There’s one paragraph in particular from Matt Cooper’s Time article that will be scrutinized and dissected from every angle.
Rove never once indicated to me that [Plame] had any kind of covert status. I told the grand jury something else about my conversation with Rove. Although it’s not reflected in my notes or subsequent e-mails, I have a distinct memory of Rove ending the call by saying, “I’ve already said too much.” This could have meant he was worried about being indiscreet, or it could have meant he was late for a meeting or something else. I don’t know, but that sign-off has been in my memory for two years.
This strikes me as a I’m-not-a-crook line.
All last week, the pro-Rove spin was an evolving narrative. Rove didn’t know Plame’s name … he didn’t “knowingly” identify her … he got the information from Novak, instead of the other way around … he first learned about Plame from a reporter, but he doesn’t remember which one.
This five-word sentence, however, says a great deal about Rove’s understanding at the time. He knew what he was telling a reporter was a problem; that’s the only reason for a person to say they’ve “said too much.” Cooper very generously suggests Rove may have meant it to say he was late for a meeting, but has anyone, anywhere, ever heard someone say they’ve “said too much” in this context? Of course not.
It’s not complicated. As Mark Kleiman put it, “I’ve already said too much” means “I have already said things I shouldn’t have said.”
There’s no other reasonable explanation. Rove knew full well he was taking a step too far, thus the need for “double super secret background” status. Arguments that Rove was innocently trying to help a reporter steer clear of a publishing a mistake are absurd.