More Trouble for Rove in CIA Leak Case?

What happened on Wednesday in Courtroom 8 at the federal district courthouse in Washington, DC, gave rise to more questions than answers about the shrouded-in-secrecy Plame/CIA leak investigation. But those questions may not be good for Karl Rove.

The most dramatic moment of the hour-plus hearing was when federal District Court Judge Thomas Hogan ordered New York Times reporter Judith Miller to jail for failing to reveal a source to special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who has been trying to find out which Bush administration officials outed undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame, the wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of the Bush White House. Conservative columnist Bob Novak first published the leak in a July 14, 2003 article that cited "two senior administration officials." Three days later, Time magazine posted a piece cowritten by Cooper that noted that "government officials" had told Time about Valerie Wilson's employment at the CIA. Miller wrote no article on this matter but apparently she talked to at least one source about it. Her decision to honor her pledge of confidentiality to her source and resist a court order might have afforded her source--whoever that might be--a measure of protection. But minutes earlier, Cooper--who had also been held in civil contempt for not cooperating with Fitzgerald--made a dramatic statement that could lead to trouble for a source he had previously protected, and that source might be Rove.

Cooper told the court that he had left home that morning--after saying good-bye to his six-year-old son and telling the boy that he might not see him for a while--resolved not to comply with Fitzgerald's request that he testify before the grand jury. (Time had already surrendered Cooper's notes and emails to Fitzgerald--over Cooper's objections--but Fitzgerald still sought Cooper's testimony.) But on the way to the courthouse, Cooper said to the judge, his source had contacted him and provided what Cooper called a "personal and unambiguous waiver to speak before the grand jury." So Cooper declared that he was now prepared to answer Fitzgerald's questions. He would not be sent off to the hoosegow.

What does this mean for Cooper's source--a person apparently of intense interest to Fitzgerald?

This past weekend, Michael Isikoff of Newsweek reported that the emails and notes turned over by Time indicated that "one of Cooper's sources [for Time's article that named Plame] was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove." Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for that article. But Luskin maintained that Rove "did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA." (But does that statement cover all possibilities? Might Rove have confirmed Valerie Plame had a job at the CIA? Might he have said that "Valerie Wilson"--not Plame--worked for the CIA?)

Is Rove indeed the Cooper source being pursued by Fitzgerald and the person who apparently gave Cooper the greenlight to tell all to the grand jury? After Cooper's announcement, Rove's lawyer told Newsweek that Rove and Cooper had not "spoken" about waiving confidentiality prior to the court hearing. Luskin may have been playing it cute. Perhaps the communication between Rove and Cooper was an email. And The New York Times reported that lawyers representing Cooper and Rove--not Cooper and Rove--had talked prior to hearing. Or could it be that another Cooper source is Fitzgerald's target?

What's come out so far still points to Rove. And it does seem clear that only one Cooper source is in the middle of this imbroglio. In a recent court filing, Fitzgerald repeatedly noted that he needed Cooper's testimony regarding "a" source (not more than one). And in Cooper's last-minute courtroom drama, he noted that his "source"--one person, that is--had released him.

******

Don't forget about DAVID CORN's BLOG at www.davidcorn.com. Read recent postings on Supreme Court pessimism, blaming Hillary, and Safire's latest mis-fact.

*******

This focus on one person is curious. The Time story written by Cooper reported,

And some government officials have noted to TIME in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Note the plural "officials." And Novak's column cited "two" senior Bush administration officials. Given this, shouldn't Fitzgerald be asking Cooper about more than one source? Shouldn't Cooper have to obtain waivers from more than one person? Cooper's article did carry two other bylines--Massimo Calabresi and John Dickerson--and it's possible that Calabresi and/or Dickerson spoke to other sources about Valerie Wilson. But neither have been subpoenaed by Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald apparently has reason to believe that Cooper is the fellow responsible for the two-sentence portion of the article that covers Valerie Wilson.

So who else told Time about Wilson/Plame? I can think of explanations that might render this question moot. Perhaps the story was mis-edited in a fashion that mistakenly pluralized the sourcing on the key sentence. Maybe one government official disclosed Valerie Wilson's CIA identity to Time prior to the Novak column, and another merely confirmed it after Novak had published the leak. But inquiring minds should want to know: what happened to Time's other source(s)?

But for now the most critical question is, what will Cooper tell the grand jury? Presumably, he will have to say which "government officials" talked to Time about Valerie Wilson and what they said. Will that place his source (or sources) in legal jeopardy? Fitzgerald has vigorously argued that Cooper's information is important for his investigation. Since no White House official has acknowledged revealing Valerie Wilson's CIA identity to any reporter, if Cooper fingers any one of them, that will be bad news for the White House. Any official named might be able to wiggle out of an indictment due to the narrow nature of the relevant law. (I explained how this might be done in my previous column.) Still, outing a CIA officer to score a political point ought to be a firing offense at any White House, even this one.

Which brings us to another intriguing wrinkle. Cooper's source only granted him a waiver to speak before the grand jury. He is not free, Cooper told me after the hearing, to discuss in public this source and the contents of his conversation with this source. In essence, the source made sure that Cooper--if he were going to cooperate with Fitzgerald--would not be able to ID him (or her) in public. Not that Cooper seemed about to do so. Before the hearing, it seemed that Cooper was prepared to go to jail, even though Time had turned over his notes and emails and Newsweek had identified his source as Rove. But could it be that his source was not so sure of this and wanted to cut a deal (your freedom for your continuing public silence)? Or could it be that Cooper's source simply felt bad about Cooper being placed in the slammer? Or could it be that the source believed that Cooper's testimony might actually be beneficial for him or her? Or could it be that the source assumed he or she was already in legal peril and did not want also to be blamed for Cooper's incarceration?

There are plenty of avenues of conjecture. But one thing is for certain. Fitzgerald, who does seem devoted to the task of investigating the leak and who does not appear to be pursuing (rightly or wrongly) reporters merely for the hell of it, will now be able to obtain Cooper's testimony--information that he says is critical in determining what happened in the leak episode and whether a prosecutable crime was committed. The betting has to be that this is reason for the White House to be more nervous and not less.

*****

And what of Novak? How has he managed to escape the clutches of Fitzgerald? Why does he not face the same legal dilemma as Miller? Well, he must have cooperated with Fitzpatrick. But to what end? And what did he say?For speculative answers to these and other questions about Novak's role in this affair, see the piece I posted at TomPaine.com by clicking here.

*******************

IT REMAINS RELEVANT, ALAS. SO DON'T FORGET ABOUT DAVID CORN'S BOOK, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown Publishers). A NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER! An UPDATED and EXPANDED EDITION is AVAILABLE in PAPERBACK. The Washington Post says, "This is a fierce polemic, but it is based on an immense amount of research.... [I]t does present a serious case for the president's partisans to answer.... Readers can hardly avoid drawing...troubling conclusions from Corn's painstaking indictment." The Los Angeles Times says, "David Corn's The Lies of George W. Bush is as hard-hitting an attack as has been leveled against the current president. He compares what Bush said with the known facts of a given situation and ends up making a persuasive case." The Library Journal says, "Corn chronicles to devastating effect the lies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations.... Corn has painstakingly unearthed a bill of particulars against the president that is as damaging as it is thorough." And GEORGE W. BUSH SAYS, "I'd like to tell you I've read [ The Lies of George W. Bush], but that'd be a lie."

For more information and a sample, go to www.davidcorn.com. And see his WEBLOG there..

Comments (31)

1. Curiouser and curiouser. Thanks for writing so deftly about what used to be called the conflict between the "bulldog press" and the needs of society to protect its citizens, in this case Valerie _____. There are other citizens here as well, Miller, even Rove, who have a right to be protected IF they have not broken the law to further a political or philosophical agenda. This is bound to end up in a J-school textbook.

   FYnEstKind

   Posted by FYnEstKind at 07/07/2005 @ 5:47pm

2. "More trouble for Rove":

   All this conjecture doesn't really implicate a worse position for Rove than he had yesterday. If he authorized Cooper to talk, he probably won't be convicted.

   Posted by nattiebumpo at 07/07/2005 @ 6:13pm

3. It is exciting stuff. I do want to know who it was.

   It has to be someone on the right, no one on the left knows who is in the CIA anyway.

   Posted by whyme at 07/07/2005 @ 7:11pm

4. Great article, but did he do it? Looks like maybe. But I have waited a very long time to see Rove get back a little bit of the hell he has w/o flenching given to others. So I can be patient. Smiling in Texas.

   Posted by Somedaysoon at 07/07/2005 @ 7:42pm

5. Since Judy Miller is in jail because she won't answer questions about "her" source, even though she didn't write anything, is it being too conspiracy-minded to suggest that Miller was Cooper's source (!) and Rove was Miller's source. Ms Miller wouldn't want Mr. Cooper to go to prison just for talking with her, but she might indeed want to protect Rove. Let's not forget that Ms. Miller was a featured player in the Chalabi affair.

   Posted by shebabbb at 07/07/2005 @ 7:44pm

6. Maybe SHEBABBB is onto something. Ms. Miller will do her time, write a prison memoir, and gear up for the Jeb Bush '08 campaign in the role of media director.

   Posted by Wladyslaw at 07/07/2005 @ 8:09pm

7. Can someone please explain to me why Robert Novak, who wrote the first article on this subject is not in the middle of this mess?

   Posted by Friscodog at 07/07/2005 @ 8:20pm

8. Friscodog, For the explanation you seek, see my posting on Novak. You can find it at www.davidcorn.com [davidcorn.com]. I explain why Novak is not in the middle of this mess.

   Posted by David Corn at 07/07/2005 @ 8:59pm

9. Maybe I could be wrong here, but I seem to remember that Federal Grand Jury testimony was leaked to the public in the BALCO case. Its how steroid use by Jason Giambi and Barry Bonds came into the public eye. I think, but I'm not sure that Bush signed some obscure provision into law making Grand Jury testimony available in one of the 9/11 aftermath bills. If this is the case, who would decide what can be leaked of Cooper's testimony? Or maybe I'm just dreaming.

   Posted by jakesteed98 at 07/07/2005 @ 9:32pm

10. I just looked into the BALCO leak more, and while there was fingerpointing toward the government for leaking grand jury testimony, it was not legally sanctioned. So much for that idea.

    Posted by jakesteed98 at 07/07/2005 @ 9:41pm

11. Leaks are unofficial releases of information, hence the term. And the fitzgerald inquiry has been largely leak-free to date. It cannot be assumed that Cooper's testimony--whether it implicates Rove (or anyone else) or not--will leak. But if you want ot be look on the half-filled side, something cannot leak if it doesn't exist.

    Posted by David Corn at 07/07/2005 @ 9:57pm

12. Whoops, sorry about the typos in previous post. Let that be a lesson to all of you. Do not hit "submit" when you intend to "preview."

    Posted by David Corn at 07/07/2005 @ 10:00pm

13. Thanks David, at least I have some idea of why Novak is not being questioned. I figure everone but Miller will wiggle out of this which is to bad.

    Posted by Friscodog at 07/07/2005 @ 11:25pm

14. What you guys are dismissing is the fact that the 'source' thought she worked for the CIA as an admin, not an undercover agent. She was seen by Colin Powell in meetings along with other high ranking officials. If the reporters notes say she worked for the CIA and then the reporter said he was undercover, there is a bigger problem on hand and one that the NY Times may be trying to cover up. Listen, they have had a bad track record over the last couple of years...

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 11:34pm

15. Our beloved Dan rather used a forged document, so I wouldn;t trust anything any reporter says, no matter who they are and who they work for.

    Posted by dancall at 07/07/2005 @ 11:35pm

16. Now I'm a reporter myself, so I'm totally feeling Judith Miller on the whole not revealing her source thing. I think that Time magazine and Matthew Cooper totally wimped out. Because of that, look for a lot more press release journalism from Time. If a leaker even thinks they'll be exposed to a grand jury, forget it.

    But here's what's been bothering me about this whole mess. Hasn't one of the big criticisms of Judith Miller been that she basically served as the administration's mouthpiece during the Iraq war run up?

    If this is how they treat their journalist friends, allowing them to go to jail I mean, I'd hate to see what they do to their enemies. Helen Thomas better not even get a parking ticket in DC until after 2008 or she's headed to Guantanamo Bay.

    Posted by edwriter at 07/08/2005 @ 12:31am

17. I am also trying to imagine why Cooper's source would authorize him to talk if the source has something to fear. Would Karl Rove fall on his sword?

    Another question: In the day-to-day course of his duties, would Mr. Rove normally concern himself with who's who at Langley or which diplomat was chosen to go on a special assignment to Niger?

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 07/08/2005 @ 12:51am

18. Regarding "source" vs. "sources" -- Don't we already know that Cooper's other source was Scooter Libby? And didn't Libby already release Cooper from any secrecy promises? That would explain why the Time article referred to plural sources ("government officials"). It would also explain why Fitzgerald is asking only about a single source.

    Posted by cecig at 07/08/2005 @ 12:51am

19. If there is a chance that Rove so-called "unknowingly" revealed that Plame was a CIA operative, why did he subsequently allude to her on a TV show, that "she was fair game"?

    Posted by parulis at 07/08/2005 @ 01:37am

20. "More Trouble For Rove in CIA Leak Case?"

    - Let us hope so.

    Posted by rob.olywa at 07/08/2005 @ 03:42am

21. Perhaps this strays off topic, but I believe the Wilson's have a cause for civil damages against the White House Leaker. If it is Rove, they could possibly win damages because how her career was harmed. I also am wondering if some of the CIA agents (or former CIA agents) that the White House has burned, might not find this case as an excellent way to get some payback. If you were an analyst who was brow beaten into changing your analysis and then were blamed for "intelligence failures", wouldn't you want to get even with the folks who set you up as the fall guy?

    Posted by Russron at 07/08/2005 @ 05:39am

22. I smell a "gate" somewhere!

    Posted by theenglishguy at 07/08/2005 @ 07:24am

23. As to the Time article and the plural for "officials" - Cooper has already testified [washingtonpost.com] about conversations with Libby Lewis, Cheney's chief of staff; Lewis waived confidentiality. Bonus - Lewis says (and reporters confirm) that reporters told *him* about the Wilson and wife story.

    If we still have Mr. Corn's attention - he really ought to check out the story of WaPo reporter Walter Pincus. I left an explanatory comment at your blog, and (shameless self-promotion) have more here [justoneminute.typepad.com].

    Bonus question for an investigative reporter - last fall, the WaPo reported that Judy Miller was being subpoenaed along with four other reporters to talk about her conversations with Lewis. Lewis has waived confidentiality and the other four (Russert, Pincus, Kessler, and Cooper) have talked to Fitzgerald. If Miller was holding out then, doesn't if follow that she is still holding out?

    So, is Lewis her source, or is the WaPo backpedaling from last fall?

    Posted by Tom Maguire at 07/08/2005 @ 10:01am

24. As far as I'm concerned Judith Miller can rot in jail, in penance for her cheerleading activities on behalf of the invasion of Iraq. It's a blow to freedom of the press perhaps, but poetic justice as well.

    Posted by John Earl at 07/08/2005 @ 12:54pm

25. David,

    Can you answer me this. Why are so many reporters defending Miller and Cooper in protecting their sources? I understand the importance of protecting sources so that whistle-blowers or information leakers will come forward, but this is a criminal investigation and they are protecting possible felons. Would a reporter be justified in protecting the identity of a serial killer?

    Thanks and keep up the good work. Nam

    Posted by nambo at 07/08/2005 @ 1:04pm

26. Nambo, you raise a good question. But there's this: perhaps the sources being protected are not the culprits. A journalist is not always in the position to know whether his/her source engaged in a criminal act. I recently was asked to talk to a person under investigation (in another matter) and to do so completely off the record. This person had information that might be useful about another party. Should I say no to this request? Or should I say I'll protect you as long a I'm not called to testify by a prosecutor investigating a crime of which you may or may not be guilty? That said, there might be outs for journalists who do not want to protect a criminal leaker. But (a) a promise is a promise and (b) this is not as clear-cut a call as some commenters suggest....And Tom Maguire is right. Miller's source may be Lewis. then again, it may bot be. We simply don't know. And even though I have done this with this case, it is dangerous to make too many assumptions when we don't see all the peices of the puzzle.

    Posted by David Corn at 07/08/2005 @ 9:41pm

27. All this underscores the need for Congress to quickly pass the Pence-Lugar-Dodd press shield legislation. It's unseemly for the courts to be straining after gnats such as Miller and Cooper while the real offenders still sit fat and happy in the White House.

    Posted by aamurphy at 07/09/2005 @ 2:32pm

28. It doesn't explain Novak's teflon shield, in my opinion, to say he must have cut a deal with Fitzgerald, whilst enjoying immunity from prosecution. As David Corn suggests. It highlights the content of the Rove-Novak connection, he correctly points out and elaborates in the article cited. Without, however, cutting to the chase in all this, to wit:

    -if the content showed intent to deceive the public about the need for war by including evidence that had been knowingly fabricated, and unsilenceably exposed by Joseph Wilson..... then it is evidence of wrong-doing at a higher, broader level than tracing the leak, all the prosecuter is authorized to do. The situation would be: pursuit of one violation of the law led to discovery of another violation, perhaps of a higher order than Mr. Fitgerald comprehends.

    Surely, that's the river card here. The material Time was looking at was ultra-incriminating, if taken in an accusatory context. Judith Miller and the NYTimes were drawn in by a sting operation, and Newsweek's cross-over in-house boy Michael Isikoff gets to be the one who plants the smoking gun in Karl Rone's cold, dead hand. They wish.

    My money is on the idea that Noval's "two sources" chose him because of his audience -- ubiquitous rightwing sychophant that he is -- that it's backfiring may have been written in as a subscript -- Novak ought to be gitmoized by the profession, if not in reality. What in hell do they think gives them the right ..

    Posted by neverong at 07/09/2005 @ 10:46pm

29. This scandal needs a name. First there was Watergate. Then there was Whitewater. This is Leakwater.

    Posted by sasheville at 07/10/2005 @ 12:03am

30. Hola, I have a question for Mr. Corn or anyone else reading this thread. WHY has it taken Mr. Fitzgerald so LONG to carry out his investigation? What does he do in the morning, wake up in the morning and decide to make a few calls, and then follow up a few months later? Unless he has a lot of other cases on his hands, I don't see the explanation for this delay. Mr. Corn seems to suggest that Fitzgerald is persevering pretty good, but wouldn't it also be reasonable to suggest that Fitzgerald is dragging his feet as a result of political pressure?

    Posted by Smurf at 07/10/2005 @ 12:47pm

31. What you guys are dismissing is the fact that the 'source' thought she worked for the CIA as an admin, not an undercover agent.

    No, we don't actually know that. That may well be what will be claimed, but there is reason to believe that Novak's source, whoever it was, actually did know she was a covert agent. In his column, Novak used the term "operative" to refer to Valerie Plame, a term which an excellent exegesis [talkingpointsmemo.com] by Josh Marshall shows Novak has--in recent decades, certainly--used exclusively to mean "covert agent" when he is speaking of the CIA.

    Now: It's entirely possible, especially if Novak's source also turns out to be Rove, that the source was playing cutsie with language and phrasing the information in a way that left no doubt in Novak's mind what was meant, but stopped just short of saying "covert agent" outright. And unless the source actually said that, it may be difficult to prove that he/she actually knew it.

    Posted by slb at 07/10/2005 @ 4:54pm