Rove has an easy out — which he’ll no doubt ignore

July 5, 2005

Over the holiday weekend, the investigation into the scandal surrounding the White House and Valerie Plame took an entertaining turn when reports surfaced that Karl Rove was, in fact, one of the leakers who exposed the identity of an undercover CIA agent.

The e-mails surrendered by Time Inc., which are largely between Cooper and his editors, show that one of Cooper’s sources was White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, according to two lawyers who asked not to be identified because they are representing witnesses sympathetic to the White House.

Since then, as I noted yesterday, Rove has hidden behind his lawyer and carefully-worded denials, including claims that Rove never “knowingly” disclosed classified information and he never told a reporter that Plame “worked for the CIA.”

But that hasn’t stopped the questions, which Rove doesn’t want to answer.

Two days after his lawyer confirmed that his name turned up as a source in Matthew Cooper’s notes on the Valerie Plame/CIA case, top White House adviser Karl Rove refused to answer questions about the development today.

Rove traveled with President Bush when he spoke at a July 4 event in West Virginia today, but refused all requests for interviews about his role in the controversy that threatens to send Cooper, of Time magazine, and Judith Miller of The New York Times to jail this week for refusing to reveal sources…. Outside the presidential rally in Morgantown, one protester made reference to the case, holding a sign that read: “Jail Karl Rove,” according to a New York Times dispatch.

As it turns out, Rove can make all of these questions go away if he wants to. All he has to do is talk about what he told the federal grand jury.

As MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell, who helped break the story on Friday evening, noted over the weekend:

Rove would not let me get one day of traction on this story if he could stop me. If what I have reported is not true, if Karl Rove is not Matt Cooper’s source, Rove could prove that instantly by telling us what he told the grand jury. Nothing prevents him from doing that, except a good lawyer who is trying to keep him out of jail.

O’Donnell’s not the only one making the argument. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) also called on Rove to address the questions and, if the charges are false, clear his name.

Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, said that while there is no evidence that Rove leaked the identity of Central Intelligence Agency operative Valerie Plame to reporters, Rove should address the matter himself instead of issuing denials through his attorney.

“I think the American people would feel a whole lot better if Karl Rove himself got up and made a statement that he did not leak the information, nor did he order anybody else to leak the information,” Schumer said on ABC’s “This Week.” “That would totally clear his name.”

And yet, so far, Rove is suddenly shy. Newsweek reported that there is “growing ‘concern’ in the White House that the prosecutor is interested in Rove.” Sounds like the fears are well justified.

Memo to Self (Rove):
College pranks on the CIA are a bad thing.

  • What’s especially interesting is that, clearly, Rove feels no compunction about lying; the situation here makes it clear that he’s so afraid he’ll be caught lying, he feels forced to stick with very carefully-worded “denials” from his lawyer. He’s stuck.

  • And what of Chimperor’s “instruction” to his staff to cooperate, and claims that no one wants to get to the bottom of this more than him? Their (Chimpy and Rove) silence is somewhat deafening.

  • If we go with what the lawyer has already tacitly admitted (that Rove gave Plame to Cooper, but that it was not a “knowing” disclosure of classified information), then he still ought to have to resign, even if it wasn’t technically illegal. Outing a NOC ought to at least cost you your job.

  • Try this on for size: I believe the investigator asked for all relevant emails on the subject, but only at the start of the investigation – which I believe came in September or October. Word had been out that there would be an investigation and I believe there was talk about giving people time to “destroy” evidence. I know what the computer guys will say, you can never destroy an email, but what if the request for Cooper’s notes and emails was actually an attempt to find out what the White House destroyed. If they knew that Rove and Cooper emailed each other, but only Cooper handed them over, would we be in for an obstruction of justice turn in the case?

  • Alex,

    I think you may be on to something with your hypothesis. it sure fits the facts better than any I’ve seen. FWIW.

  • If you destroy evidence before an investigation begins, is it still obstruction? That would be nice, if true.

  • White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove

    In his official capacity, all records are public records, including emails, correct? So destroying records would itself be a crime, particularly to cover up a potentially treasonous felony.

    The bottom line is what this does to their credibility. If the Dems stay on the attack, this makes BushCo a liability in ’06 for vulnerable (i.e., up for re-election) Republicans. And the more of a liability support for BushCo becomes, the less they’ll be able to do as the House and Senate move away from the WH policy line.

  • Eadie,

    I think he was just an “advisor” to the president at this time not in any “official capacity”. Whether that matters or not, I don’t know. IIRC, though, he was technically not a member of the administration.

  • “Rove gave Plame to Cooper, but that it was not a “knowing” disclosure of classified information”

    So Joe Wilson’s wife becomes “fair game” by Rove for her critical position as what…an Avon Saleslady? Tupperware’s top producer? Housewife of the Year? 2005 Pillsbury Cooking award winner in the cassarole catagory?

    What innocuous unclassified acomplishment by Ms. Plame was potent enough to gin up Rove’s vengeful wrath.

  • Alex,

    Interesting theory.

    Particularly since the delay in evidence-keeping is largely traceable to the advice of one lawyer. Some guy named Abu Gonzales, who waited at least overnight before he passed on instructions from DOJ not to destroy evidence. Wouldn’t that put the kabosh on his SCOTUS hopes, an Obstruction of Justice indictment?

    As far as Rove’s status in the White House. I suspect Gonzo’s instructions would have applied to him–after all, Rove had an office in the White House; if we’re paying his rent, he ought to have to cough over evidence. But I’ve long been thinking that Rove’s recent change in status (from informal advisor to Deputy Chief of Staff) might serve a reverse purpose here–give him some kind of executive privilege status, at least with regards to revealing to Fitzgerald discussions within the White House about how to respond to the case.

    • Comments are closed.