BoarSpear

Novak: Rove was a source in outing Plame

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 48 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Columnist Robert Novak said publicly for the first time Tuesday that White House political adviser Karl Rove was a source for his story outing the identity of
CIA officer
Valerie Plame.


In a column, Novak also says his recollection of his conversation with Rove differs from what the Rove camp has said.

"I have revealed Rove's name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection," Novak wrote. Novak did not elaborate.

A spokesman for Rove's legal team, Mark Corallo, said that Rove did not even know Plame's name at the time he spoke with Novak, that the columnist called Rove, not the other way around, and that Rove simply said he had heard the same information that Novak passed along to him regarding Plame.

"There was not much of a difference" between the recollections of Rove and Novak, said Corallo.

Novak said he is talking now because Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald told the columnist's lawyer that after 2 1/2 years his investigation of the CIA leak case concerning matters directly relating to Novak has been concluded.

Triggering the criminal investigation, Novak revealed Plame's CIA employment on July 14, 2003, eight days after her husband, White House critic and former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the administration of manipulating prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction.

Novak's secret cooperation with prosecutors while maintaining a public silence about his role kept him out of legal danger and had the effect of providing protection for the Bush White House during the 2004 presidential campaign.

The White House denied Rove played any role in the leak of Plame's CIA identity and Novak, with his decision to talk to prosecutors, steered clear of potentially being held in contempt of court and jailed. Novak said he had declined to go public at Fitzgerald's request.

In a syndicated column to be released Wednesday, Novak says he told Fitzgerald in early 2004 that Rove and then-CIA spokesman Bill Harlow had confirmed information about Plame.

Contacted Tuesday night, Harlow declined to comment. But a U.S. intelligence official familiar with the matter denied that Harlow had been a confirming source for Novak on the story. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Harlow repeatedly tried to talk Novak out of running the information about Plame and that Harlow's efforts did not in any way constitute confirming Plame's CIA identity. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because Harlow may end up being a witness in a separate part of Fitzgerald's investigation, the upcoming criminal trial of Vice President
Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, on charges of perjury, obstruction and lying to the
FBI.

In his column, Novak said he also told Fitzgerald about another senior administration official who originally provided him with information about Plame. Novak said he cannot publicly reveal the identity of that source even now.

"I have cooperated in the investigation while trying to protect journalistic privileges under the First Amendment and shield sources who have not revealed themselves," Novak said in his statement. "I have been subpoenaed by and testified to a federal grand jury. Published reports that I took the Fifth Amendment, made a plea bargain with the prosecutors or was a prosecutorial target were all untrue."

Rove's role in the scandal wasn't revealed until last summer when Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper disclosed that Rove had leaked him the CIA identity of Wilson's wife. Cooper cooperated with prosecutors only after all his legal appeals were exhausted and he faced jail.

While Rove escaped indictment, Libby has been charged with lying about how he learned of the covert CIA officer's identity and what he told reporters about it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060712/...cia_leak_novak

jubaji

See posts #8, 9, & 14

__________________
Optional signature you may use to appear at bottom of your posts.

GonzoStyles

Thank you for your lack of substance Jubaji, you didnt bother to address one of the subjects I asked you to, I guess if you have no answers silence on the issues at hand is a good alternative. Your previous posts did not address the facts (If you believe any of the points I made false or misleading please elaborate) they simply claim that they are open to "Interpretation"
Then please tell me how YOU see this action Jubaji? Id love to hear your "spin" on the subject, please include some actual facts in the body of your rebuttal. It would be nice.

jubaji

I pointed you toward posts #8, 9, 14, and now that I think of it, 11 because they contain the points that are relevant to this discussion. In light of those points, there isn't much more to say until or if more information comes to light that alters any of those points.

__________________
Optional signature you may use to appear at bottom of your posts.

Mr. Arieson

I wish I had a million bucks to wager. If I did, I would say this. If Clinton was president, and some of his staff were involved in outing a CIA agent, I bet one million dollars that jubaji and other conservative republicans (or whatever you call yourselves) would not hesitate even for one minute in calling for heads to roll.

If Clinton was president and had sent troops to Iraq, Jubaji and other would be saying "Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11--this is a 'wag the dog' type situtation."
Rush Limbaugh would be smacking his hands in frustration on the golden E.I.B desktop saying "he he he, folks, Iraq had NOTHING to do with9/11, and that's something these liberals can't hide from, he he he"

Rightists as a matter of routine put thier agendas ahead of thier country.

Take David Koresh, for example. This scumbag was screwing children and storing lots and lots of guns. But because it was Janet Reno under Clinton who ordered the raid, somehow it all got turned around and the "government" is the bad guy.

Rightists do this kind of stuff all the time.

Liberals may be naive, but at least thier hearts are in the right place. Liberals may be stupid sometimes (with the extremes of political correctness, etc) but they are not evil and bad people like the rightists, who called a war veteran like Kerry a "french" (another word for "gay") and exused Bush's lack of involvement in Vietnam.

Honestly, how Vietnam veterans who actually did thier time in nam can defend the son of a rich guy who never went there, is beyond me.

I don't care if it was a photo-op for kerry. At least he was there.

I have one rightist friend who had the balls to tell me "do you know how dangerous it is to fly a jet"? (trying to excuse Dubya's non-Vietnam service over the gulf of Mexico) Well, Pilots do it all the time, every day. And it's dangerous, yes, but not so much when no one is shooting at you.

I guess Kerry was well protected on that swift boat going up rivers, huh?

And before you say I don't know what I am talking about, I was in the Army for 4 years, which is 4 years longer then Dick Cheney and the other war-hawks.

jubaji

You'd be out a million bucks, you f-ing hypocrite.

__________________
Optional signature you may use to appear at bottom of your posts.

Mr. Arieson

Really? A hypocrite? You mean that you, Jubaji, would staunchly defend these people if Clinton was in charge, and they were his guys? really? You would stand up for truth and justice no matter what party they belong to?

And how am I a hypocrite? I can't stand Bush, but if he does something good for the country, I am happy about it. If he is honestly defending us and keeping us safe, I am even happier about that. I don't want my family blown up in an office building, you dig?

Same can't be said for you, of course. People like you probably will defend your guys right or wrong. Of course, I don't know that with 100% certainty, because I don't know you. I can only guess about you: You are probably fat, middle aged, lots of guns around the house, budweiser cans, lot's of american flags on your car, etc. support the troops..rah rah rah.

Fact is, I would like dearly to see your very first post to this deluxe martial arts forum, where you state all your views and experiences. Please provide the link so we can see where you are coming from, instead of having to guess based on your 9 word responses and insults and cute little emoticons. I would like to know how wrong I am about you. After all, when that pie-hole nutter made ethnic slurs about you, I was one of the first to defend you.

Show us your very first post to this forum, where you say "Hi, I am Jubaji. I study the following martial arts_______my interests and hobbies are_____"

C'mon Jubaji. Lets see who you are!

jubaji

Go troll for dates somewhere else, you hypocritical, presumptuous, partisan idiot.

__________________
Optional signature you may use to appear at bottom of your posts.

jubaji

You are a hypocrite for denouncing partisan attitudes on one side, while in the same breath demonstrating a partisan attitude on the other. Clear enough, idiot?

__________________
Optional signature you may use to appear at bottom of your posts.

Mr. Arieson

Nah, I am married, troll.

I kind of knew in advance you would not be able to put up or shut up.

Everyone here knows you for what you are. All talk. It's been pointed out time and time again. The only ones that defend you are the ones that think it might be cool to take your side.

Not one of my questions did you intelligently reply to. Not one. I hope everyone sees this post. I don't think you even read what I said.

Like I said, you are either a middle aged right winger, or a teenager. No way are you a thoughful, reasonable intelligent person.

Give me a finger again, please. It hurts my feelings so much, you know?

Pathetic.

I don't have to even worry about thinking you have "won" this one. All you need to do is look in the mirror, and you already know you have lost. Big time. After all, there is no way you are a man or respect or honor like Mike Brewer (obviously a partisan republican-I respect him regardless) you are what you are, Jubaji. A loser. A troll. Not a nice person. A deeply unhappy person. Oh sure, smug and arrogant on the outside, but inside,hurting deeply because no one really likes you very much.

jubaji

Presumptuous idiot. This crap is straight out of boarspear's 'if you have nothing to say about someone, just guess and then respond to that!' handbook

As far as I can recall, no one here has made ethnic slurs that apply to me personally.

__________________
Optional signature you may use to appear at bottom of your posts.

Mr. Arieson

Where did I do that, troll? I am a dem, that's true, but I will vote for Mcain or Guiliani in a heartbeat over Hilary. If I was truly a partisan, I would not say that.

Nope, try again, troll.

Mr. Arieson

yeah, they did. Nutter was calling you certain anti-semetic variations of your user name. I thought that was uncalled for. I said so. In fact, I quit the forum until he was banned.

BoarSpear

Or jubaji and treelizard combined with them.

jubaji

Who the F do you think you're kidding that you actually posed any serious questions? You can't believe that everyone is as stupid as you. You came here with an agenda and a little prepared partisan rant. How cute! No one could see through your clever approach! Give it a rest, hypocrite.

__________________
Optional signature you may use to appear at bottom of your posts.