Robert Kuttner has second thoughts on Plame leak case

[WilliamPitt]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/07/13/second_thoughts_on_leak_case/

...not what you think...

Second thoughts on leak case
By Robert Kuttner | Boston Globe
July 13, 2005

LAST WEEK in this space, I implied that the special counsel in the Valerie Plame leak case, Patrick Fitzgerald, might be protecting the Bush administration. It made no sense, I argued, that New York Times reporter Judith Miller was going to jail for protecting a source, while columnist Robert Novak, who first published the leak, either had revealed his source to Fitzgerald and thus solved the case or should be under similar threats but wasn't. Ergo: Fitzgerald was going after the press rather than the White House.

Wrong on all counts. In 20 years of writing columns for the Globe, I've had to print minor corrections, but this is the first story I really booted. I owe readers and prosecutor Fitzgerald an explanation and an apology.

Here's what we've learned:

First, Fitzgerald is playing it straight. Novak has apparently testified -- otherwise he'd be in jail with Miller. Fitzgerald has extensively investigated Bush officials. Karl Rove has likely testified, too.

I reasoned that Fitzgerald needn't subpoena other reporters because Novak could tell all. But after doing more reporting, I've learned that the reality is far more complicated.

...more...

[mod mom]

1. It's ok Will, we still love you and glad you were wrong on Fitzgerald. We

need these dirty neocon bastards to fall into the gutter!

[WilliamPitt]

2. Me?

Nope. Kuttner. I've felt good about this guy since he first showed up.

[mod mom]

11. Sorry, I read in haste, wanted to get back to the McCellan Roast on

another thread. Sorry for the mis-read.

[BurtWorm]

4. Will is citing Robert Kuttner

not referring to himself. We still love Robert Kuttner, too, right? ;)

[H2O Man]

3. Great!

Interesting article; thanks for posting it.

Will, I'm curious what you think the chances that Mr. Fitzgerald has or might want to talk to Scotty McClellan about his conversation with Mr. Rove, in which Karl assured him he didn't have anything to do with the leak to reporters?

[shelley806]

41. Interesting point...Surely this has been dicussed somewhere?...nt

[H2O Man]

44. Where? n/t

[Career Prole]

5. Excellent piece! n/t

[Walt Starr]

6. EXCELLENT READ!

Kicked and nominated!

[Marnieworld]

7. Awesome!

When does anyone write such a complete retraction? Very admirable of him. Please God let this be a sign of more to come.

[insane_cratic_gal]

8. Thank you, Will

was well worth the read.

[Goldmund]

9. Wow

Just wow.

[Alizaryn]

10. Great article.

I agree with the logic.

[Cash]

12. Judith Miller needs to sing.

Who was her source? That could sew this whole thing up.

[Ganja Ninja]

15. Judith sit in jail while Rove tries to spin his way out of the mess ...

he made. Meanwhile Scotty takes the heat from the White House press corp. This is a situation that can't go on for very long. Sooner or later somethings bound to happen. Scotty resigns, Judith cracks, one or both. Ari Fleisher sure saved himself a lot of headaches when he quit. He must have seen all this coming.
:popcorn:

[Ravy]

31. In a perfect world, here is what would happen..

She would say, "the vice-president told me this..."

"Bush's pudgy deputy chief-of-staff told me this..."

That way she doesn't ever have to "name" her sources and her ethics are preserved.

*grin*

[NewJeffCT]

34. good one

I mean, saying "Bush's Vice President" doesn't mean she is naming names. I mean, who knows who she could be talking about?

[KoKo]

13. I'm glad to read what Kuttner says

because I've been so skeptical of Fitzgerald because he was appointed by Asscroft. Knowing how insular the Bush Administration has been and that Asscroft was part of the whole Evil Empire of Corruption, I couldn't understand how Fitzgerald would have been chosen if he was "honest."

Kuttner's article makes me feel a little better about "Fitz." Still, I wonder how he could have "fallen through the cracks" with Asscroft. Unless we have some help that we don't know about here. :shrug: An "insider" who managed to hoodwink Asscroft into thinking Fitz would be in their pocket.

[ProfessorGAC]

22. Look Into Fitzgerald's Work In Illinois

If you knew what he did here, you wouldn't have worried. He almost singlehandedly destroyed the GOP in Illinois because he got all the way to the bottom (or is that the top) of the License Scandal here and the GOP melted down because of how many big fish he hooked. They're still in disarray!
The Professor

[TacticalPeek]

45. Fitzgerald was not appointed by Ashcroft. Crisco Man recused himself.

Fitzgerald was selected by the 'career' head of the criminal division of the DOJ, IIRC. Ashcroft may have rubber-stamped it, but he had no choice.

:evilgrin:

[xxqqqzme]

14. salient point which CMC is ignoring (not a BIG surprise)

"...In the Alice in Wonderland world of the Plame-Rove story, Judith Miller, who worked hand in glove with the Bush administration to publish bogus stories about Saddam Hussein's alleged nuclear program, is a hero -- for going to jail to protect, once again, her friends in the administration. And Time-Warner, which turned over Matt Cooper's notes (for the wrong reasons -- Time-Warner's corporate interests -- but that's another story) is the villain. Yet it may be Cooper's testimony that finally sinks Rove. So who's the hero and what's the public interest?..."

(CMC=corporate media clique)

[seemslikeadream]

16. He must have become a conspiritist!

"The reality is far more complicated."

:rofl:

[leftchick]

17. It is wonderful to see this in print!

he lied, they all lied....:woohoo:

~snip~

So Rove is playing word games. What he said was literally true -- but a lie, since a reporter given this tip could easily identify Wilson's wife. Whether or not he used her name, Rove was deliberately outing Plame. If he played the same word games before the grand jury, he's in trouble.

The White House spinners also contend that Plame was not really a clandestine and protected CIA agent because she worked at CIA headquarters. This is also nonsense. Plame, a specialist on weapons of mass destruction, was under cover when she undertook sensitive missions. She was not identified as CIA. Blowing her cover harmed her career and put her at risk.

And he calls Miller What she is, a mouthpiece for the WH! :wow:

~snip~

After a week's reporting and reflection, I also suggest a different view of press privilege and the public interest. In the Alice in Wonderland world of the Plame-Rove story, Judith Miller, who worked hand in glove with the Bush administration to publish bogus stories about Saddam Hussein's alleged nuclear program, is a hero -- for going to jail to protect, once again, her friends in the administration. And Time-Warner, which turned over Matt Cooper's notes (for the wrong reasons -- Time-Warner's corporate interests -- but that's another story) is the villain. Yet it may be Cooper's testimony that finally sinks Rove. So who's the hero and what's the public interest?

Bravo, Bravo!!

[ginnyinWI]

18. why Judith Miller isn't talking

I don't think it's the "protecting sources" thing. I think either: 1) she wants to prove her loyalty to the Bush Adm. and keep her inside access, or 2) she's afraid of certain "consequences" for herself or her family if she talks. :scared:

[wrate]

24. Or both. n/t

[leftchick]

35. I think it is because of how much she knows

and it isn't just about the Plame outing. She is a PNAC/neocon/BFEE mole in the media.

[spooky3]

19. Excellent column, and I have more respect for him for apologizing.

A great paragraph that says it all:

As Michael Kinsley has observed, not all leaks are created morally equal. It's one thing for reporters to protect a brave whistle-blower who has taken personal risks to serve the public interest. It is another thing for reporters to collude with the powerful to punish the whistle-blower, in this case Joseph Wilson, and his wife, an innocent bystander.

(on Sunday, I posted a link to Kinsley's column in the WaPo--it was pretty good)

[Jacobin]

20. He "gets it"

Finally a journalist looks at the whole picture, puts aside his own particular interests, and explains it so it can be understood.

Standing ovation.

[IndyOp]

21. This op ed gives me hope that Wilson & Plame will be

recognized as the heroes that they have been.

BUT - does anyone have any idea *why* the WH is allowing this to come out? Why did Matt Cooper's source - Rove - give him permission to testify? Rove is outing himself - why? Because he believes that nothing will happen to him? Because even if he is 'fired' he will still run the WH from a remote location? Because there is something bigger happening and we are all paying attention to RoveGate?

:shrug:

[progressoid]

25. Why? A little too much hubris I think

Karl has gotten away with so much I think he under the delusion that he will again. The scary thought is that he might actually do it. He may have other cards up his sleeve to play. Heck there is always the good old standby: 'a WH intern or Scooter Libby did it'.

Frankly, I think they (Rove and the WH) are very worried but have to put on airs of cooperation for PR.

I too am worried that they will walk on a technicality. Time for a stiff drink.

[IndyOp]

28. It would be great if this were a finale for Rove -

he have been caught (again) and, perhaps, this time so publically that he won't be able to recover.

I think it is past the point at which they can point at someone else. Cooper gave a mini-press conference after he testified today and said on live TV that Rove was his source. (See posts #3 and #5) --
<http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1925947#1925970>

The scary thought is that he might actually do it.

Yep. They might admit every detail and nothing happens or Rove leaves after a big party at the WH and becomes a martyr to the rightwingnuts without this having made a dent in the reputation (or duration) of the * administration.

[Garbo 2004]

27. Cooper's story of the dramatic permission from his source was drama.

Rove, like other gov't officials, was previously ordered to sign agreements waiving confidentiality. This as a show from the WH that they have nothing to hide. (uh huh)

Cooper's "dramatic release" was basically his attny talking to Rove's attorney who reiterated that Rove had signed the waiver and that it applied to Rove's conversation with Cooper as well. (And remember Time mag had already turned over Cooper's email to his boss recounting his conversation with Rove.) Thus Cooper gets to save face, portraying it as some dramatic last minute "personal" release from his source to testify. Theater.

(Did anyone else read amidst all the coverage that Cooper's other profession is as a stand up comic? Journalism is just his day job. No kidding. I read that in the WaPo I think.)

[Shakespeare]

36. Nope, you've got the details wrong RE the "dramatic release."

This NYT story from Monday is pretty revelatory (and shows that Cooper's decision was not "theater"), but many on DU seem to have missed it:

WASHINGTON, July 10 - Matthew Cooper, a reporter for Time magazine, stood before a federal judge on Wednesday, facing up to four months in jail for refusing to testify about a confidential source. But he told the judge that he had just received a surprising communication from his source that would allow him to testify before a grand jury investigating the disclosure of the identity of a covert C.I.A. operative.

"A short time ago," Mr. Cooper said, "in somewhat dramatic fashion, I received an express personal release from my source."

But the facts appear more complicated than they seemed in court. Mr. Cooper, it turns out, never spoke to his confidential source that day, said Robert D. Luskin, a lawyer for the source, who is now known to be Karl Rove, the senior White House political adviser.

<snip>

Around 7:30 on Wednesday morning, Mr. Cooper had said goodbye to his son, resigned to his fate. His lawyer, Mr. Sauber, called to alert him to a statement from Mr. Luskin in The Wall Street Journal.

"If Matt Cooper is going to jail to protect a source," Mr. Luskin told The Journal, "it's not Karl he's protecting."

That provided an opening, Mr. Cooper said. "I was not looking for a waiver," he said, "but on Wednesday morning my lawyer called and said, 'Look at The Wall Street Journal. I think we should take a shot.' And I said, 'Yes, it's an invitation.' "

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/politics/11time.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1121101388-7Lej0FuwUQBqfz4bKvIQ1Q&pagewanted=print

I happen to be acquainted with Matt Cooper--he does indeed do stand-up at DC's Improv on occasion, but it's not exactly a "profession" for him. His Time gig is his JOB-job, not his "day job."

[Garbo 2004]

37. Yeah I previously read the article and read this portion also:

In court shortly after 2, he told Judge Thomas F. Hogan of the Federal District Court in Washington that he had received "an express personal release from my source."

That statement surprised Mr. Luskin, Mr. Rove's lawyer. Mr. Luskin said he had only reaffirmed the blanket waiver, in response to a request from Mr. Fitzgerald.


The lawyers were involved, including Fitzgerald, not the principles directly and I believe there was another article somewhere that provided a bit more info. Cooper's statements made it sound like the source was on the horn saying go ahead. That's apparently not the way it was. Lawyers talked, the general waiver was reaffirmed.

Certainly it was dramatic to Cooper, since he thought he was going to jail, but a lawyer's reaffirmation of the general waiver isn't the same as a source directly personally expressly saying to him "go ahead and talk." In fact if all Lushkin did is reaffirm the general waiver, it's not clear to me that it would suffice as a specific personal OK from the source if the general waiver previously was not enough to allow him to testify. It does seem a bit of an easy out which Cooper grasped at rather than a dramatic last minute specific personal release directly from the source. Unless you have other info...

At any rate, for Cooper's efforts and concerns regarding protecting a source, as you know Lushkin then "rewarded" him (as in "no good deed goes unpunished") with this sort of thing: http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507121626.asp They'll trash anyone.

[Shakespeare]

39. No, the lawyers did NOT talk that morning.

Luskin is referring to a previous conversation with Cooper's attorney regarding the blanket waiver. What actually moved Cooper to agree to testify was that Cooper's attorney called him at 7:30 the day he was due in court to say whether he would or would not testify--and he was fully prepared to go to jail that morning--and called Cooper's attention to Luskin's comment in the WSJ.

The comment was that if Cooper was going to jail to protect a source, it wasn't Rove they were protecting (a bit too much bravado on Luskin's part). They generously interpreted that as an "invitation" to reveal Rove as the source; Luskin has since accused Cooper and his attorney of misinterpreting the comment and of "burning" him and Rove.

[Garbo 2004]

40. That's an even more tenuous basis to claim a specific personal release to

testify given Cooper's previous statements, if accurate, reported per the article:

Later, Mr. Waldman asked whether Time's disclosures and a blanket waiver form his source had signed were enough to allow him to testify. In an e-mail message on Tuesday night, Mr. Cooper said he believed the forms could have been coerced and thus worthless.

The only thing that would do, Mr. Cooper wrote, was a "certain, unambiguous waiver" from his source.
-------

So was the "certain, unambiguous waiver" from his source that Cooper allegedly required to free him to testify was Cooper and his attorney reading Lushkin's comments printed in the WSJ like tea leaves????

And if that's the case, how does that square with Cooper's statement that he received "an express personal release from my source" to testify?

That makes the "last minute dramatic express personal release to testify" bit even more of an exaggeration for dramatic effect. Some might even use the word "fabrication."

[Shakespeare]

42. Gee, you sound like you're on Rove's side.

They had a blanket waiver in place already, but felt uneasy about depending on that. When Luskin shot his mouth off, Time took him up on the challenge. It wasn't a fabrication; it was calling a bluff, and the only side left in a bad position over this is Rove's side. If Luskin didn't mean what he said, then it becomes obvious that Rove had something to hide. Too late now...

[Garbo 2004]

43. LOL, oh yeah right, anyone who questions the press is on "Rove's side."

Please.

What "bluff" was called? Lushkin's statement that Rove had already signed the blanket waiver and so if Cooper was protecting someone it wasn't Rove? Rove and his lawyer have been saying he didn't have anything to do with outing Wilson's wife and was in the clear for about 2 years. They've been bluffing for a long time. Time's emails already revealed that Rove was the source Cooper was shielding. Fitzgerald already knew that. And Cooper still testified based on the general waiver. Not on some personal specific release from his source as he publically suggested. More like "when my source's attorney shot his mouth off we parsed his language and managed to infer the agreement of confidentiality was null and void."

I have no problem with Cooper testifying. But Lushkin's comments did not constitute the conditions under which Cooper previously said he would testify. Lushkin spun and so did Cooper.

[tblue37]

38. Actually, Rove's lawyer

blabbed carelessly to the WSJ, and Cooper and his lawyer used those words as an out for Cooper to testify about Rove. Afterwards Luskin was very taken aback that his comments ahd been interpreted that way by Cooper and his lawyer.

Rove didn't mean to release Cooper at all.

Josh Micah Marshall covers this on his Talking Points Memo blog:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com

[bear425]

23. Love it. Thanks. n/t

[Hubert Flottz]

26. Thanks, I needed that.

Good News...How long has it been since we have read anything so very nice? I was feeling like this might blow over like all the other shady things the rat pack has managed to quash. After watching Scott blow it like he has the past two days, I just feel different about this story. I really think this will be the azz biter we've been looking for!

This could lead to the making of a bigger case against some bigger fish than Karl. Maybe conspiracy to instigate a war in Iraq, by knowingly using bogus Intel! I mean, there should be some way to nail someone, who causes the death of over a hundred thousand people and the expenditure of 300 billion dollars, simply because that someone, knowingly lied to congress, the American people and the United Nations.

[dchill]

29. Journalistic integrity will be a HUGE issue...

over the next weeks & months. John Roberts and David Gregory have gripped this fact already, as have others - more will follow soon. Kuttner gets it.

Reporters (and so-called pundits) would do well to realize that a growing faction of the public is catching on to the Rove case, and are expecting them to do their job: find the truth, tell the truth and defend this country. To do otherwise (like the Republican National Committee under Ken Mehlman) would be treason.

[Pacifist Patriot]

30. Wow, just wow.

[mmonk]

32. I'll give Kuttner a pass

and kudos for his admissions.

[in_cog_ni_to]

33. A journalist with integrity.

Those are far and few between.

His last paragragh......

The other journalistic moral of the story: Do your reporting before you write the column. I hope it's another 20 years before I have to write another such apology.

Nice. Very nice. A journalist who can actually amit he was wrong.... Sweet!