Miller, who never wrote about the case, was subpoenaed by Fitzgerald to testify about conversations she had with "a government official" about Wilson and Plame between the publication of the Wilson article and that of the Novak column. Fitzgerald has asserted that the unnamed official has given a general waiver permitting Miller to testify; the journalist has said she does not believe the waiver was signed voluntarily.
Los Angeles Times, July 8, 2005.
Patterico points out that the news that Miller, like Cooper, got a waiver from her source is buried after the jump in the Los Angeles Times story. It does not appear at all in today's stories in either the LA Times or the New York Times.
Apparently, Fitzgerald not only knows the source but has gotten a waiver from the source. Miller does not dispute those facts but adds that the waiver was involuntary, further implying that it was the prosecutor who got it.
From these facts, the following conclusions seem logical:
1. The investigation is no longer focused on who the source is.
2. The investigation is not aimed at proving that the source perjured himself. If the source has signed a paper admitting he was the source, that would be enough to prove perjury if he is one of those who testified. Miller's testimony is unnecessary.
3. The source is unlikely to be one of those who have testified. The only slim possibility would be if the source testified truthfully that he was the source.
Following the last slim possibility, for it to be Rove, we'd have to believe the following:
Rove was the source.
Rove testified truthfully he was the source but claims no illegality in whatever he did.
Fitzgerald wants Miller's testimony because he is looking to prove it was a leak that fits within the statutory prohibition.
Fitzgerald got Rove to sign the waiver under duress.
Fitzgerald got Rove to sign the waiver under duress?
Given the underreported "involuntary" waiver by the source, I see no scenario that leads to Rove being the source. I'm open to suggestions though.
Edited: LI
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Anon
The entire premise of your post is based on a basic misconceptions surrounding this first "waiver."
The waiver in question (the one that was allegedly signed under "duress") was the one that the President required every official in his administration to sign at the start of the grand jury investigation that released potential subjects of the investigation from their confidentiality agreements with the reporters at the heart of the case.
It is evident that both Miller and Cooper believed that this first waiver was useless, and could be contested as having been signed under duress because it was ordered to be signed by a boss and President.
This is why Cooper and Miller were holding out for a specific, voluntarily-drafted waiver from their source, something Cooper got at the last minute, which is why he agree to testify. Miller never got such a thing and went to jail.
You also seem to be under the impression that signing a waiver of this sort is the same as signing a confession. They aren't the same at all.
I don't know how I feel about Rove's guilt or innocence, but, playing Devil's Advocate, it's still entirely possible that:
(1) Fitzgerald knows who the leak was. The only reporter to actually out Valerie Plame was Robert Novak, and it is suspected that he squealed to the grand jury early on, which is why he's completely fallen off the radar in this scandal. Novak's original article states that his sources for Plame's identity were two administration officials, and one of those could easily have been Rove.
(2) Fitzgerald is now trying to determine the intent behind the leaks. Was it accidentally dropped in casual conversation between Novak and his Source, or was it part of a concerted push by the administration to retaliate against a political opponent? This is why Miller's and Cooper's testimony, as well as the testimony of the other journalists who went before them, is vitally important, as it can determine whether this was a campaign to out a CIA agent or a case of Capitol Hill gossip. Here it could be entirely possible that a reporter or two could come forward and testify that Rove said to them it was "open season" on Joe Wilson's wife, and change the tone of the trial completely.
(3) Rove signed the waivers and is still the source. If Rove's lawyer Luskin's statements to the press from last weekend are to be believed, Rove WAS Cooper's source, but they are going to rely heavily upon the "knowingly defense" (as in, "I did not knowingly out an undercover CIA agent"). This also meshes well with the report from the New York Times that Cooper's decision to testify because of the last-minute waiver that, suspiciously, came right after lawyers for Rove and Cooper met.
(4) Fitzgerald is considering perjury charges. Based on the details of Cooper's notes and emails, Fitzgerald may find that while it can't be proven that the Source knowingly outed an undercover CIA agent, perhaps the Source's earlier testimony is at odds with what this late-breaking evidence suggests.
2 - RJ
Whoever did it, regardless of their intent, must go. If they don't leave, the media and the Dems will be relentless for months and months and months, and this will damage the President and the GOP going into the 2006 election year...
3 - gonzo marx
so, do i understand that it is not because of breaking a federal Law that you want them gone...but for strategic political reasons?
Excelsior!
4 - RJ
For both reasons, GM.
I don't want to offer my support to a felon (like the Dems did when they defending perjurer BJ Clinton), and I don't want the Dems to retake the Congress.
5 - p'lukasiak
Walter Pincus's recent disclosures strongly suggest that the White House knew of the Wilson/Plame connection in 2002. Pincus says that he was told the White House ignored Wilson's conclusions because "it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife."
The reference to the "White House" suggests that Pincus's source (whom he does not name) was someone in the White House (as opposed to Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff).
Most people seem to assume that the effort to discredit Wilson through the allegation that Plame got him the assignment assume that the effort started with Wilson's NY Times column. But based on what Pincus has to say (and the stories about how "everybody knew" that Plame worked for the CIA) that effort was initially made in 2002 in order to discredit Wilson among the decision-makers in the White House.
Which puts a whole new twist on this story, doesn't it?
6 - Nancy
Breaking news: it is confirmed that Cooper's source WAS Rove, & that Rove repeatedly mentioned Plame, although TECHNICALLY (I love this guy) not by name, instead referring to her as "Wilsons' wife". So he could, therefore, "truthfully" claim he had "never mentioned her name" to Cooper.
How typical of the GOP/Bush administration. And they have the gall to whime & point fingers at Clinton for lying? All Clinton lied about was a fling w/a loose screw - no threat to anyone but himself. BushCo, on the other hand, thinks nothing of committing deliberate perjury, endangering US interests & citizens for personal gain, & violating US law in order to achieve their various ends, such as smearing someone too outspoken about their lies.
The sooner the Bush GOP is out of the white house the better. There ARE good, decent republicans out there; they just aren't being given any say in this administration.
7 - Justene
Still not making logical sense. It is Rove, he perjured himself and then allows Cooper to testify with a last minute phone call?
He doesn't make a similar phone call to Miller?
8 - andy marsh
actually RJ...on that clinton issue...I was just at the red cross last week dontating blood...they now have a prety specific list of what constitutes sex...and the one thing that wasn't on the list was receiving oral gratification...so...according to the red cross...he never had sex...at least he'd still be able to donate blood! not that monica was or is a dirty girl...
9 - Sarah Van
Rove didn't break any laws by telling Cooper that it was Wilson's wife who strongly suggested that he be sent to Niger. It was done to show what a farce the entire trip was from beginning to end. I don't have a problem with the WH disclosing the origins of the trip as an effort to discredit Wilson since he came back and LIED about what happened. If Wilson/Plame were so worried about her identity being known, they shouldn't have ginned up a fake mission on the taxpayer dime and lied about the results. Let's see the media focus on that.
10 - gonzo marx
Sarah,
why so defensive?:..we have no idea of the extent of wrongdoing yet..the nivestigation is still underway, and most of the pertinent testimony is sealed..
all we do know is that Novak printed the name of a CIA operative in th epaper, and he quoted 2 WH sources
let's agree to wait utnil the Investigation is finished, eh?
then Prosecute those Responsible to the fullest extent of the Law
fair enough?
Excelsior!
11 - Josh Narins
Rove is the leaker.
There is simply no other way to interpret this Newsweek article.
And I quote
"Rove's words on the Plame case have always been carefully chosen. 'I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name,' Rove told CNN last year when asked if he had anything to do with the Plame leak. Rove has never publicly acknowledged talking to any reporter about former ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife. But last week, his lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed to NEWSWEEK that Rove didâ€"and that Rove was the secret source who, at the request of both Cooper's lawyer and the prosecutor, gave Cooper permission to testify."
12 - Deeno
Ha! So much for neo-Fascist appologist logic, Justene. Now please explain logically why, if Rove knew the inner workings of the CIA with respect to his unproven smear of the Wilson Africa trip, he could possibly NOT know that Plame was an undercover agent? The oldest jailhouse lawyer trick in the book is "I didn't knowingly break that law." And also please explain why this probable federal crime is not a lot more significant than a few similar lies about a 3rd rate burglary thirty four years ago? We now know for sure it was the workings of the "highest levels of the White House". Anyone who believes that Bush didn't know of and approve Rove's 999th dirty trick is a dupe.
13 - Temple Stark
Sarah, I'm sorry but Wilson did not lie about his initial findings. I thought we were waaaaaaay past that in the discussion.
14 - Dashiel
Sarah--You don't have one fact in your comment. You need to read about this case from the beginning. I'm afraid you've fallen for some right wing disinformation which gives you zero credibility.
15 - Justene
Deeno, I have not claimed once that Rove did not know Plame was undercover.
I am trying to figure out how Rove is the source, testified truthfully or not, then let Cooper testify truthfully but does NOT let Miller do so, even as his lawyer says his general waiver is good enough.
There are disconnections between Cooper testifying but Miller not testifying and between Rove waiving confidentiality and the prosecutor still needing testimony. Those disconnections have not been explained at all by either those who think he did something knowingly or those who say he was spreading gossip.
As I recall, it was Republicans who talked Nixon into resigning when it was clear he had crossed the line. I do not recall Democrats doing the same when Clinton did so.
I haven't apologized for anyone. Try to keep up.
Consider this warning one on the neo-fascist language.
16 - tom
Sounds like the "source" that threw a lifeline to Cooper knew via some lawyer crunch session that he did not make the same "mistake" with Cooper that he had done with Miller.
On the otherhand I've read a number of comments by right-wingers in other forums suggesting that she was getting her "just deserts", so it may WELL just be a matter of "he didn't HAVE to do so, so he didn't" ;)
17 - gonzo marx
Justene sez...
*As I recall, it was Republicans who talked Nixon into resigning when it was clear he had crossed the line. I do not recall Democrats doing the same when Clinton did so.*
apples and oranges here...huge difference between Watergate and a blowjob...both ethically, and legally
an interesting discussion on an important Issue...let's not get sloppy and spill some partisanship all over it, from either side
just a Thought
Excelsior
18 - tom
gonzo marx said...
"huge difference between Watergate and a blowjob..."
...and a "war"
19 - Temple Stark
But how can we feel in the gaps of the timeline and the facts. The "why" is, perhaps, quite obvious but the historical record and the timeline is missing something.
20 - gonzo marx
we can't yet , Temple
most of the info required is still sealed under Grand Jury at the moment..
until we can see the record of Novak's and other's testimnonies, as well as the records turned over to the prosecutor...all is mere speculation
Excelsior!
21 - Justene
Clinton -- perjury about sex in a sexual harassment case. He was disbarred.
That said, I left the Republican party because of Nixon and left the Democratic party because of Clinton. I've also softened on both of them since.
The point was that republicans will turn on Rove if there are goods.
22 - Justene
Just desserts does not explain why Miller says the waiver is not voluntary and Rove's lawyer says Rove's waiver releases them.
My current working theory -- Novak had TWO sources. Cooper talked to Rove. Miller talked to the other one.
So my statement is better phrased "logically, Rove is not MILLER'S source." None of the confirmed reports contradict that and I do not think, based on what we do know, that it makes sense that Miller is in jail for Rove.
23 - gonzo marx
very dubious ground attempting to prove a negative
i still assert we do not have enough Facts as of yet to accurately draw any conclusions, much less to do the near impossible according to the Rules of Logic by proving a negative
just a Thought...
Excelsior!
24 - Justene
Yes, but the facts leading to Rove as Miller's source are internally inconsistent. I started this discussion not to prove a negative but to see if there are other theories that would explain the inconsistencies. Waiting and seeing is one option. Discussing it is another.
25 - gonzo marx
without a larger percentage of the available facts and tesimony, as well as evidence gathered...there cannot be reasonably intelligent discussion...merely speculation
i have no problem with speculation, it is a harmless pass time, and could prove fascinating a read, as well as something to create a betting pool from...
but i digress...my interest in this particualar Article stemmed form the use of the word "Logically"...followed by a word "not"
that brought a smirk to this olde smart ass' face...hence my reference to the logical fallacy of attempting to prove a negative
so, thanks for the discourse...soory to interrupt, just making a feeble attempt at clarity
we now return you to your regularily scheduled program...
Excelsior!