Karl Rove was the Plame leaker

[Balta1701]

No one has video of this yet, and I think it caught everyone completely off guard, but this supposedly happened on the McLaughlin Group tonight. Lawrence O'Donnell was one of the people originally investigated by the special prosecutor, so he may very well know what he is talking about.

 

Below is the text of Lawrence O'Donell's revelatory statement on McLaughlin Group today. He began talking about Time having to pay for holding the documents/emails, and not serving its shareholders by defying a (Supreme) court order. He ended with this:

 

"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."

Here's the link to the place where this quote was found. A few other people are planning to Tivo/Record it. Can check here and here to see if anyone grabs video.

[KipWellsFan]

wow.

[Balta1701]

Don't count this as a complete certainty yet, until we actually learn what is in those Time documents we really don't know for sure.

 

But if he actually said it, that probably means he's in a position to know, and that means there's a possibility he's actually telling the truth.

[KipWellsFan]

I'm not an expert on this whole situation but would this lend some credence to Wilson's claim that this was pay back for revealing the state of the union lie?

 

And is McLaughlin group a television show?

[KipWellsFan]

drudgereport.com is now covering it

 

Lawrence O'Donnel on McLaughlin Group: 'I'm probably gonna get pulled into the grand jury for saying this, but it will be revealed in Cooper's notes that it is Karl Rove who leaked Plame's identity'... Developing...

 

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/articl...t_id=1000972839

 

By E&P Staff

 

Published: July 01, 2005 11:30 PM ET

 

NEW YORK Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Tonight, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.

 

Here is the transcript of O'Donnell's remarks:

 

"What we're going to go to now in the next stage, when Matt Cooper's e-mails, within Time Magazine, are handed over to the grand jury, 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."

 

Other panelists then joined in discussing whether, if true, this would suggest a perjury rap for Rove, if he told the grand jury he did not leak to Cooper.

Edited July 2, 2005 by KipWellsFan

[LowerCaseRepublican]

I'm not an expert on this whole situation but would this lend some credence to Wilson's claim that this was pay back for revealing the state of the union lie?

 

And is McLaughlin group a television show?

Yes, it would lend credence to that claim. And yes, the McLaughlin group is a TV show. http://www.mclaughlin.com/ It is a show with political talking heads but it is a bit better than the ones on the mainstream media since this one has some scrouples.

[Texsox]

If true, and I am reserving judgement until then, it is very sad.

[Balta1701]

Lawrence O'Donnell himself has put up a post at Huffingtonpost.com confirming what he said last night. Link.

 

Lawrence O'Donnell

Rove Blew CIA Agent's Cover

 

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.

[Spiff]

I'm not surprised at all. Rove doesn't get mad, he gets even, in spades.

[KipWellsFan]

Newsweek those liberal bastards, pick up the story

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8445696/site/newsweek/

[Balta1701]

Newsweek may have more soon, from what I'm hearing.

 

A couple of noteworthy items...first of all, Karl Rove has testified several times under oath before the grand jury. As have George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. In other words, if any of them went up there and said specifically that Karl Rove did not do something which they knew he did, then they have committed either perjury or obstruction of justice. And as we learned with Bill Clinton...it's not about sex, "It's about the lying".

 

Secondly, George W. Bush has said in public that he specifically ordered everyone in his administration to cooperate with the investigation. If Rove was the leaker, either the President's #1 advisor felt it appropriate to lie to the President, or the President lied to the American People. This either says something about the kind of people the President has working for him, or the kind of person that the President himself is.

 

The White House has also endorsed in the past having the leaker fired and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If it was Rove, that means that Bush would be firing the single person without whom he would never have been in office.

 

And finally, just as a reminder, Karl Rove had the gall a few weeks ago to call Democrats and Liberals traitors for disagreeing with some of Bush's policies, like ignoring Afghanistan in favor of Iraq, etc.

 

If Karl Rove was the leaker...Karl Rove is a traitor according to the laws of this land.

[Benchwarmerjim]

Lawernce O'Donnell works for MSNBC as a Senior Political Analyst. And dont MSNBC and Newsweek work together on some stories, or something like that? They are tied somehow. Maybe somebody else can explain it

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080444

 

 

 

but this Rove deal is a real interesting story.

Edited July 3, 2005 by Benchwarmerjim

[KipWellsFan]

Lawernce O'Donnell works for MSNBC as a Senior Political Analyst. And dont MSNBC and Newsweek work together on some stories, or something like that? They are tied somehow. Maybe somebody else can explain it

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080444

but this Rove deal is a real interesting story.

 

from wikipedia.org

 

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

MSNBC.com consists of news and features from MSNBC, MSNBC.com, NBC News, The Washington Post, and Newsweek magazine, among others. MSNBC.com is the news provider for MSN, the portal site and online service operated by Microsoft. MSNBC.com hosts show websites for NBC News shows such as Dateline NBC, Today, and NBC Nightly News.

[KipWellsFan]

Rove's lawyer says it wasn't Rove who leaked the CIA's name

 

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash1.htm

``Who outed this woman? ... It wasn't Karl.''

 

So it's Luskin's word against O'Donnell's at this point

 

"Emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months," O'Donnell said.

[KipWellsFan]

Apparently this isn't the first time Rove's name has come up in discussions

 

26 August 2003: Wilson participated in a "public panel in Washington" on Thursday, August 21st, and is quoted as having said "At the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs. And trust me, when I use that name, I measure my words." See transcript of August 21st panel discussion.

 

29 September 2003: White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan on Karl Rove: "He wasn't involved,... The president knows he wasn't involved. ... It's simply not true."

 

1 October 2003: Wilson told Ted Koppel on Nightline that "Washington reporters told him that senior White House adviser Karl Rove said his wife was 'fair game'." Wilson "plans to give the names of the reporters to the FBI, which is conducting a full-blown investigation of the possible leak."

 

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

[EvilMonkey]

Here is a different take on this, from last year.

http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00352.html

 

 

WSJ: Time to End Plame Leak Investigation

Laurie Mylroie

Mon, 19 Jul 2004 22:45:21 -0700

 

oversold the case for war but because he's sometimes appeared to have lost

confidence in the cause. >>

 

Wall Street Journal

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Mr. Wilson's Defense

Why the Plame special prosecutor should close up shop.

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

 

After U.S. and British intelligence reports exposed his falsehoods in the

last 10 days, Joe Wilson is finally defending himself. We're therefore glad

to return to this story one more time, because there are some larger lessons

here about the law, and for the Beltway media and Bush White House.

 

Mr. Wilson's defense, in essence, is that the "Republican-written" Senate

Intelligence Committee report is a partisan hatchet job. We could forgive

people for being taken in by this, considering the way the Committee's

ranking Democrat, Jay Rockefeller, has been spinning it over the past week.

But the fact is that the three most damning conclusions are contained not in

Chairman Pat Roberts's "Additional Views," but in the main body of the

report approved by Mr. Rockefeller and seven other Democrats.

 

Number one: The winner of last year's Award for Truth Telling from the

Nation magazine foundation, didn't tell the truth when he wrote that his

wife, CIA officer Valerie Plame, "had nothing to do with" his selection for

the Niger mission. Mr. Wilson is now pretending there is some kind of

important distinction between whether she "recommended" or "proposed" him

for the trip.

 

Mr. Wilson had been denying any involvement at all on Ms. Plame's part, in

order to suggest that her identity was disclosed by a still-unknown

Administration official out of pure malice. If instead an Administration

official cited nepotism truthfully in order to explain the oddity of Mr.

Wilson's selection for the Niger mission, then there was no underlying

crime. Motive is crucial under the controlling statute.

 

The 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act was written in the wake of

the Philip Agee scandal to protect the CIA from deliberate subversion, not

to protect the identities of agents and their spouses who choose to enter

into a national political debate. In short, the entire leak probe now looks

like a familiar Beltway case of criminalizing political differences. Special

Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald should fold up his tent.

 

Number two: Joe Wilson didn't tell the truth about how he supposedly came to

realize that it was "highly doubtful" there was anything to the story he'd

been sent to Niger to investigate. He told everyone that he'd recognized as

obvious forgeries the documents purporting to show an Iraq-Niger uranium

deal. But the forged documents to which he referred didn't reach U.S.

intelligence until eight months after his trip. Mr. Wilson has said that he

"misspoke"--multiple times, apparently--on this issue.

 

Number three: Joe Wilson was also not telling the truth when he said that

his final report to the CIA had "debunked" the Niger story. The Senate

Intelligence report--again, the bipartisan portion of it--says Mr. Wilson's

debrief was interpreted as providing "some confirmation of foreign

government service reporting" that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. That's

because Niger's former Prime Minister had told Mr. Wilson he interpreted a

1999 visit from an Iraqi trade delegation as showing an interest in uranium.

 

This is a remarkable record of falsehood. We'll let our readers judge if

they think Mr. Wilson was deliberately wrong, and therefore can be said to

have "lied." We certainly know what critics would say if President Bush had

been caught saying such things. But in any event, we'd think that the news

outlets that broadcast Mr. Wilson's story over the past year would want to

retrace their own missteps.

 

Mr. Wilson made three separate appearances on NBC's "Meet the Press,"

according to the Weekly Standard. New York Times columnist Nick Kristof

first brought the still anonymous Niger envoy to public attention in May

2003, so he too must feel burned by his source. Alone among major sellers of

the Wilson story, the Washington Post has done an admirable job so far of

correcting the record.

 

Also remarkable is that the views of former CIA employee Larry Johnson

continue to be cited anywhere on this and related issues. Mr. Johnson was

certain last October that the disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity was a

purely "political attack," now disproven. He is also a friend of Ms. Plame

and the author of a summer 2001 op-ed titled "The Declining Terrorist

Threat." You'd think reporters would at least quote him with a political

warning label.

 

The final canard advanced by Mr. Wilson's defenders is that our own recent

editorials and other criticism was somehow "orchestrated." Well, by whom?

Certainly not by the same White House that has been all too silent about

this entire episode, in large part because it prematurely apologized last

year for the "16 words" in a State of the Union address that have now been

declared "well-founded" by Lord Butler's inquiry in Britain. If Mr. Bush

ends up losing the election over Iraq, it won't be because he oversold the

case for war but because he's sometimes appeared to have lost confidence in

the cause.

[EvilMonkey]

Also, her name and status was revealed by Time in 2003, way before this happened.

http://online.wsj.com/public/corrections?page=Corrections

[KipWellsFan]

The Senate

Intelligence report--again, the bipartisan portion of it--says Mr. Wilson's

debrief was interpreted as providing "some confirmation of foreign

government service reporting" that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger.

 

I'm sorry but that doesn't even seem to make sense

 

This article is basically implying that Joe Wilson went completely crazy, and basically absolutely everything he has said has been lies. Sure...

 

lets compare Wilson and Rove's credibility

 

Wilson

He was hailed as "truly inspiring" and "courageous" by George H. W. Bush after sheltering more than a hundred Americans at the US embassy in Baghdad, and mocking Saddam Hussein's threats to execute anyone who refused to hand over foreigners.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson

 

Rove

Rove is known for his unconventional political tactics. In 1970, at the age of nineteen and while a protege of Donald Segretti (later convicted as a Watergate conspirator), Rove sneaked into the campaign office of Illinois Democrat Alan Dixon and stole some letterhead, which he used to print fake campaign rally fliers promising "free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing," and distributed them at rock concerts and homeless shelters. Admitting to the incident much later, Rove said, "I was nineteen and I got involved in a political prank."

 

In 1986, just before a crucial debate in the election for governor of Texas, Karl Rove announced that his office had been bugged by the Democrats. There was no evidence of this, and it was later alleged that he had bugged his own phone to garner media coverage. [2]

 

On Feb 19 2005, Representative Maurice Hinchey(D-NY) echoed allegations made previously by others suggesting that the controversial Killian documents could have been planted by Rove, believing Dan Rather and CBS News would, during the 2004 campaign, rush to report an anti-Bush story with unverified documents. [3], [4]

 

In March 2001, Rove met with executives from Intel, successfully advocating a merger between a Dutch company and an Intel company supplier. Rove owned $100,000 in Intel stock at the time. In June 2001, Rove met with two pharmaceutical industry lobbyists. At the time, Rove held almost $250,000 in drug industry stocks. On 30 June 2001, Rove divested his stocks in 23 companies, which included more than $100,000 in each Enron, Boeing, General Electric, and Pfizer. On 30 June 2001, the White House admitted that Rove was involved in administration energy policy meetings, while at the same time holding stock in energy companies including Enron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rove#Ear...cal_experiences

 

Come on, whether you're left or right this guy is scum. Whether he leaked Plame and had any agenda behind it is yet to be seen.

 

EDIT: and those are not all of the scandals he's been involved with

Edited July 3, 2005 by KipWellsFan

[KipWellsFan]

Also, her name and status was revealed by Time in 2003, way before this happened. 

http://online.wsj.com/public/corrections?page=Corrections

 

Not sure what you mean

 

13 July 2003: "A Question of Trust" is published at Time Magazine's website, publication date for the magazine being July 21. Journalist Matthew Cooper contributed to this article. This article and the subsequent 17 July 2003 "A War On Wilson?" are the subject matters of the Plame investigations, as indicated in the 15 February 2005 United States Circuit Court opinion ordering Cooper and New York Times journalist Judith Miller to respond to grand jury subpenas. "A Question of Trust" traces the controversy surrounding President Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech and the African uranium controversy. Anonymous sources of information are attributed to "two senior Administration officials," "another official," and "an intelligence official."

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

 

That was published the day before Novak's I believe.

Edited July 3, 2005 by KipWellsFan

[KipWellsFan]

O'Donnell video

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/McLaughlin_Odonnell.mov

[YASNY]

Of course, we all know that if the president lies under oath, it's no big deal. The precedent has already been set.

Edited July 3, 2005 by YASNY

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Of course, we all know that if the president lies under oath, it's no big deal.  The precedent has already been set.

One lie regarded a sex act. This lie undermined CIA operations. Seems there is a little bit of a difference there.

[kapkomet]

One lie regarded a sex act.  This lie undermined CIA operations.  Seems there is a little bit of a difference there.

 

 

Oh no... you can't have it both ways. It's the same thing... one gets off, the other does too by the same twisted logic.

 

Looks like Dems finally have their smoking gun to go after these guys lock, stock, and barrel... just in time to debate the Supreme Court nominee.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Oh no... you  can't have it both ways.  It's the same thing...  one gets off, the other does too by the same twisted logic.

 

Looks like Dems finally have their smoking gun to go after these guys lock, stock, and barrel... just in time to debate the Supreme Court nominee.

Yeah -- I mean, yes Clinton lied under oath and should have gotten some s*** for it. Cuz, I mean after all -- he's the f***ing President, he should be able to go about a sexual affair and not get busted. I'm just saying, to me, a lie that screws up national security is more important than the 10 times Clinton got a BJ.

[kapkomet]

Yeah -- I mean, yes Clinton lied under oath and should have gotten some s*** for it.  Cuz, I mean after all -- he's the f***ing President, he should be able to go about a sexual affair and not get busted.  I'm just saying, to me, a lie that screws up national security is more important than the 10 times Clinton got a BJ.

I don't disagree... but a lie is a lie is a lie is a lie under oath.

 

And so if you Clinton backers (not saying you, Apu) think Clinton got the shaft "about lying" then you have NO room to b**** about Bush.

 

As I've said many times, they all do it to cover their ass, it doesn't matter WHO is running the country or what it is about.