'NY Times' Says Source Who Gave Matt Cooper Waiver Was Karl Rove

<<SNIP>>
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000974740

'NY Times' Says Source Who Gave Matt Cooper Waiver Was Karl Rove

By E&P Staff

Published: July 07, 2005 8:45 AM ET

NEW YORK "A short time ago, in somewhat dramatic fashion, I received an express, personal release from my source," Matt Cooper of Time magazine told a federal judge yesterday, in dramatic fashion, just before being sentenced to jail. "It's with a bit of surprise and no small amount of relief that I will comply with this subpoena."

But who was this source? According to The New York Times today, "Cooper's decision to drop his refusal to testify followed discussions on Wednesday morning among lawyers representing Mr. Cooper and Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser, according to a person who has been officially briefed on the case."

Rove's lawyer had confirmed over the weekend that his client had turned up as a source in Cooper's documents, which Time turned over to the special prosecutor on Friday, but that did not mean that he was the key source in question.

Recent discussions, the Times reported, "centered on whether a legal release signed by Mr. Rove last year was meant to apply specifically to Mr. Cooper, who by its terms would be released from any pledge of confidentiality he had made to Mr. Rove, the person said. Mr. Cooper said in court that he had agreed to testify only after he had received an explicit waiver from his source.

<</SNIP>>

Well, guess what KKKarl's lawyer?? He's connected and there ain't nothing you can do about it!!! The sanctimonious train is leaving the station and all connected to the Plame ousting will miss it this time.

I think it was Rove's lawyer who said it was NOT Rove who released Cooper from his confidentiality. I'm looking for the link, but can't remember where I just read this. I'll look some more.


The thing is, it is not something a lawyer can spin. Either it was Rove or it wasn't, yes? (Unless "express, personal waiver" meant a written waiver from Karl via Federal EXPRESS and then his lawyer called Cooper to tell him it was coming...)." I'm trying to reconcile these two accounts.

if Rove wasn't Cooper's and/or Miller's source, what would keep them from issuing a statement that simply says Rove wasn't their source? Would it fall under "protecting their sources" to not come out and say, "For the record, no, it wasn't him"?

:shrug:


Edit: Maybe being willing to admit someone is not a source could lead to a fishing expedition ("What about him, then? No? Okay, how about her?"), but with Rove's name being bandied about as a suspect, wouldn't they be hindering the investigation by not helping investigators eliminate him as a suspect if he isn't the source?

first place? I knew Rove was involved, but I thought he was not the one who obtained this information. Someone high up obtained it and pass it around. This must be Miller's informant and if it is who I think it is. She will rot before he would come forward....

Terrorists have attacked London.

The NYT gossipy approach I mean. Of course Rove didn't beg Cooper to talk. There were two sources and this is yet another painful attempt to deflect attention away from Rove and for Cooper to look "cooperative".

it has been better speculated that the sequence of required testimony would likely need the painful course of Cooper and miller both coming to resolution somehow on Rove.

To get to square one. You need to be a legal expert to detect the strategies. it is plain what Rove and his lawyer must do whatever the extent of the crime. the reporters are helping him as they did when they abetted treason in the first place. How can you threaten them or offer them deals to match THEIR guys in power who can pardon and make heroes out of them? Rich heroes.

This is not a sure thing until some evidence can pin the right words on Rove and THEN justice and "in"justice duke it out in the crazy world on internal tapdancing. I don't see how anything must happen or be easy unless some shattering smoking nuke WITH media support against spin backs up the shreds of law still clinging in tatters to DC's lambent corpse.