home

Wapo and NYT Differ on Karl Rove as Source

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Thu Jul 07, 2005 at 10:09:44 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Editor and Publisher reports that while the New York Times is reporting that it was Karl Rove that called Matthew Cooper and gave him an unconditional waiver to speak to the Grand Jury while the New York Times is reporting it was not.

According to The New York Times today, "Cooper's decision to drop his refusal to testify followed discussions on Wednesday morning among lawyers representing Mr. Cooper and Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser, according to a person who has been officially briefed on the case."

But according to the Washington Post, Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, told the newspaper Rove was not the source who called Cooper yesterday morning and personally waived the confidentiality agreement. "Karl has not asked anybody to treat him as a confidential source with regard to this story," Luskin said.

The Wapo quote, as I noted here last night, is contained here.

The New York Times article says:

Mr. Cooper's decision to drop his refusal to testify followed discussions on Wednesday morning among lawyers representing Mr. Cooper and Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser, according to a person who has been officially briefed on the case. Mr. Fitzgerald was also involved in the discussions, the person said.

In his statement in court, Mr. Cooper did not name Mr. Rove as the source about whom he would now testify, but the person who was briefed on the case said that he was referring to Mr. Rove and that Mr. Cooper's decision came after behind-the-scenes maneuvering by his lawyers and others in the case.

Those discussions centered on whether a legal release signed by Mr. Rove last year was meant to apply specifically to Mr. Cooper, who by its terms would be released from any pledge of confidentiality he had made to Mr. Rove, the person said. Mr. Cooper said in court that he had agreed to testify only after he had received an explicit waiver from his source.

Which paper is correct, and is there any way to harmonize the different reports?

< WI Requires Recording of Juvenile Interrogations | O'Donnell Says 'Good Reason' Rove Might Be Indicted >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wapo and NYT Differ on Karl Rove as Source | 11 comments (11 topical)
    Re: Wapo and NYT Differ on Karl Rove as Source (none / 0) (#1)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:57 PM EST
    Luskin's job right now is to spin, lie and posture. He should be trusted as much as a fox in the henhouse. If Rove were innocent, he'd be flapping his gums all over the place like he always does. His inaction and silence are powerful signals.

    Re: Wapo and NYT Differ on Karl Rove as Source (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:57 PM EST
    I disagree that he would lie. Split hairs, yes, but lie, no. Also, he hasn't been silent. He spoke to the Wash. Post. yesterday.

    Re: Wapo and NYT Differ on Karl Rove as Source (none / 0) (#3)
    by JK on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:57 PM EST
    I believe that the Washington Post has misread Luskin's statement. Cooper stated that he was not going to testify as to who his source was, saying that he had promised to keep the name confidential. Luskin stated, in essence, that Rove never wanted a confidentially promise. He was not saying that Rove was not Cooper's source. I am guessing that Luskin's statement about not looking for a confidentiality promise is not true, but it explains why Rove called Cooper and told him to testify. Rove clearly believes that his conversations with Cooper are not damaging to his case. If he is Miller's source, he did not want her to testify since those conversations occurred earlier and are probably much more damaging. But I am guessing that there is something else going on with Miller. So, it looks like the Times is probably right here.

    Re: Wapo and NYT Differ on Karl Rove as Source (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:57 PM EST
    Lie may have been too strong a word, but sorry, J, you know the game your in. It's anything but honest all the time. And splitting hairs is always dishonesty in this kind of situation, since the only reason to split them is to avoid the appearance of the entire hair. And the only reason you want to hide the entire hair is because in its entirety it looks very bad for you. The only person I trust right now is O'Donnell, since he's been the only one to stand up like a man, stand by the assertion of Rove as the source, and say if he isn't then punish me. Action is evidence. And he's the only one who seems inclined to favor exposure of the actual TRUTH right now. Everyone else is dancing with their mouthpieces.

    Re: Wapo and NYT Differ on Karl Rove as Source (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:57 PM EST
    The way to harmonize these accounts is for adults to stand up and take responsibility. Short of that, we'll play the plausible deniability game until we're hoarse.

    Re: Wapo and NYT Differ on Karl Rove as Source (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:57 PM EST
    Cooper had more than one source, most likely, and Rove was not the one who called him before he testified.

    Re: Wapo and NYT Differ on Karl Rove as Source (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:57 PM EST
    Cheetah, We know nothing besides Rove is the center of attention, a pathetic excuse for reporter is behind bars, and O'Donnell is the only one standing up like a man and standing by Rove as the ultimate source of the leak, or he's willing to suffer the consequences. He speaks like a man who KNOWS truth is on his side. The rest don't speak, or speak through mouthpieces, and are dancing around everything.

    Re: Wapo and NYT Differ on Karl Rove as Source (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:57 PM EST
    Dadler, "standing by Rove as the ultimate source"?

    Here's what O'Donnell said:

    ...since I broke the story last week that his client is one of the secret sources Matt Cooper has been protecting for the last two years.
    I agree with your assessment of O'Donnell, however.

    Re: Wapo and NYT Differ on Karl Rove as Source (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:58 PM EST
    Cheetah, You're correct in clarifying. I'm assuming, obviously, that Rove is the ultimate source, and I get the distinct feeling O'Donnell believes this too. Rove is the chief spinner who would ultimately decide to do this sort of thing. It's his job. If he directed someone to do it, he's still the ultimate source of the leak. Just as the person who orders and pays for the hit is often deemed more guilty than the hired gun. Indeed, we make deals with the hitmen to get those who gave the order. Not the other way around. But I do merely opine.

    Re: Wapo and NYT Differ on Karl Rove as Source (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:58 PM EST
    Dadler,
    If he directed someone to do it, he's still the ultimate source of the leak.
    I agree, but what if someone directed him to do it?

    Like you, I'm merely opining.

    Re: Wapo and NYT Differ on Karl Rove as Source (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:58 PM EST
    Ack, I meant to add Cheney to the mix, above Rove. Many key synapses not functioning fully today. Although I have have doubts that Cheney's gonna be alive long enough to face real scrutiny.

    Wapo and NYT Differ on Karl Rove as Source | 11 comments (11 topical)