larry o'donnell names karl rove as leaker

"I revealed in yesterday's taping of the McLaughlin Group that Time magazine's e-mails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper's source. I have known this for months but didn't want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.

Making that astounding revelation is MSNBC political analyst, and Democratic Washington insider Lawrence O'Donnell.

Today, O'Donnell went further in the Huffington Post:

"Since I revealed the big scoop, I have had it reconfirmed by yet another highly authoritative source. Too many people know this. It should break wide open this week. I know Newsweek is working on an 'It's Rove!' story and will probably break it tomorrow."

Time Magazine was ordered last week by the Supreme Court to give up files relating to reporter Matt Cooper's information outing CIA agent Valerie Plame. They've complied with a big file dump for the grand jury investigating this crime.  NY Times' Judith Miller was also ordered to submit her sources to the special prosecutor, but is continuing her refusal to do so.

(Robert Novak, the grumpy conservative fogey and Adminstration mouthpiece actually published this information (neither Cooper nor Miller did) but has been not been ordered to reveal his sources. He's been closed-mouth on all this, letting his liberal colleagues take the heat and ostensibly go to jail. (Now we know why, the prick).

Karl Rove, of course, is one of president's men (if not THE president's man) and if this is true, it could lead at the very least to a perjury rap for the born-again loser and dirty tricks guru. Or maybe more:

"The breadth of [Special Prosecutor] Fitzgerald's inquiry has led to speculation that it has evolved into an investigation of a conspiracy to leak Plame's identity," the Chicago Tribune observed on Friday, "or of an attempt to cover up White House involvement in the leak."

It's hard to believe that Bush himself was not aware of this, if true, and ultimately isn't culpable as well.This makes the Downing Street Memos look like circumstantial evidence.

Plame's CIA identity allegedly was leaked to pay back her husband, former Ambassador Joe Wilson who blabbed to the press that the Niger/yellow cake uranium story (that he'd traveled to Niger to investigate for the Administration) was apocryphal.

This was not the desired conclusion for Bush's political operatives, and it pissed off them off.

So someone--now reportedly Rove--compromised national security, endangered lives and on-going CIA operations for pure political spite and malice--hallmarks of Rove's past political style, surely, but certainly no excuse for treasonous action.

Maybe Rove hates America.

This crime makes Watergate look like a 3rd rate burglary. If it can be traced so directly to the highest echelons of the White House, investigations with Watergatelike gravity must now begin.   

Watch for right-wing talk radio to totally ignore this for as long as they can, and then they'll begin reslashing on Joe Wilson and his wife; tearing down former Clintonite Larry O'Donnell, and casting nasturtiums on prosecutor Fitzgerald's investigation. 

Simultaneously, they'll underscore in puffy, heart-warming adjectives, Rove's Christian Sunday school teaching and deep fundamentalist faith, his excellent parenting skills, and his brilliance as an "information specialist" for his close friend, George Bush.

Take  it Sean...

Comments

[ExDem]

This sounds interesting. I guess the question is this - was there some law that was broken? Regardless of who leaked this person's name, I'm wondering if a crime was committed. From what I understood previously, it is a crime to reveal the name of an undercover agent of the CIA (or has been in that role within the previous 5 years). It is not a crime to reveal the name of a person who works at the CIA in roles like an analyst. So I guess this will all come to a head soon.

One thing that has not really been clarified is whether Valerie Plame was an undercover agent. Apparently, at the time this whole story first broke, she had a kid that was over 3 years old. There has been speculation that with her pregnancy + the age of her kids + her recent roles as an analyst at the CIA that she hadn't been an undercover agent for over 5 years, if ever at all.

So, if there was a crime committed, then we should see some charges brought against the leaker. If no crime was committed, then I guess it's much ado about nothing.

[blathering Michael]

With all due respect, Exdem, you're repeating the Republican spin from last year...a law definitely was broken. Valerie Plame's ID, for whatever reason, was classified by the CIA. That's why the Justice Dep't, in an investigation begun by Ashcroft, is investigating this--they took it all the way up to the Supreme Court, for god's sakes. When such a blatant violation of nat'l security laws is broken so publically, even Bush's justice bureaucrats can't ignore them.
'Much ado about nothing,' is the typical reaction Bush apologists have for the most egregious of his administration's actions. Please read ALL THE PRESS about this, not just the filtered crap you hear from Rush and Sean.

Remember: I love you man, thanks for reading, writing...

[ExDem]

Blathering Michael,

Since you are the one listening to all of the talk radio programs, I'll take you at your word if you say I agree with Rush and Sean. I tend to get my information from the News Tribune, MSNBC and Wall Street Journal, and that's where I've learned about this.

If this truly is an example of a crime, then it just points out the need to reduce the size and power of government. Seems that the people in the highest offices just can't resist the urge to use the power of the government to hold power. It angers all of as citizens when we find out about Presidents using the power of their office to strike at their enemies. Whether it's the Clintons using FBI files and the IRS to go after their political opponents or Nixon's involvement with the Watergate break-in, it appears we can't trust big government.

I think we can all agree that less government with less power at the top is good for all Americans.

[blathering Michael]

How would reducing the size and power of government have any effect on human's propensity to strive to win no matter what.

That's what's demonstrated here--not too much big gov't power.

How would that work to change this particular situation? Do you want to get rid of the CIA, the presidency? Get rid of gov't altogether?

By the way, how can you small gov't libertarians support a president who has amassed more executive power, grown the biggest federal gov't to date, and presided over more gov't growth and spending than any predecessor? And all this with the resulting record-breaking deficits? Bush does not make sense to real conservatives. His and Rove's ability to convince folks such as your self to support these policies despite your self interest, and conservative principles, is where the real genius lays in this administration...I don't hate Bush, I'm truly afraid of him.

[chris]

http://tinypic.com/6ixhtu.jpg

[ExDem]

Blathering Michael,

It's your fear of government that our founding father's had in mind. They never envisioned a federal government that was so big and powerful. That way, the "propensity to strive to win no matter what" would be limited in it's negative effect.

I agree that the current administration spends too much. Despite the success of the tax cuts in bringing in more tax revenues, the spending continues to grow. As a percent of the GDP, the deficit is nowhere near record size. The dollar amounts of the deficit are larger, but the percentage is not. A loaf a bread is also much more expensive that when I was a kid, but it doesn't cost a greater percentage of my food budget than it did for my parents.

Instead of more federal government, the idea the founders had was that the state and local government would be where the majority of governing occured. Heck, when John Adams was president, he spent half of the year working his farm in Massachusettes because the federal government didn't need to be hanging around the capital.

When more of the governing occurs closer to home, that allows the citizens to be more aware of what's happening. Your fear of Bush is probably the same fear you had when Clinton was in office - the nature of having such a large, centralized government naturally breeds that fear.

Real conservatives would prefer less growth of government and less spending I don't think real liberals would make the same statement.

[sparky]

Hmm I wasnt a bit scared of Clinton. Never been afraid of a hard-on in my entire life.

Clinton did not see his role in life to bring on Armegeddon...thats what scares me about Georgie....

[chris]

Who is a "real" conservative these days?

[blathering Michael]

Sparky: you're a girl after me own heart (or whatever). You made me laugh again...
Chris: there conservatives like Bob Barr,Pat Buchanan, and others who absolutely reject either the Christian Right's or the neocons' hijacking of the GOP and the conservaive movement. I know both of these guys are assholes, but they are real critics of the Bushites and there are more that I can't think of right now...Read Philip Gold's book,"Take Back the Right," or there's a good piece by him in the Seattle Weekly: http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0237/news-gold.php

[chris]

I know Goldwater would be spinning in his grave right now, but that dosen't help much. It would be nice if Buchanan et al would come out and say if Downing St...If Karl Rove or someone else leaked these...then shame on them but I have yet to hear much from them. I feel that most of those are only critical to a point for fear of giving up some of those vices the republicans still crave like absolute power and record deficits.

[ExDem]

Sparky,

The Communists loved people like you. You appear comfortable letting the government take more power and make decisions about what is good for the people. People that love liberty reject that notion - that's why we fought the Communists for the last half of the 20th century. What a dark place the world would have been if the Communists had actually won.

Enjoy your independence day on this 229th anniversary of one of the greatest events in human history. God bless America!

[chris]

Geezus exdem, is the Supreme Court who made last weeks decision om land-taking through eminent domain part of the 'big government' communist cabal? You still haven't given a good reason for the 'patriot' act but then Hitler liked this sort of activity back in the day. I like the fancy dress Bush had on today btw..http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/07/04/national/04bush.184.jpg

[ExDem]

Chris,

Since you don't see the obvious reason behind the Patriot Act, like average Americans do, then I'll spell it out for you. When it comes to survival, Americans prefer living with some additional precautions vs trying to be nice and letting terrorists skirt past any legal intervention. Again, you don't seem to understand that the Patriot Act merely extends legal powers that have been in place for decades for purposes of pursuing illegal drugs and the mafia.

The enemy has made it quite clear. They want to kill innocent people. They will crash planes into buildings, they will detonate bombs in public places and they will behead hostages. When people like you propose that there is a better way to deal with these sort of people and the threat they pose, average Americans see you as unable to take the tough measures needed to protect our citizens.

Since the Patriot Act is such a horror in your eyes and the Bush administration is so evil, why don't you list out the top 5 examples of actual abuses the government has placed upon us citizens since the Act passed? When liberal Senator Diane Feinstein was asked about this, even she admitted that her office had fielded hundreds of calls from concerned citizens and NOT ONE actual case of any abuse. Maybe you have some secret examples that the press and our elected representatives haven't shared. So, please, share those at this time. And prove once and for all how evil Bush and his administration are. We're all eagerly waiting....

[chris]

No, I actually find it distressing to have Condi read from an August 2001 memo saying " binLaden determined to strike targets in America" at about the same time the Phoenix Memo came out in which several of the Saudis were training at flight schools. Why do we need the Patriot Act when this adminastration ignores intellegence? Bush claimed last week that he wont let another 9-11 happen on his watch, but thats excately what did happen on Sept.11th BTW: Bush's approval ratings are at a all time low, just 6 months after the election, how come?

[ExDem]

Chris,

Sticking to the original point about the Patriot Act, you're saying that you can point to no reported abuses of the Patriot Act to date. In a country of 280 million people over a period of almost 4 years, you cannot point to one example of an abuse.

Thanks, I just wanted to confirm if there was any rational basis for your disdain of the Patriot Act. The answer is No.

[sparky]

Im a Communist because Im not afraid of hardons and Im not happy that Georgie thinks he is called by God to lead us to Armegeddon? Wow...get my my hat with the little star on it
:-)

Please dont lecture me on small government when the Patriot Act lets the government snoop into my life with no reason other than they think they might need to.

The Government has no business determining my health choices, my television viewing and radio listening choices or what does or does not go on in my bedroom. All the TRUE Republicans I know agree with me.

[sparky]

Justice Department investigators found that 34 claims were credible of more than 1,000 civil rights and civil liberties complaints stemming from anti-terrorism efforts, including allegations of intimidation and false arrest. ( this is old news ex-Dem, from 2003. Im surprised you did not hear about it.)

A report by internal investigators at the Justice Department has identified dozens of recent cases in which department employees have been accused of serious civil rights and civil liberties violations involving enforcement of the sweeping federal antiterrorism law known as the USA Patriot Act.
Or this from Ed Grimm: My personal pet peeve is the Treasury Department's abuse of PATRIOT, as part of investigations having absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.

For instance, I represent a small Internet service provider. Over a year ago, they received from the Customs Service (part of Treasury) a subpoena for a customer's personal information. The Subpoena purported to be about some buzz-word called "cybersmuggling" (how do you smuggle stuff over the Internet? -- perhaps we're closer to Star Trek transporters than I ever imagined!), and had no apparent connection to terrorism.

And, of course, Customs insisted that we must not tell anyone else about their Subpoena (don't want anyone to scrutinize and question what the Government is doing, I suppose). I've provided a redacted copy of my response letter to Customs (revealing no details of the investigation or the subject) to Chilling Efffects, and even they appear to be afraid to publicize this abuse. ( From ZMetro.com)

And then there was the report to Sen. Feinstein this spring from the ACLU:
According to reports, the Patriot Act has been used to:

* Secretly search the home of Brandon Mayfield, a Muslim attorney whom the government wrongly suspected, accused and detained as a perpetrator of the recent train bombing in Madrid.
* Charge, detain, and prosecute a Muslim student in Idaho, Sami al-Hussayen, for providing "material support" to terrorists because he posted to an Internet website links to objectionable materials, even though such links were available on the websites of a major news outlet and of the government�s own expert witness in the case.
* Serve a National Security Letter (NSL) on an Internet Service Provider (ISP) so coercive under the provisions of the NSL statue that a federal court struck down the entire statute - as vastly expanded by the Patriot Act - used to obtain information about e-mail activity and web surfing for intelligence investigations.
* Gag that ISP from disclosing this abuse to the public, and gag the ACLU itself, which represents the ISP, from disclosing this abuse to the public when ACLU became aware of it, and from disclosing important circumstances relating to this abuse and other possible abuses of the gag, even to this very day.
* Investigate and prosecute crimes that are not terrorism offenses, even though it cited terrorism prevention as the reason Congress should enact the law, and cites terrorism prevention as the reason why it cannot be changed.

The ACLU noted that some of these powers were available to law enforcement before 9/11, but that they were vastly strengthened or broadened by the Patriot Act. The expansions made by the Patriot Act facilitated each abuse.
And finally this, from AmericaFreePress.net:
One of the most troubling portions of the act is Section 215, which permits law enforcement to conduct unlawful searches and seizures without a warrant and without probable cause. This section allows the government
to obtain records on clients and customers from libraries, bookstores, doctors, universities, Internet service providers and other public entities and private sector businesses.

What is most troubling about Section 215 is that it imposes a gag order prohibiting an organization forced to turn over records from disclosing the search to their clients, customers or any third party.

The result is vastly expanded government powers to rifle through an individual’s finances, medical histories, Internet usage, library usage, school records, travel patterns and through records of everything imaginable concerning the target of the investigation.

Critics claim the Patriot Act has “torn the Constitution to pieces” and its powers totally obliterate freedom of speech, protection against unlawful search and seizure, right to counsel and right to a speedy trial..

To combat civil rights abuses, three states and over 180 cities and counties nationwide thus far have passed resolutions expressing concern or modifying the act. The state legislatures of Alaska, Hawaii and Vermont have passed resolutions opposing provisions of the Patriot Act.

The American Library Association has also taken steps to warn patrons and protect them against unwarranted government surveillance of library records and usage, allowed without a warrant under the Patriot Act on mere suspicion, not probable cause.

Unfortunately, the Department of Justice (DOJ) first under John Ashcroft and now under Alberto Gonzales has waged a media campaign to mislead the American people, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).