Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Lawrence O'Donnell: The Rove-Luskin Leaks

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-22-05 01:52 PM
Original message
Lawrence O'Donnell: The Rove-Luskin Leaks
In the 21 days since I broke the story that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source, Rove's lawyer, Bob Luskin, has been working the press everyday with a new defense angle that, once committed to print in Newsweek, the Washington Post or the New York Times, gets added to the Republican party's talking points on the scandal. Luskin's first response to my revelation was to say that, well, yes, Rove did talk to Cooper about Joe Wilson's wife but he did not "knowingly" disclose classified information -- knowingly being the essence of Rove's criminal defense (as I have previously discussed).

After getting a lot of embarrassing attention for trying to deny to the Washington Post that Rove was the person who finally gave Cooper a specific release to testify, Luskin has gone undercover and now rarely attaches his name to the defense briefs he dictates to reporters, all of whom would love to use a source other than Luskin but no one in the prosecutor's office is leaking, so they're stuck with Luskin. The Washington Post usually identifies him as a source familiar with Rove's grand jury testimony, but Luskin has managed to negotiate a more indirect label with the Times where he appears as a source who has "been briefed on the case." The Times always points out that the source is sympathetic to Rove. Today's Times piece says that Luskin's latest description about how Rove and Lewis Libby worked together (the prosecutor might say conspired) to respond to Joe Wilson's Op-Ed piece was leaked to the the Times "to demonstrate that Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby were not involved in an orchestrated scheme to discredit Mr. Wilson or disclose the undercover status of his wife, Valerie Wilson, but were intent on clarifying the use of intelligence in the president's address."

more:http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/huffpost/20050722/cm_huffpost/004551_200507221411
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-22-05 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. 4.7 stars on Yahoo. Lets rate it up and up and up.


RECOMMEND THIS STORY

Recommend It:

Average (71 votes)
4.7 stars
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-22-05 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. recommended
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skip fox Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-22-05 03:04 PM
Response to Original message
3. Here's the evidence logic and common sense tell us Rove will be indicted.
It becomes apparent to anyone looking at the emerging facts that Rove orchestrated the KNOWING and DELIBERATE leak of a covert CIA official, one whose identity the agency was actively concealing, as we found out in the past two days.

Each new piece of evidence that reaches the public,in fact, suggests that a number of administrative officials will face multiple indictments in the leak of Plame's identity. Rove will receive probably more than one.

1. The inanity and hysteria of the RNC's (and others') spinning has been noted by reporters across the nation as indicative a party which "off its game." Expecting a terrible outcome, they had been stalling for time, hoping the Supreme Court Nominee would bump the story off the front pages. (For a day it did . . . until Walter Pincus's story yesterday about classifications on the State Department memo sent to Air Force One.) Now they're just stalling. Al Franken told us yesterday (7/21) that after some difficulty he was able to demonstrate to the RNC staff that the story on their web-site which states Wilson claimed the Vice President sent him to Niger was simply false, a lie (showing the context for Wilson's quote yet again). What was the RNC's reaction? "We're standing by it." Simple as that. My point is, when they are willing to be so consciously and blatantly dishonestin public (which can be used against them) they are very distressed about the future.

2. We know there were at least 6 initial reporters contacted (including Novak, Miller, Cooper, and Pincus) and that 3 of those contacted called at least one secondary source the confirm the story (Cooper implies he had more than single confirming source named as Scooter Libby). We know that Cooper's initial source (Rove) specifically released him, but that Miller's would not do so for her. Since we already know Novak's initial source is Libby, there would be no reason for him not to release Miller if he were her source (unless the crime was more obvious). Therefore we know that there were two (Libby and Rove) initial sources and probably at least another. Already we are deeply into the terrain of collaboration. But when we realize that to have 3 confirming sources available, since the "conspiracy" (it becomes the unavoidable word) could not insure who the reporters would call to confirm their stories, they had to have several primed (ready and willing to confirm). (Of course a confirming source for one reporter could be a primary course for another.)

Impossible to accomplish these 9 (or 9+) calls by at least 2, probably 3 or more initial callers, with others ready to confirm, without coordination. Designing a plan for leaks wouldn't be rocket science for Rove's Machiavellian machine he calls a mind, but it certainly would be mastery of Rove of all people in the administration (probably composed of the White House Iraq Group) that would assign him a leadership role. Rove, then, would direct (mastermind) the entire, making sure no two officials attempted to act as an initial source for a single reporter (that would appear too eager), that the story be believable (pitched nonchalantly, briefly), that the story is given in slightly different forms, and that the confirming sources were in place and with the story somewhat different in non-substantive matters (so it doesn't sound like story leaked by rote.) Therefore it was deliberately leaked.

3. We know Rove has had multiple visits by the FBI and to the grand jury. The implication is as loud as it gets.


4. The State Department memo, said to be at least one origin of the information concerning the Plame-Wilson-Niger connection and reputedly of high interest to the grand jury, was reported by Wlater Pincus yesterday to me clearly marked "S" for "Secret." Today's reports in fact indicate it was marked "TS," "Top Secret." Therefore the official who disseminated the identity from this source was highly aware that the CIA was actively trying to conceal Plame's identity. Therefore it was knowingly leaked.

Therefore, RNC's spin, the numbers of callers, the deliberate and repetitive acts, Rove's visits with FBI and grand jury, and the knowing intent behind the leak = Rove will go down in Plames. Likely he is guilty of leaking (with knowledge), leading a conspiracy to leak, and perjury.

There's no way out of this for Rove. The best he can hope for is the softest landing t5hat does the least damage for other officials and the Republican Party. (On a hot summer afternoon?)

(Is he even now checking over a draft of his pardon with his lawyer after having drafted a brief and terse resignatin letter?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC