Question about the Time/NYT confidential sources issue

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » July 3, 2005, 7:08 pm

I'm not sure exactly what's going on with this event, and I'm hoping someone here can summarize it for me.

What I know is that Robert Novak wrote an article in which he outted Valerie Plame as a CIA operative (a breach of national security). Valerie Plame's husband, Joe Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, claimed that he disputed statements by the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein was trying to buy Uranium from Africa, and that his wifes name was leaked as a result of this dispute.

Then these two reporters, Matt Cooper from Time and Judith Miller from the NYT, somehow get involved. I don't know exactly how they're involved with the whole Novak/Plame/Wilson thing. I do recall reading that Miller never actually wrote an article on the issue. Anyway, somehow they end up in court and the court tries to force them to reveal their confidential sources. They refuse and are held in contempt. The Supreme Court recently refused to take their case, so they now must either reveal their sources or go to jail.

My questions:

What were Cooper and Miller doing that connected them to the Novak/Plame/Wilson issue?

Why does the court want them to reveal their sources?

Why isn't there a court that wants Novak to reveal the confidential sources that told him Valerie Plame was a CIA op?

Generally, what the hell is going on here?

If anyone has a clue, fill me in.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 3, 2005, 11:27 pm

They covered this on the McLaughlin Group pretty extensively this weekend. It's getting pretty fucking interesting and if the press runs with it, this could be Pres. Bush's Watergate.

In fact Lawrence O'Donnell outted Karl Rove on The McLaughlin Group on Friday as the guy who leaked Plame as a CIA agent and blew her cover. TMG.com doesn't have the episode posted yet in their transcripts but when they do you should read it or download it (its real video though.. ugh) because the discussion was pretty informative and it looks like the whole thing is heating up.

Transcript from friday's TMG:

"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's emails-within Time Magazine, uh, are handed over to the grand jury is the ultimate revelation, probably within the week of who his source is. And I know I'm going to get pulled into the grand jury for saying this but the source of-for Matt Cooper was Karl Rove, and that will be revealed in this document dump that Time Magazine's going to do with the grand jury."

I really don't think O'Donnell would put his reputation on the line as a political analyst with a bunch of bullshit. If it does come to fruition that Rove was the guy that leaked it (or Bush/Cheney with Rove covering for them) then some heads are going to fucking roll. You want to talk about treason, blowing a CIA operative's cover and endagering her and her entire operation like that for political revenge is beyond treacherous.

Unfortunately I think the media is going to stay as far away as they can from it, as they do with every case when the grand jury starts demanding journalists give up their sources. I hope not though.

It will be interesting as hell when Time's documents and emails are handed over to the grand jury.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 3, 2005, 11:33 pm

Oh it looks like what I was just talking about on TMG is going to be all over the news tomorrow. This is probably going to be pretty big!

Google News Links

Lots of articles about Matt Cooper and Judith Miller in there.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » July 4, 2005, 3:32 am

Thanks. Should be interesting.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » July 5, 2005, 1:09 pm

*summons Spin Doctors*

Fash · Post by **Fash** » July 5, 2005, 6:51 pm

if he did it... this could & should be the end for Rove.... but it could also be part of the plan.

reading the news though... they aren't going to take the emails as sufficient proof?.... umm... would you go to jail for 120 days to protect Rove?... i guess if he had something big enough on you...

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 5, 2005, 7:20 pm

i can't figure out why Bob Novak hasn't been subpoenaed.

especially since he actually wrote about it. Perhaps that is why he hasnt been called before the grand jury because he is protecting a published story's source, while the other two did not write about the story, so perhaps that is the legal loophole the Justice Dept is trying to thread the needle through. since they didn't write about Valerie Plame, they aren't protecting a source. or some such nonsense.

Also, you hear some conservatives insisting that Plame was not really that covert of an agent. It seems like it would be relatively easy for the CIA to establish that. Or why would the DOJ be pursueing the case if not?

unless they are pursueing the case specifically to try to establish legal precedent AGAINST a free and open press. That would definitely be in the spirit of Cheney's overarching goal of expanding the power of the executive branch.

Anyway, this is an interesting and multilayered story. Good for the NYTimes for sticking to its guns.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » July 6, 2005, 12:23 am

Voronwë wrote:i can't figure out why Bob Novak hasn't been subpoenaed.

I'd assume he gave up his source(s).

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » July 6, 2005, 12:30 am

The conspiracy buff in me says that the Neocon spin machine has decided to work this into an attack on the press. They are basically giving their moderate and left opposition the choice of nailing Rove or keeping confidentiality of sources intact. I wouldn't doubt that the rescent unmasking of Deep Throat (and all the subsequent bitching from ex-nixon pundits) gave them the idea.

Or it could just be that Novak is too well connected to go after just yet....

It is clearly very complex and one would think this shit would be all over the news right now, but its relatively backburner at the moment.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 6, 2005, 7:04 pm

Judith Miller is going to jail.

the person who leaked the CIA operative is gainfully employed by the government.

that sounds right, doesnt it?

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » July 6, 2005, 7:13 pm

Democracy takes one huge step backwards

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 6, 2005, 7:21 pm

Voronwë wrote:Judith Miller is going to jail.

the person who leaked the CIA operative is gainfully employed by the government.

that sounds right, doesnt it?

And Cooper is surrendering his constitutional rights as an American citizen under duress. Does anyone have any doubt that this conspiracy goes all the way up to the top?

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » July 6, 2005, 10:34 pm

Right to the top!

I have no doubt that God instructed George Bush to instruct Karl Rove to give away a CIA operative because someone cast a doubt on reasoning behind the neocon crusade on Iraq so that Halliburton could steal all of the oil in Iraq so that we can pay over $2.00 a gallon to make people rich.

I mean seriously, can you draw any other conclusion? It's as plain as day. Sending steadfast and innocent journalists to jail is just the icing on the Nazi cake.

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » July 7, 2005, 3:36 pm

Judith Miller's speaking fees just went up $10K.

Good for her!

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » July 7, 2005, 3:49 pm

kyoukan wrote:
Voronwë wrote:Judith Miller is going to jail.

the person who leaked the CIA operative is gainfully employed by the government.

that sounds right, doesnt it?
And Cooper is surrendering his constitutional rights as an American citizen under duress. Does anyone have any doubt that this conspiracy goes all the way up to the top?

Under duress? Isn't he the other reporter that stated he received permission from his source to speak just before going in?

Thess · Post by **Thess** » July 8, 2005, 11:58 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame

This is a good timeline for this ongoing case.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 8, 2005, 3:10 pm

Ashur wrote:Right to the top!

I have no doubt that God instructed George Bush to instruct Karl Rove to give away a CIA operative because someone cast a doubt on reasoning behind the neocon crusade on Iraq so that Halliburton could steal all of the oil in Iraq so that we can pay over $2.00 a gallon to make people rich.

I mean seriously, can you draw any other conclusion? It's as plain as day. Sending steadfast and innocent journalists to jail is just the icing on the Nazi cake.

Wow look, a neotard using weak sarcasm to deflect their corruption.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » July 8, 2005, 4:35 pm

Look, wow. A conspiracy theorist who's mad they're being mocked.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » July 8, 2005, 7:39 pm

Look, a guy who thought he was funny but failed miserably.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » July 9, 2005, 9:39 am

The "liberal media" taking a pass on this story? Has any info turned up from the information handed over by Time?

Animale · Post by **Animale** » July 12, 2005, 10:05 am

Looks like Karl Rove was the secondary source on this story (i.e. the one who confirmed the initial leaker so the press could run with the story).
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/12/ ... index.html

Now we'll see how the White House responds to this. For now they are staying mum (cannot comment on an ongoing investigation, blah blah blah), although they previously have had no problem commenting on the story.

Wonder who the "primary" source was?

Animale

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » July 12, 2005, 10:56 am

Ashur wrote:Right to the top!

I have no doubt that God instructed George Bush to instruct Karl Rove to give away a CIA operative

Dude you have the cart pulling the horse...Karl Rove tells W what to do...not vice versa...

My money is on Cheney in the rose garden with a tape recorder...

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » July 12, 2005, 2:38 pm

Funny thing is I hate Rove, but if he goes because of this travesty it's a shame. There is no way the reporters should have been ordered to give his name.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » July 12, 2005, 2:56 pm

Animale wrote:Now we'll see how the White House responds to this. For now they are staying mum (cannot comment on an ongoing investigation, blah blah blah), although they previously have had no problem commenting on the story.

Anyone else find it funny that they are refusing to comment on their previous comments?

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » July 12, 2005, 7:07 pm

Forthe wrote:
Animale wrote:Now we'll see how the White House responds to this. For now they are staying mum (cannot comment on an ongoing investigation, blah blah blah), although they previously have had no problem commenting on the story.
Anyone else find it funny that they are refusing to comment on their previous comments?

I'm sorry, I can't comment on that!

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » July 12, 2005, 7:49 pm

It looks like what was pretty much accepted as fact by many, that the WH purposely leaked Wilson's wife's name as "revenge" for his criticism, was completely false. It's pretty funny thinking back to how many times I read about how the "White House was trying to destroy free speech" by leaking her name, how "it's another example of how the Bush administration is even worse than the Nixon administratoin," etc. I'm surprised no one has quite realized how retarded they look now. To me, those comments are a lot funnier than some of the slip-ups certain people at the WH have made. Of course, I could be completely wrong, but if other people can jump to conclusions then so can I.

Just to remind you, Wilson's wife DID get him that job, which he has consistently lied about, among other things:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 4Jul9.html

Also, it's been pretty annoying hearing everyone talking about how Bush said he'd fire the person who leaked anything. Here's what he really said:

If there’s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if a person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.

The NYTimes even completely mischaracterized this on their front-page story, they never even mentioned the distinction Bush made.

WASHINGTON, July 11 - Nearly two years after stating that any administration official found to have been involved in leaking the name of an undercover C.I.A. officer would be fired.

And then the Senate Minority Leader, Reid, said:

The White House promised that if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration, his administration. I trust they will follow-through on this pledge

Edit: Ok just read that at a later time Bush seems to have said "Yes" when he was asked if he'd fire someone if "they leaked her name," but the instance both of those quotes are referring to is the one I quoted, plus Rove didn't leak her "name," atleast from what we know so far.

From what I've read, Rove signed a waiver in Dec of 03 that waived away any confidentiality agreement he had with any reporters, Cooper could have given this e-mail up anytime he wanted, the "last minute call that told him he could reveal his source" was just his lawyer calling Rove's lawyer to reaffirm that the waiver applied to him. Pretty dramatic!

I just wonder who their other sources were, how they learned her name, etc. Obviously Rove wasn't the only source, or Miller wouldn't be in jail since Rove waived away any confidentiality agreements he had. Unless of course Miller just doesn't WANT to even say a word about it even after being cleared of the confidentiality agreement, that she wants to spend a little bit of time in jail defending free speech and be a martyr for the media (I wonder how many talk shows she'll be on after she spends a few months in jail?). That's just the cynical side of me though, Rove might not even have been one of her sources, just Cooper's.

I think when all is said and done this will all be a big deal about nothing, the only important part about it perhaps being that some reporters were made to testify about their sources.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » July 12, 2005, 8:31 pm

Brotha, your post has two main sections. In the second section, you discuss how Bush never actually said he'd fire anyone who leaked her name, but then you realized you were wrong, so that whole section is pretty much irrelevant. Let's move on to the first one.

It looks like what was pretty much accepted as fact by many, that the WH purposely leaked Wilson's wife's name as "revenge" for his criticism, was completely false. It's pretty funny thinking back to how many times I read about how the "White House was trying to destroy free speech" by leaking her name, how "it's another example of how the Bush administration is even worse than the Nixon administratoin," etc. I'm surprised no one has quite realized how retarded they look now. To me, those comments are a lot funnier than some of the slip-ups certain people at the WH have made. Of course, I could be completely wrong, but if other people can jump to conclusions then so can I.

Names/Quotes please? If you can't provide them, you're conducting an argument against an imaginary adversary with an imaginary argument. That might make it easier for you, but it's only helpful if someone reasonable actually took the position you're disagreeing with.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » July 12, 2005, 9:17 pm

Sueven wrote:Names/Quotes please? If you can't provide them, you're conducting an argument against an imaginary adversary with an imaginary argument. That might make it easier for you, but it's only helpful if someone reasonable actually took the position you're disagreeing with.

I'm not sure how you could ask that if you've been following this issue at all, countless people have accused the Bush administration of leaking it to silence criticism, as payback, etc, but here's just one (he also wrote a best-selling book with this as one of his main arguments):

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030815.html

The Bush Administration Adopts a Worse-than-Nixonian Tactic:
The Deadly Serious Crime Of Naming CIA Operatives

Why is the Administration so avidly leaking this information? The answer is clear. Former ambassador Wilson is famous, lately, for telling the truth about the Bush Administration's bogus claim that Niger uranium had gone to Saddam Hussein. And the Bush Administration is punishing Wilson by targeting his wife. It is also sending a message to others who might dare to defy it, and reveal the truth.

No doubt the CIA, and Mrs. Wilson, have many years, and much effort, invested in her career and skills. Her future, if not her safety, are now in jeopardy.

After reading Novak's column, The Nation's Washington Editor, David Corn, asked, "Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security--and break the law--in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?"

The answer is plainly yes. Now the question is, will they get away with it?

Bits and pieces of information have emerged, but the story is far from complete. Nonetheless, what has surfaced is repulsive. If I thought I had seen dirty political tricks as nasty and vile as they could get at the Nixon White House, I was wrong. The American Prospect's observation that "we are very much into Nixon territory here" with this story is an understatement.

Indeed, this is arguably worse. Nixon never set up a hit on one of his enemies' wives.

And now it appears that his wife's job was mentioned not in an effort to silence criticism or for revenge, but because it was very relevant to the topic at hand.

Or you could just read what kyoukan said above:

kyoukan wrote:You want to talk about treason, blowing a CIA operative's cover and endagering her and her entire operation like that for political revenge is beyond treacherous.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 12, 2005, 9:24 pm

So...you think it's ok for the administration to do this?

Bojangels · Post by **Bojangels** » July 12, 2005, 9:26 pm

Also, it's been pretty annoying hearing everyone talking about how Bush said he'd fire the person who leaked anything. Here's what he really said:

If there’s a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if a person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.

The NYTimes even completely mischaracterized this on their front-page story, they never even mentioned the distinction Bush made.

WASHINGTON, July 11 - Nearly two years after stating that any administration official found to have been involved in leaking the name of an undercover C.I.A. officer would be fired.

And then the Senate Minority Leader, Reid, said:

The White House promised that if anyone was involved in the Valerie Plame affair, they would no longer be in this administration, his administration. I trust they will follow-through on this pledge

I know you realized you were wrong already, but leaking an undercover CIA agents name is a crime, so even if your information was accurate, you would still be wrong.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » July 12, 2005, 10:01 pm

Nick wrote:So...you think it's ok for the administration to do this?

IF they knew that she was a covert agent, if they knew it would place her life in danger, ruin her career, etc, I don't think they should have done it (and it's still up in the air as to how the reporters learned her actual name). I think their motives weren't as devious as some people have claimed though.

Bojangels wrote:I know you realized you were wrong already, but leaking an undercover CIA agents name is a crime, so even if your information was accurate, you would still be wrong.

Actually, from what I've read it's pretty hard to violate that law, here's a good post on it:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010989.php

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 12, 2005, 10:29 pm

oh, it was all just a big misunderstanding then! yeah I am sure komrade rove makes those kinds of mistakes all the time when talking about undercover CIA operatives to members of the media.

I bet he had some egg on his face after that little faux pas!

hah, well it's comforting to know that it was just a little mistake and not a massive compromise of your national security and intelligence operations by america's biggest political hack in order to exact revenge on a political enemy. whew! thanks for clearing that bad boy up!

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » July 12, 2005, 11:43 pm

You do realize that Karl Rove is a part of the Bush administration?

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » July 12, 2005, 11:45 pm

who?! me?!

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » July 13, 2005, 12:42 am

Brotha is invoking the "they are not smart enough to do this, it must be incompetence" defense. It works for Bush but I doubt it will work for Rowe. This guy is extremely careful with words, you can be sure every single word he says to a reporter he meant to say.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 13, 2005, 12:58 am

If this fuckwit got sacked it would be like christmas in July.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » July 13, 2005, 8:31 am

Not you kyou, Brotha.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 13, 2005, 10:24 am

Nick wrote:If this fuckwit got sacked it would be like christmas in July.

It will take a lot more than the suspicion that exists now to force Rove out of his job.

he is a central figure in Bush's entire political career. He is "The Architect". Bush's political career is his creation.

Shy of an actual criminal indictment, i think the only thing that could cost Rove his job is if this story has legs that keep it on the front burner preventing the President from maximizing his leverage to appoint who he wants for the Supreme Court.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » July 13, 2005, 10:37 am

Aye Voronwe, I know who he is, that's why I would be so happy to see him go.

However, this story doesn't seem to really have picked up as much tv time as it really should. I have seen like one short report on the TV about it since this thread was made.

Hopefully it can just keep going. *crosses fingers in vain hope*

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » July 13, 2005, 10:46 am

CNN has given it pretty thorough coverage, with a wide array of viewpoints, in my opinion.

I think one thing to also consider: If Rove broke the law, he probably wouldn't have called Matt Cooper (Time reporter) and given him the OK to disclose the info to the grand jury. I think we can all rest assured that Rove has high quality legal representation.

The law, as Brotha indicates is worded in a way that makes it difficult to break, ironically enough.

i think 2 more relevant questions which i stole from Bill Schnieder.

Why would the Bush White House keep this information from the public for 2 years?

Does it not cross the line for the President's personal representatives to use intelligence assets (no matter how insignificant) as pawns in a purely political vendetta?

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » July 13, 2005, 11:01 am

Voronwë wrote:Why would the Bush White House keep this information from the public for 2 years?

It's the same "release no information unless forced to, and then drag your heels" policy this administration has always had.

From what I gather, Rove didn't refer to her by name, but used a reference that could mean no other person. Might be anough to skirt the law, but still highly unethical even if it's legal. Can you say hypocrisy? I knew you could.

Weren't the secret participants from Cheney's energy summit supposed to be announced after the election?

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » July 13, 2005, 2:44 pm

Sueven wrote:You do realize that Karl Rove is a part of the Bush administration?

Of course. Where did I suggest otherwise?

BTW here're two great pieces on this, they make the case a lot better than I can. Yes, they're both conservative.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial ... =110006955

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011019.php

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » July 13, 2005, 2:57 pm

Even if there is no crime, Rove displayed an unbelievable lack of discretion when dealing with your nation's security agencies and personnel in discussing any of this with reporters, whether to make some political points or not. He should have any security clearances yanked over this at the very least. You don't have heart to heart talks with the media about your personnel working for these agencies (as Ms Plame was), when you are in the inner circle of a government, as Rove did.

Metanis · Post by **Metanis** » July 13, 2005, 9:24 pm

I know it will be tough for you rocky Rove bashers, but step back and ask yourself why Judith Miller refuses to testify!

Rove released every reporter from confidentiality agreements! You know damn well the New York Times hates Rove's guts. So why does Ms. Miller sit in jail protecting a source that doesn't need protection?

Listen up you leftist loony liberal lightweights...

... there's more to the story yet to unfold!

I'm predicting Rove has the last laugh.

Animale · Post by **Animale** » July 13, 2005, 9:41 pm

So why does Ms. Miller sit in jail protecting a source that doesn't need protection?

Because she actually believes in the first amendment and all it represents... unlike Mr. Rove.

Animale

Jice Virago · Post by **Jice Virago** » July 13, 2005, 10:51 pm

Because Rove got Plumes name from her, not the other way around. The real question you need to ask is who gave her Plume's name and why the Times did not even bother to verify if she was CIA or NOC?

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » July 13, 2005, 11:40 pm

Plame

Plume

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » July 14, 2005, 7:45 am

Turd Blossom Indeed

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » July 14, 2005, 11:38 am

WASHINGTON - Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson called on President Bush Thursday to fire deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, saying Bush's top-level aide engaged in an "abuse of power" by discussing Wilson's wife's job with a reporter.

Wilson decried what he called a White House "stonewall" in the wake of revelations that Rove, a longtime Bush confidant, was involved in the leak to the news media that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA officer.

Bush said Wednesday that he would not comment on discussions that blew her cover because it is the subject of an ongoing investigation by special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald. White House press secretary Scott McClellan said, however, the president still has confidence in Rove.

Wilson, in an interview broadcast Thursday on NBC's "Today" show, said he thinks the White House's posture in this controversy represents a continuing "cover-up of the web of lies that underpin the justification for going to war in Iraq."

Wilson was asked about statements by Rove's defenders noting that an e-mail describing Rove's conversation with Time reporter Matthew Cooper indicated that Rove did not specifically mention Valerie Plame by name.

"My wife's name is Mrs. Joseph Wilson," he replied. "It is Mrs. Valerie Wilson. He named her. He identified her," Wilson said. "So that argument doesn't stand the smell test ... What I do know is that Mr. Rove is talking to the press and he is saying things like my wife is fair game. That's an outrage. That's an abuse of power."

Asked how he and his wife were coping with the continuing controversy, Wilson said, "We have two 5-year-old twins and they occupy most of our free time. She's obviously nonplussed at this unwanted attention brought to our family. But she's tough."

Wilson said that he and his wife "have great confidence in the institutions that have made our country great ... Yes, we do have confidence that justice will be done."

"I think the president should call in his senior advisers and say, 'Enough is enough, I want you to step forward and cooperate,' " he said.

"The president has said repeatedly, "I am a man of my word,' " Wilson added. "He should stand up and prove that his word is his bond and fire Karl Rove."

Wilson has said the leak of his wife's name was an attempt by the administration to discredit him after he challenged its assertion that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was seeking to obtain from Niger material to make nuclear weapons.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » July 14, 2005, 4:22 pm

Wow, people still take Joseph Wilson seriously? That's pretty funny.