Rove (probably) lied to the FBI. Why is he still on the White House payroll?
This is being blogged to death, of course. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Karl Rove, according to an extremely credible-looking report, lied to the FBI about his role in the Plame outing. Murray Wass reported for the American Prospect in March, 2004 that:
President Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, told the FBI in an interview last October that he circulated and discussed damaging information regarding CIA operative Valerie Plame with others in the White House, outside political consultants, and journalists, according to a government official and an attorney familiar with the ongoing special counsel's investigation of the matter.
But Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rather, Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column. He also told the FBI, the same sources said, that circulating the information was a legitimate means to counter what he claimed was politically motivated criticism of the Bush administration by Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. [emphasis mine, as usual]
But that just isn't true. From what's been made public so far, we now know that Rove spoke to Matt Cooper (after Cooper called on Rove to brief him about a different story) on July 11, 2003 and told him then that Joseph Wilson had been recommended (actually "authorized", which, as Tim Noah points out, is false) for the trip to Niger by his wife at the CIA. And today we learn that Rove was also approached by Novak himself on July 8th, 2003 -- six days before the fateful column appeared -- after Novak got word from another source about Wilson's relationship to the CIA and the genesis of the Niger trip. Of course, at that point, Rove had the opportunity to stop the story from being published in the first place by refusing to confirm Novak's tip or by warning Novak against running with his scoop for national security reasons. But, according to today's Washington Post, he instead told Novak that "I heard that too" about Wilson and his CIA wife. Rove's brilliant attorney, Robert Luskin, is now claiming that Rove in fact was able to confirm Novak's scoop with information Rove had received earlier from a different journalist (presumably one of the other five to whom the White House shopped the information). But that journalist (pure speculation: might it have been Judith Miller?) and Novak must have gotten the original tip from somebody else, i.e. some other leaker in the Adminstration.
So at least one other journalist (unless it's Miller and she stays clammed up) and one other White House source stand to be embarrassed before all this is over. But in the meantime, the fact remains that if that Prospect article is accurate, Rove lied to the FBI about when he started blabbing. Disclosing Plame's identity may not in fact have been illegal. It's even possible (though unlikely) that Rove's motive in talking to Cooper was as benign as Luskin made it out to Byron York recently: that is, he was just trying to keep the "liberal media" from running further with the Wilson revelations to begin with and to make sure Cooper understood that Cheney's office had not authorized the trip. But lying to the FBI is a federal offence.
Anyway, White House officials have said (well, actually danced around saying), over and over, that they would fire anybody who turned out to have been involved with the leak, whether or not it was illegal. Here's the most relevant example from way back in September of 2003:
Q -- Scott, what do you say to people out there who are watching this, perhaps, and saying, you know, I voted for George Bush because he promised to change the way things work in Washington. And, yet, his spokesman --
MR. McCLELLAN: And he has.
Q -- and, yet, his spokesman is saying that there's no internal, even, questioning of whether or not people were involved in this and he's just letting that be handled at the Justice Department, and letting it be more of a criminal investigation, as opposed to almost an ethical --
MR. McCLELLAN: Dana, I mean, think about what you're asking. If you have specific information to bring to our attention --
Q No, but you say that --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- that suggests White House involvement. There are anonymous reports all the time in the media. The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration. [emphasis mine]
That I had to hunt and hunt for a quote that combined "involved with the leak" and some version of "would be fired" tells you how pathetic the press corps is at teasing concrete statements out of the professional bullshitters that run the Bush operation. Nevertheless, we have it here. McClellan didn't say "if anyone in this Administration was the [original] leaker" (which Rove likely was not). He said "if anybody in this Administration was involved with it". So unless the Bushies really want to start arguing that it depends on what the meaning of "it" is, McClellan basically committed the Administration to sack anyone fitting the description of what we currently know about Rove's involvement. And that is completely besides the fact that Rove apparently lied to the FBI, as well as, according to various other statements McClellan and Bush have made about Rove's innocence, to his bosses at the White House.
All of which means that Karl Rove's continuing employment ought to be deeply, deeply embarrassing to the Bushies. Of course that assumes that this crew can actually be embarrassed.
President Bush's chief political adviser, Karl Rove, told the FBI in an interview last October that he circulated and discussed damaging information regarding CIA operative Valerie Plame with others in the White House, outside political consultants, and journalists, according to a government official and an attorney familiar with the ongoing special counsel's investigation of the matter.
But Rove also adamantly insisted to the FBI that he was not the administration official who leaked the information that Plame was a covert CIA operative to conservative columnist Robert Novak last July. Rather, Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column. He also told the FBI, the same sources said, that circulating the information was a legitimate means to counter what he claimed was politically motivated criticism of the Bush administration by Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. [emphasis mine, as usual]
But that just isn't true. From what's been made public so far, we now know that Rove spoke to Matt Cooper (after Cooper called on Rove to brief him about a different story) on July 11, 2003 and told him then that Joseph Wilson had been recommended (actually "authorized", which, as Tim Noah points out, is false) for the trip to Niger by his wife at the CIA. And today we learn that Rove was also approached by Novak himself on July 8th, 2003 -- six days before the fateful column appeared -- after Novak got word from another source about Wilson's relationship to the CIA and the genesis of the Niger trip. Of course, at that point, Rove had the opportunity to stop the story from being published in the first place by refusing to confirm Novak's tip or by warning Novak against running with his scoop for national security reasons. But, according to today's Washington Post, he instead told Novak that "I heard that too" about Wilson and his CIA wife. Rove's brilliant attorney, Robert Luskin, is now claiming that Rove in fact was able to confirm Novak's scoop with information Rove had received earlier from a different journalist (presumably one of the other five to whom the White House shopped the information). But that journalist (pure speculation: might it have been Judith Miller?) and Novak must have gotten the original tip from somebody else, i.e. some other leaker in the Adminstration.
So at least one other journalist (unless it's Miller and she stays clammed up) and one other White House source stand to be embarrassed before all this is over. But in the meantime, the fact remains that if that Prospect article is accurate, Rove lied to the FBI about when he started blabbing. Disclosing Plame's identity may not in fact have been illegal. It's even possible (though unlikely) that Rove's motive in talking to Cooper was as benign as Luskin made it out to Byron York recently: that is, he was just trying to keep the "liberal media" from running further with the Wilson revelations to begin with and to make sure Cooper understood that Cheney's office had not authorized the trip. But lying to the FBI is a federal offence.
Anyway, White House officials have said (well, actually danced around saying), over and over, that they would fire anybody who turned out to have been involved with the leak, whether or not it was illegal. Here's the most relevant example from way back in September of 2003:
Q -- Scott, what do you say to people out there who are watching this, perhaps, and saying, you know, I voted for George Bush because he promised to change the way things work in Washington. And, yet, his spokesman --
MR. McCLELLAN: And he has.
Q -- and, yet, his spokesman is saying that there's no internal, even, questioning of whether or not people were involved in this and he's just letting that be handled at the Justice Department, and letting it be more of a criminal investigation, as opposed to almost an ethical --
MR. McCLELLAN: Dana, I mean, think about what you're asking. If you have specific information to bring to our attention --
Q No, but you say that --
MR. McCLELLAN: -- that suggests White House involvement. There are anonymous reports all the time in the media. The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration. [emphasis mine]
That I had to hunt and hunt for a quote that combined "involved with the leak" and some version of "would be fired" tells you how pathetic the press corps is at teasing concrete statements out of the professional bullshitters that run the Bush operation. Nevertheless, we have it here. McClellan didn't say "if anyone in this Administration was the [original] leaker" (which Rove likely was not). He said "if anybody in this Administration was involved with it". So unless the Bushies really want to start arguing that it depends on what the meaning of "it" is, McClellan basically committed the Administration to sack anyone fitting the description of what we currently know about Rove's involvement. And that is completely besides the fact that Rove apparently lied to the FBI, as well as, according to various other statements McClellan and Bush have made about Rove's innocence, to his bosses at the White House.
All of which means that Karl Rove's continuing employment ought to be deeply, deeply embarrassing to the Bushies. Of course that assumes that this crew can actually be embarrassed.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home