Skip to main content

Rove: Witness for the Prosecution?

Daily Kos: Cooper Contradicts Rove

Some on the lefty blogs think Matt Cooper's testimony shows Rove and his lawyer's claim that "Cooper called Rove and first talked about Welfare Reform" to be false.

Well that is a bit of ridiculous logic. Just because he says something that differs from Rove doesn't make one telling the truth and the other a liar. How the conversation started isn't that important - Cooper called Rove - that's the relevant point. In both cases - whether Cooper talked to 'Scooter" Libby or Rove, it was Cooper that brought up Wilson's wife NOT Rove.

In addition, and hat tip to Powerlineblog, Did you know that Mr. Cooper's wife is Mandy Grunwald, a Democratic Party Strategist? As John Hinderaker of Powerlineblog puts it: "Is that fact relevant to Cooper's "burning" of Karl Rove? It is relevant to Cooper's reasons for disclosing two of his Plame "sources," but declining to disclose the others? Who knows? But isn't this information that the media ought to supply so that we can intelligently evaluate Cooper's actions and motivations?"

For the burn reference read this.Do I think it's a big deal, yes I do. In fact I'm developing a facinating matrix of what is behind this story you won't want to miss. Mr. Cooper has a staring role.

As I posted here, I think there is a greater story coming out of this , but if Fitzgerald does charge someone with perjury it won't be for Rove, but possibly for Cooper. You see, Cooper, not Rove has not been exactly forthcoming in his testimony, nor in what he has written and said to the press. The way I see it - and being trained law enforcement to see when someone is acting "froggy", Cooper is jumping all over the place.

To illustrate here is something Cooper didn't tell anyone:

As Cooper, became talkative this last week, ONLY after obtaining what he said was a "waiver" from Karl Rove - his source. Well, that's not exactly true. Actually he had a waiver from Mr. Rove all along - for the last 18 months to be exact.

Why did he have one? To explain let me give you a little bit of knowledge of how a grand jury works, as I have some intimate knowledge of the process. First a grand jury isn't a trial. It is an investigation before a group of people (the jury) and solicites testimony and evidence to see if there is enough information for an indictment. During grand jury investigation, specifically in the beginning, the prosecution will execute waivers to allow witness to freely testify.

Now, 18 months ago, the special prosecutor authored a waiver that Karl Rove signed that allowed anyone whom he had spoken to relevant to the investigation, could talk freely. Cooper and his attorney were given a copy of that waiver from Rove.

Again, Byron York of National Review takes it from here:

"Luskin also shed light on the waiver that Rove signed releasing Cooper from any confidentiality agreement about the conversation. Luskin says Rove originally signed a waiver in December 2003 or in January 2004 (Luskin did not remember the exact date). The waiver, Luskin continues, was written by the office of special prosecutor Fitzgerald, and Rove signed it without making any changes — with the understanding that it applied to anyone with whom he had discussed the Wilson/Plame matter. "It was everyone's expectation that the waiver would be as broad as it could be," Luskin says.

Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller have expressed concerns that such waivers (top Cheney aide Lewis Libby also signed one) might have been coerced and thus might not have represented Rove's true feelings. Yet from the end of 2003 or beginning of 2004, until last Wednesday, Luskin says, Rove had no idea that there might be any problem with the waiver.

It was not until that Wednesday, the day Cooper was to appear in court, that that changed. "Cooper's lawyer called us and said, "Can you confirm that the waiver encompasses Cooper?" Luskin recalls. "I was amazed. He's a lawyer. It's not rocket science. [The waiver] says 'any person.' It's that broad. So I said, 'Look, I understand that you want reassurances. If Fitzgerald would like Karl to provide you with some other assurances, we will.'" Luskin says he got in touch with the prosecutor — "Rule number one is cooperate with Fitzgerald, and there is no rule number two," Luskin says — and asked what to do. According to Luskin, Fitzgerald said to go ahead, and Luskin called Cooper's lawyer back. "I said that I can reaffirm that the waiver that Karl signed applied to any conversations that Karl and Cooper had," Luskin says. After that — which represented no change from the situation that had existed for 18 months — Cooper made a dramatic public announcement and agreed to testify."


Now here is a question. Why did Cooper wait 18 months to finally come forward and testify? Why did he and Miller get into this 'tango' with the Prosecutor over 'sources', when Cooper and Miller already have waivers to testify? By the way Scooter Libby signed one too - so Cooper could have told "his story" long ago.

People who don't sign waivers have something to hide. From everything we know, Rove has been cooperating with Fitzgerald since the beginning - without restriction. Cooper and Miller have been the cog in the wheels.

Cooper through his attorney seemed awful hestitant and cautioned asking for an additonal specific waiver from Rove.

From this, and my experience, I am going to tell you that Rove isn't the point of this investigation, but Cooper, Miller and some others may have a little bit of a problem.

In addition, and this statement from Rove's lawyer is very telling:

"Finally, Luskin conceded that Rove is legally free to publicly discuss his actions, including his grand-jury testimony. Rove has not spoken publicly, Luskin says, because Fitzgerald specifically asked him not to."

Notice that? When a Prosecutor asks someone NOT to say anything, there is a very good reason for it. It usually means that they are a "Prosecution Witness", not a target or subject. This means that Rove's information has been very helpful to Fitzgerald and thus Rove's testimony may be used against another.

Check out Ed's take at Captain's Quarters Blog - he pretty much it's time for the story to go to pasture.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Calling Mr. Fitzgerald?

**UPDATED AND BUMPED****

As I told you about in this post yesterday as a source confirmed to me that the Justice Department has launched a probe into the NSA leak. Mr. Risen, you are in trouble - prepare your defense. I told you so.

The White House will be announcing the probe at about 12:30pm. My source tells me that this probe will most likely result in another prosecutor being assigned as of course Fitzgerald is still busy/dizzy on the Plame/Game No-Leak. Additionally, other probes into other recent leaks such as the CIA 'prisons'leak is in the works as well. As I said, this is the NEW Bush - on the attack - it's no more Mr. Nice Guy!

About time! Also covering Michelle Malkin

*****End Update*********

UPDATE II: Looks like I owe my source big time as yet another tip comes true as the Washington Post is on the target list as well for the CIA Prison leak.

****End Update II*************************************

Update III: Via Fox: "The government has no legal right to…

Is the lid about to be blown off Able Danger?

Those who have been wishing for a full blown Able Danger investigation are about to get their wish. The "gate" has been unlocked.

9/11 Iraqi Connection

With Democrats calling for yet more investigations into pre-war intelligence, and Republicans like myself pushing back to help their 'sudden amnesia”, the growing stories of Able Danger and even China Gate, are beginning to make news.

The three main theories about why Able Danger hasn't gotten out of the "blog stage", are 1) To hide Clinton era responsibility for stopping the 9/11 attacks, and/or 2) To hide the truth behind China-Gate, or 3) The facts show that there in fact was a direct link between Iraq and 9/11.

Taking either one you can see why the Clinton worshipping MSM for the most part hasn't touched the story. Of the later point, Democrats, the MSM and even some of our investigations state that there was no 'direct' link between Iraq and 9/11. Say otherwise and the MSM will slice and di…

Able Danger - Pulling Back the Covers of the real Clinton Legacy

First, let's dispense with the bull crap. The meeting between Mohammed Atta and Iraqi Intelligence officer Al-Ani, on April 8th, 2001 happened.

Yet, just don't mention it to the MSM, becaue since May of 2002, the MSM declared an all out assault on the story. A meeting incidently, that the Czech government has to this date stood by.

Let's review a little history:

October 13, 2001: Story of the meeting is leaked from somewhere in the Czech foreign service.

yet.....

October 20, 2001: Ny Times, John Tagliabue writes a story citing other Czech officials said the meeting never took place.

so.....

October 26, 2001: Czech Minister of the Interior, Stanislav Gross has a press conference not only confirming the orginal report but giving further details of Atta's other trip to Prague in June 2000.

then.....

October 27, 2001: The NY Times "recants" the October 20th denial.

The story continues it's oddessy of 'back and forth' until May 1st, 2002, when Walter P…