From: Adam Flinton 

Gary Britt wrote:
> The real facts if anyone is interested...................
>

Chuckle. You mean the smokescrren attempt.

>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507121626.asp
>
> Luskin told NRO that the circumstances of Rove's conversation with Cooper
> undercut Time's suggestion of a White House "war on Wilson."
According to
> Luskin, Cooper originally called Rove — not the other way around — and said
> he was working on a story on welfare reform. After some conversation about
> that issue, Luskin said, Cooper changed the subject to the weapons of mass
> destruction issue, and that was when the two had the brief talk that became
> the subject of so much legal wrangling. According to Luskin, the fact that
> Rove did not call Cooper; that the original purpose of the call, as Cooper
> told Rove, was welfare reform; that only after Cooper brought the WMD issue
> up did Rove discuss Wilson — all are "indications that this was not a
> calculated effort by the White House to get this story out."
>
> "Look at the Cooper e-mail," Luskin continues. "Karl
speaks to him on double
> super secret background...I don't think that you can read that e-mail and
> conclude that what Karl was trying to do was to get Cooper to publish the
> name of Wilson's wife."
>

Excuse me? Was Cooper security cleared? Did Rove receive permission to make
these statements to a non-priviledged person?


> Nor, says Luskin, was Rove trying to "out" a covert CIA
agent or "smear" her
> husband. "What Karl was trying to do, in a very short
conversation initiated
> by Cooper on another subject, was to warn Time away from publishing things
> that were going to be established as false." Luskin points out that on the
> evening of July 11, 2003, just hours after the Rove-Cooper conversation,
> then-CIA Director George Tenet released a statement that undermined some of
> Wilson's public assertions about his report. "Karl knew that that [Tenet]
> statement was in gestation," says Luskin. "I think a fair
reading of the
> e-mail was that he was trying to warn Cooper off from going out on a limb on
> [Wilson's] allegations."
>

Uh huh. Really. I think this is simply a lawyer trying to defend his client.


> 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.
>

Because if not & if cooper went public the damage would be even worse?


> 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.
>

MRD.


> 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.
>
> A few other notes: Luskin declined to say how Rove knew that Plame
> "apparently" (to use Cooper's word) worked at the CIA. But
Luskin told NRO
> that Rove is not hiding behind the defense that he did not identify Wilson's
> wife because he did not specifically use her name. Asked if that argument
> was too legalistic, Luskin said, "I agree with you. I think it's
a detail."
>
> Luskin also addressed the question of whether Rove is a
"subject" of the
> investigation. Luskin says Fitzgerald has told Rove he is not a
"target" of
> the investigation, but, according to Luskin, Fitzgerald has also made it
> clear that virtually anyone whose conduct falls within the scope of the
> investigation, including Rove, is considered a "subject" of the probe.
> "'Target' is something we all understand, a very alarming
term," Luskin
> says. On the other hand, Fitzgerald "has indicated to us that he takes a
> very broad view of what a subject is."
>
> 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.
>

How nice. He's such a sweetie.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5