home

O'Donnell Says Rove as Leak Source is Confirmed

Update: Crooks and Liars has the O'Donnell video.

Over at Huffington Post today, Lawrence O'Donnell says he has confirmed that Karl Rove is the one who leaked the identify of Valerie Plame and Newsweek is now working on a big story about it.

I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.

McLaughlin is seen in some markets on Friday night, so some websites have picked it up, including Drudge, but I don't expect it to have much impact because McLaughlin is not considered a news show and it will be pre-empted in the big markets on Sunday because of tennis.

Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow.

< Say Hello | TV Thief Resumes His Life After 35 Years >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: O'Donnell Says Rove as Leak Source is Confirme (none / 0) (#1)
    by chupetin on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:49 PM EST
    So what exactly does this mean? Was there any laws broken? Are we to expect some sort of trial for Mr Rove? Is it possible that he might do some time in jail? Are Jim,Cliff and Ed going to try to find some kind of justification for doing this? The last one was rhetorical, of course they are.

    Re: O'Donnell Says Rove as Leak Source is Confirme (none / 0) (#2)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:49 PM EST
    I doubt Jim and Cliff have much to say. :) However, I wouldn't pass out the cigars just yet. Consider that anyone informed enough to know who Karl Rove is probably didn't vote for Bush. Therefore, there's nothing stopping Bush from recycling the Ken Lay defense: "Karl who? I might have talked to him once or twice. Don't you know there's a war on?" And mark my words, the JimCliff crowd will toss their knowledge down the Memory Hole in accordance with the Ministry of Truth's orders. The surrealism is only just beginning.

    HA Ha!! -Nelson Munce

    Re: O'Donnell Says Rove as Leak Source is Confirme (none / 0) (#4)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:49 PM EST
    Yeah....I was kinda wondering the same thing. I know Karl is one global-sized pr*ck, but I mean so now we know who Joe Wilson's wife really is - what harm was done? I mean, really now.

    I can't wait to see how the right wing extremists condone this behavior.

    Re: O'Donnell Says Rove as Leak Source is Confirme (none / 0) (#6)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:49 PM EST
    scar - So we have a story based on a leak about a leak. Hey, works for me. Now let's assume that the story, further down the thread, that says Rove answered all questions truthfully in his Grand Jury appearance, is correct. And that this story is based on a leak from the Grand Jury. Now we need a Special Investigator who can investigate the leaker of the leaked story about who was the leaker. Or leakee??? Now, since it is a crime to leak Grand Jury information, will the persons writing the story about who was the leaker, and the person not on the Who Was The Leaker Grand Jury, also be guilty? You know, after the fact thing, kinda like receiving stolen property? I mean, inquiring minds want to know. Tempest, meet teapot. Enjoy. Chupetin writes:
    So what exactly does this mean? Was there any laws broken?
    Some claim yes, some claim no. But last time I checked, that is what the Special Prosecutor is supposed to do. No correct that. The SP determines what he thinks happened, and recommends. If there is a trial, the jury will handle the "if any laws were broken" bit.

    For inquiring minds... Leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative is a VERY serious offense. If Rove is indeed the one, he'll go to prison, even if he rolls over on Cheney. My law practice is in state court and it's been some time since I've had a close look at the federal sentencing guidelines, but maybe one of the attorneys who handles a lot of federal work can give us some idea of what he might be facing. And if we progressives' delight in these developments appears unseemly to the wingers, well... What goes around comes around.

    Re: O'Donnell Says Rove as Leak Source is Confirme (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:49 PM EST
    Jim, It is profoundly sad to see you working so hard to, as quickly as your reactions will allow you, rationalize something you KNOW is serious. And the "story" you mentioned about Karl Rove being truthful in front of the grand jury was not a story at all, but the words of ROVE'S ATTORNEY, whose job is -- whose ONLY job is -- to present his client in the most positive light. You hide behind the word "leak" so much it's comical, and not intentionally. Had the shoe been on the other foot, and Rove been a dem, you'd have said "this is a matter of such import, involving the treasonous exposure of a CIA agent, the democrats can't possibly expect to keep the name of this traitor in the bag. And why would they want to, they should throw him to the lions and be as rid of him as they can be."

    Re: O'Donnell Says Rove as Leak Source is Confirme (none / 0) (#9)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:49 PM EST
    PPJ The broken law here is something all you wingnuts should be fully versed in by now, it's called Perjury. Lying to a grand jury. If Rove confessed to the GJury he's in trouble. If he denied he leaked, and others testify that he did the leaking he in trouble. Remember a guy was Impeached for lying about a blow job but your guy may have lied about his traitorous act in war time! Posted by ED Beckmann at July 2, 2005 02:02 PM

    Re: O'Donnell Says Rove as Leak Source is Confirme (none / 0) (#10)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:49 PM EST
    scar - So we have a story based on a leak about a leak. Hey, works for me. Of course it would, Jim; but - noooo - we have Lawrence O'Donnell stating who the leaker is as in identifying him, naming him.
    I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.


    Re: O'Donnell Says Rove as Leak Source is Confirme (none / 0) (#11)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:49 PM EST
    Dadler - Check the recent archives and you will find a comment, by yours truly saying that the "journalists" should tell what they know and we can let the cards fall where they may. i.e. I don't care. My point has always been that Plame was known to work for the agency, and she was not a covert operative. Based on that, no law was broken. Now the SP may disagree with me (gasp!)and we may let the jury decide. BTW - Here is a link to the law(s) involved. My side issue is that this is a beautiful example of why reporters should not use undisclosed sources. The possibility of mischief is just too great. And look at this, as I did in my first comment. We have a story based on a leak about a leak. Does it bother you that the law may have been broken? If it doesn't, look up hypocrite in the dictionary. You'll see your picture. BTW - My comments about a leak that's about a leak that was leaked was meant to ironic. Pity the Left has no sense of humor. Kitt - Read my comments. BTW - Perhaps we should ask Mr. O'Donnell that, if he had this iformation, why didn't he come foreward. You know, good citizen and all that. Me, I think there was a GJ leak, and he's just covering. Ed B writes:
    but your guy may have lied about his traitorous act in war time!
    What "guy" are you speaking about? And what traitorous act? I direct your attention to the law involved.

    Re: O'Donnell Says Rove as Leak Source is Confirme (none / 0) (#12)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:49 PM EST
    Well, this is Mr. O'Donnell's explanation to your question. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.
    My point has always been that Plame was known to work for the agency, and she was not a covert operative.
    This comes from? I thought it was always maintained she WAS considered 'covert.'

    Re: O'Donnell Says Rove as Leak Source is Confirme (none / 0) (#13)
    by wishful on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:49 PM EST
    Hey! Look over there! Justice O'Connor is retiring! Pay no attention to the Plame issue. Abortion rights are in danger all you liberals. And Constitutional originalism (as re-defined by the wingers) will be implemented post haste if you liberals don't act right now. Stop all the Plame nonsense and keep busy blocking incredibly partisan and divisive nominations, just like the Bushist regime planned for you.

    Regardless of whether Plame's relationship with the CIA was known in some circles, the outing of her status immediately led to outing the entire FRONT COMPANY, offices, staffs, associates, and informants -- and the unknown amount of Collateral Damage to our national security. And how can this action be JUSTIFIED in any way? Our national security was compromised for POLITICS, and it's not the only example.

    Re: O'Donnell Says Rove as Leak Source is Confirme (none / 0) (#15)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:49 PM EST
    PIL - If she was known to work for the CIA, and if she was known to work for a company called "whatever," then that company was also known. Catch a clue. The world does not exists in little boxes of information. Kitt writes that O'Donnell said:

    Re: O'Donnell Says Rove as Leak Source is Confirme (none / 0) (#16)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:49 PM EST
    Kitt - Cliff May wrote an article in 9/03 that even he knew who/what she was. Article Now, if O'Donnell has known for months, who told him? Heck, it appears that the only persons not knowing was Kitt and Jim. ;-) If you read the law from the link I provided, I think you will see that it must be proven that the person had access to the classified information, either a list, or other information. That may be a difficult thing, which is why the Left is now wanting to talk about perjury. Of course perjury must be done under oath, or so I remember from the days of BJ. Anyway, fun and games. What do you say if Rove isn't the one??

    Re: O'Donnell Says Rove as Leak Source is Confirme (none / 0) (#17)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:49 PM EST
    Jim, Where DO you get your information. I doubt, if Valerie Plame's ID were known beforehand, that the Justice Dept. would be pursuing this. Come on, bud, this is serious, stop pretending it isn't. Again, I do not, in any way, believe that if this had been a dem under scrutiny, that you would be anywhere near so nonchalant about the issue. Period. I don't buy it.

    Re: O'Donnell Says Rove as Leak Source is Confirme (none / 0) (#19)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:49 PM EST
    dadler - Read the link just above your comment. DA - Ah, so this isn't about the law... Showing your colors, eh?

    Jim: "If she was known to work for the CIA," IF. Let's have your links. "and if she was known to work for a company called "whatever," IF. Let's have your links. "then that company was also known." O'Reilly. If the company is a known front for the CIA, then it can hardly fulfill its function, can it? So why is it funded? Your argument is that Rove outed Plame for political reasons, but that's OK because the CIA spends millions of tax dollars putting up obvious fronts and handing out lists of its spies, and can't protect our national security by stealth. Let's have your links to ANY knowledgeable nonpartisan who holds this view. "Catch a clue. The world does not exists in little boxes of information." Yet another meaningless phrase from the mixed-up and corrupt mind of you.

    Re: O'Donnell Says Rove as Leak Source is Confirme (none / 0) (#23)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:49 PM EST
    DA - Humor? Really? BTW - His lawyer said he was asked not to. Is that true? Who knows. Certainly not O'Donnell. Or you. PIL - From Cliff May:
    On July 14, Robert Novak wrote a column in the Post and other newspapers naming Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA operative. That wasn't news to me. I had been told that but not by anyone working in the White House. Rather, I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhand manner, leading me to infer it was something that insiders were well aware of.
    Now let's try a little logic. I know Plame works for the CIA and I know she works for Company X. Ergo. I know company X is a front company. Hope that isn't too hard for you. Now you write:
    Your argument............
    Where do you get such BS. My argument is that Plame was not and never has een a covert operator. And if Wilson was so upset over her name being outed, why did he let her picture in the Vanity Fair interview? I mean, duhhh. I further argue that she had already been outed by Russian spies. I further argue that even if it can be shown she was a covert agent, which she was not, to break the law a person must have access to confidential information, either a list of CIA employees, or some other classified information. Presidential advisors don't have such information. Tempest meet teapot.

    That's the 'posting problem,' Michael. It reports: "The requested page could not be found. Page not found - /mt/mt-comments.cgi" Or it gives the sign-up screen for Typekey. Meanwhile, it is actually, apparently, posting. Sorry for the mess.

    Re: O'Donnell Says Rove as Leak Source is Confirme (none / 0) (#25)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:50 PM EST
    DA writes:
    Then there should be a letter from the prosecutor stating that, for the protection of all parties involved
    . Protection from what? Comments from O'Donnell? That's silly, even by your standards. As for Bush's comment, I doubt he had the vaguest if it was criminial or not. He assumedit was, just as others, including me, have done. Your comment about the Vanity Fair article is funny. Her name is out so I'll make sure her picture is out? Duhhh.
    I've seen the photo, it merely revealed her as a blond in sunglasses, hardly useful for recognition, but it could be me.
    Not really. If you are concernd about other intelligence agencies, that is no disguise at all. I was making two points. If she was, then prove that the law was broken. If she wasn't, it makes no difference. Tempest meet teapot.