David Corn (The Nation): White House Stonewalls on Rove Scandal

[Jack Rabbit]

From The Nation
Dated Monday July 11

White House Stonewalls on Rove Scandal
By David Corn

I advise all students of political speech to read the transcript of the press briefing conducted by White House press secretary Scott McClellan today. It was a smorgasbord of stonewalling. He entered the White House press room at 1:00 p.m., his eyes darting about, and started off by reading a statement from President Bush on the tenth anniversary of the massacre at Srebrenica. Then the subject changed. Rather abruptly. Reporter after reporter asked McClellan about Karl Rove and the news--broken by Michael Isikoff of Newsweek--of a July 11, 2003, e-mail written by Time's Matt Cooper that noted that Cooper had spoken to Rove on "double super secret background" and that Rove had told him that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's "wife...apparently works at the agency on wmd issues." The e-mail is proof that Rove leaked to a reporter information revealing the CIA employment of Valerie Plame (a k a Valerie Wilson).

This puts Rove and the White House in a pickle. Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, says that Rove did not mention Valerie Wilson's name to Cooper. But this is a rather thin defense. (I explain why here, and I also note why George W. Bush, if he takes his own rhetoric seriously, has no choice but to dismiss Rove.) But legal and criminal difficulties aside, the e-mail is undeniable evidence that Rove leaked national security information to a journalist to discredit a critic (Joseph Wilson). How does that square with White House policy as it has been previously stated? Well, it doesn't. And the journalists in the White House press room knew that. Many had a list of previous McClellan statements at the ready. I was there, and I had a list, too . . . .

How could McClellan defend such a record? His strategy was clear: don't even try. When the reporters began firing Rove-related queries at him, he refused to answer any of them. The first query came from Terrence Hunt of Associated Press: Does Bush stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in the Plame/CIA leak? McClellan replied that "while the investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it." Hunt tried again: "Excuse me, but I wasn't actually talking about any investigation. But in June 2004, the president said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak.... And I just wanted to know, is that still his position?"

McClellan would not say: "We're not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation." He claimed that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald had "expressed a preference to us" that the White House not comment on the matter. (I later called Fitzgerald's office and asked it to confirm whether Fitzgerald had made such a request. A spokeswoman for Fitzgerald said he would not have any comment regarding any part of the investigation. "Not even to back up what the White House said?" I asked. "No," she replied.)

Read more.

The fact that McClellan would say nothing yesterday to defend Rove actually has me thinking that the White House (read: Bush) has given up on Rove. He'll be gone within a week. If I may be so bold as to suggest, he will make one of those hand-wringing announcements about how he is sadly and reluctantly resigning because he has become a distraction for Mr. Bush (whom, of course, he will call the President) and his many fine accomplishments, how he has been proud to serve in this administration, etc.

[mike_c]

1. turdblossom won't go willingly unless it's to a velvet lined...

...solid gold cesspool. Count on it-- if Rove steps down, it will be with the aid of a golden parachute of epic proportions.

[ChiciB1]

2. While Watching The Al Franken Show Last Night

Lawrence O'Donnell stated that Rove does HAVE wiggle room, and that he COULD have possibly simply OVER-heard a comment about "Wilson's wife"!

Then he went on to say that this is probably "higher up" but that ROVER will NEVER divulge that. And as to WHY he released Cooper, well Rover has been called to testify 3 times before the Grand Jury and that he knew the information was already out there.

Basically, O'Donnell says he WILL stay on the story and that the prosecutor would not have called Rover in that many times UNLESS there was more there. Perhaps after Cooper testifies Wednesday we will hear more. O'Donnell was thinking it was more likely that McClellan will be gone.

What I got out of it, is that the JURY is STILL OUT!!

I hope for more!

[Jack Rabbit]

5. You should read Corn's other piece from The Nation yesterday

It was also posted in this forum. To quote from it:

(L)et's put aside the legal issues for a moment. This e-mail demonstrates that Rove committed a firing offense. He leaked national security information as part of a fierce campaign to undermine Wilson, who had criticized the White House on the war on Iraq. Rove's overworked attorney, Robert Luskin, defends his client by arguing that Rove never revealed the name of Valerie Plame/Wilson to Cooper and that he only referred to her as Wilson's wife. This is not much of a defense. If Cooper or any other journalist had written that "Wilson's wife works for the CIA"--without mentioning her name--such a disclosure could have been expected to have the same effect as if her name had been used: Valerie Wilson would have been compromised, her anti-WMD work placed at risk and national security potentially harmed. Either Rove knew that he was revealing an undercover officer to a reporter or he was identifying a CIA officer without bothering to check on her status and without considering the consequences of outing her. Take your pick: In both scenarios Rove is acting in a reckless and cavalier fashion, ignoring national security interests to score a political point against a policy foe.

This ought to get Rove fired--unless he resigns first.

This was another reason McClellan wouldn't comment yesterday. It really doesn't matter whether or not Rove committed a crime. He still leaked the information and that's not good in itself.

As Tim Grieve put it in on Salon.com:

There are still plenty of questions about Karl Rove's involvement in the Valerie Plame case, and we trust that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald will eventually get to the bottom of them. But given what we know today, the very best that anyone can say of Karl Rove is that, on July 11, 2003, he broke the cover of a CIA analyst in order to discredit criticism of the way George W. Bush used intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war.

That's not partisan hyperbole; incredibly, it is Karl Rove's defense.

[ChiciB1]

6. Hey, David Corn Is One Of My Favorites...

I was just commenting on what O'Donnell said.

I hope Corn is RIGHT as RIGHT! And I rarely use the word RIGHT, preferring to replace it with "correct"!

I suppose we'll just have to wait and see! But do I trust "the corrupt ones" and ANYTHING they do??? Not on your life, and they will do ANYTHING to CTA's!!!!

[Jack Rabbit]

7. It ties into what O'Donnell said

EDITED for typing

When O'Donnell talks about Rove's possible wiggle room, he's talking about what might keep Rove out of Leavenworth.

Corn is saying that same wiggle room shouldn't keep him in the White House.

[ChiciB1]

8. Gotcha!

Better that he be BEHIND BARS wearing stripes or an orange jump suit though!

[Ready4Change]

3. They are turtleing. Ducking into shells, hoping it will all blow over.

And I would say it's a foolish response, except they've managed to use it successfully before.

Honestly, how many times during this administration has it seemed "This is the One?" Then a week later we are watching nothin but the Jackson trial, or some such?

The press grilling Scottie on this was heartening to me yesterday. A sign that maybe the press will start meeting it's responsibilities to the American people, rather than it's corporate masters. They must, in my opinion, as their journalistic reputation is seriously in the mud right now.

Time will tell if the fire is stoked enough to drive this administration out of its shell.

[newswolf56]

4. Based on Corn's report, it appears the press is at last...

...beginning to do its Waking Giant act. In fact I think the last time we sat this sort of tag-team effort was during Watergate. Let's hope it continues, not just at WH press conferences, but with all the essential legwork.

[bemildred]

9. "modified limited hangout"

Nixon aides put into play a strategy that they described variously as "a modified limited hangout," and "circling the wagons around the White House" to thwart release of the tapes.

Nixon himself was caught on tape saying, "I don't give a shit what happens. I want you all to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment, cover-up or anything else."

http://www.chron.com/content/interactive/special/watergate/watergate1.html

[Jack Rabbit]

10. I don't think that will work here

We know what Rove did. The only question is whether or not it was criminal. For the time being, that's up to Mr. Fitzgerald; if he decides it was, then it will be up to a jury.

If it wasn't criminal, it was still no way to handle sensitive information. Rove should be fired, even if he doesn't go to prison or otherwise have to answer for this.

[bemildred]

11. Me neither, but what else do they have? They lose on the facts too.

Just like Tricky Dick.

[Jack Rabbit]

12. Right up to the end, Nixon's supporters had a defense for him

I was a young man at the time and didn't think it was a very good one; it was not persuasive. I still don't think it was a very good defense.

Nevertheless, most of the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee -- including Wiggins, Sandman and Lott -- were insisting on a "smoking gun" in order to support the first article and denied that the other two articles recommended by the committee were impeachable offenses, contending that "high crimes and misdemeanors" meant violations of statutory law.

For articles two and three, they were just wrong. Roaul Berger wrote an excellent study of the impeachment process a couple of years before the Watergate burglary that became a best seller as the crisis unfolded. In it, he explored the origins of the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" in British common law and showed that it was applied to officers misusing their trust to stick it to their opposition, which was precisely the subject of article two.

For article one, they were wrong for two reasons. First, the standard of proof for impeachment is lower than that for a criminal trial; they didn't need a smoking gun. Second, even if impeachment did require proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, it should be noted that prisons are full of convicts found guilty on purely circumstantial evidence; one of the convictions of Charlie Manson was case where the body was not recovered until years after the trial. A smoking gun is not required; one of the defecting Republicans on the committee, Lawrence Hogan of Maryland, said he used the criminal standard to come to his conclusion to support the articles.

The opposition to article one collapsed on August 5, 1974, when Nixon released a tape of a conversation between him and Bob Haldeman made days after the break in where they agreed that White House involvement needed to be covered up. This is a smoking gun. Within hours, each member of the judiciary committee who had defended Nixon announced that he would support the article concerning obstruction of justice. Four days later, Nixon left Washington in disgrace.

Personally, I didn't agree with Wiggins and his fellow Republicans who defended Nixon to almost the very end, but at least they had a case to present.

Rove may have a legal defense, but that will only keep him out of prison if it works. The facts are that he exposed a specific CIA operative, if not by name (Valerie Plame) than by a denoting phrase (Joseph Wilson's wife) that could only refer to one person; furthermore, he did this for purely political ends in a way that was damaging to national security. Rove should have taken more care about the facts he was disseminating to Novak, Cooper, Miller and others. At the very least, he should not be working in the White House.

[bemildred]

13. It's amazing how many of those "people" are still around,

screwing things up some more as we speak.

There are still defenders of Nixon and his minions, but not many, and most of them are defending themselves as well. It's worth noticing that there are defenders of Stalin in Russia again. :puke:

Rove may be thrown to the dogs, but the Bushites in general will be defended vigorously, but also disingenuously, as they will lose on the facts.

As back then, much depends on the prosecutor. I am somewhat optimistic at this point, it seems clear that the Bushites incompetence has driven a wedge into the ruling elites former unanimity on things that matter, and thus we can expect a good dustup with plenty of opportunity to get some new blood into the policy elites.

And the discrediting of the Neocons and the Bushites is a thing to be devoutly hoped for in itself. Things are looking up, I think.

[maddezmom]

14. The Nation: Stonewalled In The West Wing (Day2)

David Corn.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I advise all students of political speech to read the transcript of the press briefing conducted by White House press secretary Scott McClellan today. It was a smorgasbord of stonewalling. He entered the White House press room at 1:00 p.m., his eyes darting about, and started off by reading a statement from President Bush on the tenth anniversary of the massacre at Srebrenica. Then the subject changed. Rather abruptly. Reporter after reporter asked McClellan about Karl Rove and the news -- broken by Michael Isikoff of Newsweek -- of a July 11, 2003, e-mail written by Time's Matt Cooper that noted that Cooper had spoken to Rove on "double super secret background" and that Rove had told him that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's "wife... apparently works at the agency on wmd issues." The e-mail is proof that Rove leaked to a reporter information revealing the CIA employment of Valerie Plame (a k a Valerie Wilson).

This puts Rove and the White House in a pickle. Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, says that Rove did not mention Valerie Wilson's name to Cooper. But this is a rather thin defense. (I explain why here, and I also note why George W. Bush, if he takes his own rhetoric seriously, has no choice but to dismiss Rove.) But legal and criminal difficulties aside, the e-mail is undeniable evidence that Rove leaked national security information to a journalist to discredit a critic (Joseph Wilson). How does that square with White House policy as it has been previously stated? Well, it doesn't. And the journalists in the White House press room knew that. Many had a list of previous McClellan statements at the ready. I was there, and I had a list, too. Here are some of the past White House statements I had collected.

On September 29, 2003, Scott McClellan said of the leak (which first appeared in a Bob Novak column on July 14, 2003):

That is not the way this White House operates. The President expects everyone in his Administration to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. No one would be authorized to do such a thing.

more:http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/12/opinion/main708381.shtml