source. "That's not what I hear," Novak recalls responding. At that point, Luskin's demeanor changed, says Novak. "He got very serious from what I told him. He reacted as though he were learning it for the first time." (Novak had heard about Cooper's source from chatter inside the Washington bureau of Time; she recently took a buyout from the magazine.)

Luskin alerted Rove to the conversation, but his client still didn't remember it, according to a source close to Rove who declined to be named discussing sensitive legal matters. Luskin seemed to be signaling to Fitzgerald that Rove was truthful when he said he didn't remember the Cooper phone call; otherwise, why would he testify as such when he knew that others, including Cooper, could contradict him? (One possible explanation: Rove may have assumed Cooper would protect him as a confidential source.) Luskin did make a renewed search of Rove's files, the source says. That's what turned up the e-mail to Hadley. Fitzgerald was sufficiently slowed up by Luskin's story to hold off on indicting Rove, according to the source.

Um...oops. Not really a good thing when your attorney hears that you are the source of a leak when you are vehemently denying it. And not a good thing when said attorney and a couple of reporters just happen to provide the same testimony. Oh, and also probably not a good thing when you "suddenly" happen to find emails that were "not properly archived" that happen to confirm this as well.

Of course this is brushed off by "sources close to Rove" as stupid and shortsighted:

But Fitzgerald is nothing if not relentless, and he has kept after Rove. He has continued to take testimony in the case. Last week, according to a source close to Rove who refused to be identified discussing secret grand-jury proceedings, Rove testified that he would have had no motive to deliberately conceal his conversation with Cooper. "It would have been crazy" of Rove "to testify about [his conversations with Bob Novak] but not testify about the Cooper conversation," says this source, who adds that Rove would have known he would be "stepping into a perjury trap."

Yeah, real crazy of Rove to be stepping into a perjury trap. Because he is such a fine and upstanding citizen who never broke the rules. And perjury is something that he would never commit. Only treason. Why shoot for some low level "technicality or non-crime" when violations of IIPA and much bigger crimes are out there to commit?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The original source will never be known because Plame's intent was to leak.