Question on Rove OKing Cooper to tell that he was the source

[American liberal]

Please forgive me if I am being redundant. I haven't been to these boards in a while. Please feel free to direct me to threads that discuss this issue. But here goes: Why would Rove tell Cooper it was OK to reveal him as the source unless he knew he had an airtight alibi? I can't help but put on my tinfoil hat and think that this is all coming out now because there is something even MORE heinous the admin. is trying to cover up. Rove may be the biggest asshole in politics (IMHO), but he's not stupid. What's his agenda?

[FormerRepublican]

1. Hmmm...

I don't think Rove really WANTED to release him. The first blanket release was pressured by Fitzgerald. Then Rove's mouthpiece got a little carried away and said in the Wall Street Journal that Rove had released everybody and if Cooper was protecting anyone it wasn't Rove. That's when Cooper's attorney got on the phone with Luskin and the two lawyers worked out a second specific release to allow Cooper to testify.

I don't think Rove wanted him to testify. I think Luskin painted him into a PR corner and there was nothing he could do except give Cooper a specific release so Cooper could testify.

[American liberal]

2. thanks, but...

can you provide a little more back story? Sorry, but I am a late comer to all this. I know H20man has written tomes about all this, but I am not yet up to date. Please excuse my ignorance. Did Luskin (I'm assuming Luskin is a special prosecutor?) force Rove's hand during the "special investigation" McClellan keeps talking about? Thanks in advance for helping me get up to speed.

[FormerRepublican]

3. Luskin...

...is Rove's attorney. Fitzgerald is the special prosecutor.

When Fitz was first appointed and he started to go after folks in the White House, he got everyone to sign a blanket release that reporters could talk to the Grand Jury without violating confidentiality.

Reporters felt that waiver was coerced and didn't really release them from their confidentiality obligation.

So, after the article appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Cooper's attorney talked to Rove's attorney (Luskin) and got the waiver specifically for Cooper.

Since this happened after the email outing Rove had been leaked to Newsweek, I doubt Rove was happy that Cooper was going to testify, but he had no choice except to release Cooper because Rove looked too guilty if he didn't release Cooper from his obligation of confidentiality.

[klyon]

4. don't forget that Time Mag. had already turned Coopers' notes over

Rove had nothing to loose giving Cooper a release.

Question are:
Who is the other leaker?
Where did they get the info?
Who else new or was involved?

KL

[Damn Hippie]

5. Thanks

For explaining this. I too was curious why Rove would release Cooper to testify. I was paranoid that Rove was up to something, knowing that he was "safe" and this was all part of "the plan" to screw with our minds.

But maybe the plan went out of control when Luskin shot his mouth off to the WSJ and as Rove's personal attorney, ended the "coerced waiver" defence when he reiterated the waiver to make the point that Rove is innocent and fully cooperating.

Whoops.

[American liberal]

7. Thank you so much

for taking the time to spell it out. I get it now.

[writes2000]

6. Time Magazine Released Cooper's Emails Which Named Rove as Source

When that happened and the American press and public heard that it was Rove. Politically, Rove had to appear as though he had nothing more to hide.