Thursday, July 14, 2005

Karl Rove's Sources

According to an AP report,

Presidential confidant Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he learned the identity of a CIA operative originally from journalists, then informally discussed the information with a Time magazine reporter days before the story broke.

Rove reportedly testified that Robert Novak, who originally broke the story of the identity of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, told him who she was. Rove, who didn't even know her name, then repeated what Novak told him to Matthew Cooper of Time in a passing reference to a story he was working on. Rove also testified that he may have heard the same thing from another reporter before he spoke to Cooper.

If this is true, then it is not possible that Rove violated the law protecting the identities of covert CIA officers, assuming Valerie Plame qualified for that designation. More than that, repeating vague information heard from one or more journalists to another journalist logically isn't even a leak.

I'm more and more amazed by the vitriol spewing from the left over this issue, especially when so few facts are publicly known. It's likely they're going to end up looking like fools by the time this is over.

And by the way, the anonymous source of this AP report "spoke only on condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of grand jury proceedings." Revealing that information is probably illegal. The reporter should be forced to identify the source, and the source should be investigated and, if appropriate, charged.

5 Comments:

Blogger Zipcard2 said...

The libs won't like to hear that. All their hopes and dreams down the toilet. Good! Thanks for the update Tom! Have a great day! *smiles*

1:33 AM, July 15, 2005  
Blogger MaxedOutMama said...

Queep! The law about grand jury proceedings is only supposed to apply to Republican politicians, Tom. You're still not getting it, are you?

I'm not very confident about anonymous sources, but I am content to leave this with the grand jury. One way or another, they'll have to decide based on the law and the testimony.

In other news, I do believe a couple of Sandy Berger's purloined secret memos are still missing, right?

2:49 AM, July 15, 2005  
Blogger Storm Trooper said...

Thanks for the nice comments! I appreciate it. Not many people comment on my site.
Take Care.

4:27 AM, July 15, 2005  
Blogger Kevin said...

Tom,

I don't remember such a lynch mob about Sandy Berger's actual violation of U.S. Law, when he removed classified documents from the Archives.

9:21 AM, July 15, 2005  
Blogger Gindy said...

The shameful thing is that he was already convicted in the court of public opinion by certain party heads.

12:11 PM, July 15, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home