Now Newsweek is pointing its finger at Bush’s political Svengali Karl Rove in the Plame case, in another “now-it-can-be-told” item by Michael Isikoff:
Now the story may be about to take another turn. The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper’s sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House. Cooper and a Time spokeswoman declined to comment. But in an interview with NEWSWEEK, Rove’s lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for the article. It is unclear, however, what passed between Cooper and Rove.
The controversy began three days before the Time piece appeared, when columnist Robert Novak, writing about Wilson’s trip, reported that Wilson had been sent at the suggestion of his wife, who was identified by name as a CIA operative. The leak to Novak, apparently intended to discredit Wilson’s mission, caused a furor when it turned out that Plame was an undercover agent. It is a crime to knowingly reveal the identity of an undercover CIA official. A special prosecutor was appointed and began subpoenaing reporters to find the source of the leak.
Novak appears to have made some kind of arrangement with the special prosecutor, and other journalists who reported on the Plame story have talked to prosecutors with the permission of their sources. Cooper agreed to discuss his contact with Lewis (Scooter) Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s top aide, after Libby gave him permission to do so. But Cooper drew the line when special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald asked about other sources.
Initially, Fitzgerald’s focus was on Novak’s sourcing, since Novak was the first to out Plame. But according to Luskin, Rove’s lawyer, Rove spoke to Cooper three or four days before Novak’s column appeared. Luskin told NEWSWEEK that Rove “never knowingly disclosed classified information” and that “he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.”
There’s more (so read it all). It just seems that this case gets more and more shadowy as more details come out.
Will it turn out Rove is deeply involved? Will Lewis “Scooter” Libby get news that makes him want to ride out of town on one?
From what has trickled out so far, we have some intriguing allegations but nothing concrete.
The prevailing question is: if Rove or some other Bush adminstration bigwig is implicated will the same kind of clamor for resignation or forced removal come from the people who insisted Bill Clinton had to go because he lied under oath about you-know-who Lewinsky?
Stay tuned but (sigh) we think we know the answer to THAT question since expediency and team victory seem to be the number one values in America these days (unless adults talk to kids, then they insist kids learn about the importance of values and consistently maintained principles). But, again: there is no solid indication yet that the evidence will, in fact, warrent it getting to that point.
Still, the Supreme Court nomination(s)….Rove and Plame…whoever said that non-Presidential year summers are dull in terms of political news?
UPDATE: A fascinating Time piece explains when it’s time to give up a source. Here’s a small part of it:
The courts have repeatedly denied Cooper and Miller privilege to protect their sources. After the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, (Time Editor-In-Chief Norman) Pearlstine says he concluded that TIME Inc. had an obligation to follow the law and obey the ruling. “An organization that prides itself on pointing its finger at people shouldn’t be breaking the law itself,” he said…
Some pundits have countered that an act of civil disobedience by TIME Inc.—declining to follow an “unjust” ruling while being prepared to suffer the legal consequence—wouldn’t be the same as placing oneself above the law. In Pearlstine’s view, “when the courts rule that a citizen’s obligation to testify before a grand jury takes precedence over the press’s First Amendment right, to me, going against that finding would put us above the law.”
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.