NYT: Prosecutor Narrows Focus on Rove Role in C.I.A. Leak

[sabra]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/04/politics/04rove.html

Prosecutor Narrows Focus on Rove Role in C.I.A. Leak

WASHINGTON, Nov. 3 - The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case has narrowed his investigation of Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, to whether he tried to conceal from the grand jury a conversation with a Time magazine reporter in the week before an intelligence officer's identity was made public more than two years ago, lawyers in the case said Thursday.

The special counsel, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has centered on what are believed to be his final inquiries in the matter as to whether Mr. Rove was fully forthcoming about the belated discovery of an internal e-mail message that confirmed his conversation with the Time reporter, Matthew Cooper, to whom Mr. Rove had mentioned the C.I.A. officer.

Mr. Fitzgerald no longer seems to be actively examining some of the more incendiary questions involving Mr. Rove. At one point, he explored whether Mr. Rove misrepresented his role in the leak case to President Bush - an issue that led to discussions between Mr. Fitzgerald and James E. Sharp, a lawyer for Mr. Bush, an associate of Mr. Rove said.

...

One lawyer with a client in the case said Mr. Fitzgerald could be skeptical of Mr. Rove's account because the message was not discovered until the fall of 2004. It was at about the same time that Mr. Fitzgerald had begun to compel reporters to cooperate with his inquiry, among them Mr. Cooper. Associates of Mr. Rove said the e-mail message was not incriminating and was turned over immediately after it was found at the White House. They said Mr. Rove never intended to withhold details of a conversation with a reporter from Mr. Fitzgerald, noting that Mr. Rove had signed a waiver to allow reporters to reveal to prosecutors their discussions with confidential sources. In addition, they said, Mr. Rove testified fully about his conversation with Mr. Cooper - long before Mr. Cooper did - acknowledging that it was possible that the subject of Mr. Wilson's trip had come up.

[Gloria]

1. What happens to the broader inquiry??

eom

[grytpype]

2. It's fucked.

There is no broader inquiry. Fitzmas was a bust.

[meisje]

3. A Fitzmas Fitzzled

[wordpix]

35. I don't think it's fucked, there is weighty info to cause Congress

to investigate. I'm referring to the American Conservative Mag piece, et. al. re: the Italian Job, WHIG and Office of Special Plans.

Repugs are jumping ship---maybe some of the brighter ones will join with Dems for a full investigation.

[newscott]

51. Ha!

[AirAmFan]

67. YES! Impeachment and resignation for Nixon required changes in

the vehicles used to investigate him. At some point, the original criminal case (the Watergate burglary, analogous to Fitz's indictment(s)) gave rise to much more powerful investigative vehicles. Reid and the media need to go to work to get a REAL Senate investigation going--the Plamegate equivalent of the Senate Select Watergate Committee. See http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/gen/resources/watergate/meserve/ .

[aquart]

48. The NYT reported on the grand jury I was on all the time.

They always knew a tiny bit but NEVER the whole thing. We even knew which lawyers were talking by what appeared in the paper...but the lawyers didn't have a clue who else we were talking to. They just knew their little bit.

[renate]

71. thanks, that's encouraging!

Nice to have an inside scoop on how grand juries work!

[fearnobush]

4. Not a bust yet, If Rove is indicted, even for false statements,

<>The media will question for the reason for the cover up, just as they did with Scooter.

[sabra]

5. I agree. This article is also eluding that Fitz is narrowing

on this particular issue with Rove, not necessarily the broader conspiracy? This aint over.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

7. I was going to bust you for "eluding" but perhaps it's the proper

choice after all.

[54anickel]

13. Lookie what's coming out in the American Conservative Magazine

Heard this guy interviewed on our local public radio station.

Forging the Case for War

Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?

snip>

What took place and why will not be known with any certainty until the details of the Fitzgerald investigation are revealed. (As we go to press, Fitzgerald has made no public statement.) But recent revelations in the Italian press, most notably in the pages of La Repubblica, along with information already on the public record, suggest a plausible scenario for the evolution of Plamegate.

Information developed by Italian investigators indicates that the documents were produced in Italy with the connivance of the Italian intelligence service. It also reveals that the introduction of the documents into the American intelligence stream was facilitated by Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans (OSP), a parallel intelligence center set up in the Pentagon to develop alternative sources of information in support of war against Iraq.

snip>

Enter Michael Ledeen, the Office of Special Plans’ man in Rome. Ledeen was paid $30,000 by the Italian Ministry of the Interior in 1978 for a report on terrorism and was well known to senior SISMI officials. Italian sources indicate that Pollari was eager to engage with the Pentagon hardliners, knowing they were at odds with the CIA and the State Department officials who had slighted him. He turned to Ledeen, who quickly established himself as the liaison between SISMI and Feith’s OSP, where he was a consultant. Ledeen, who had personal access to the National Security Council’s Condoleezza Rice and Stephen Hadley and was also a confidant of Vice President Cheney, was well placed to circumvent the obstruction coming from the CIA and State.

The timing, August 2002, was also propitious as the administration was intensifying its efforts to make the case for war. In the same month, the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) was set up to market the war by providing information to friends in the media. It has subsequently been alleged that false information generated by Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress was given to Judith Miller and other journalists through WHIG.

snip>

In January 2001, there was a break-in at the Niger Embassy in Rome. Documents were stolen but no valuables. The break-in was subsequently connected to, among others, Rocco Martino, who later provided the dossier to Panorama. Italian investigators now believe that Martino, with SISMI acquiescence, originally created a Niger dossier in an attempt to sell it to the French, who were managing the uranium concession in Niger and were concerned about unauthorized mining. Martino has since admitted to the Financial Times that both the Italian and American governments were behind the eventual forgery of the full Niger dossier as part of a disinformation operation. The authentic documents that were stolen were bunched with the Niger uranium forgeries, using authentic letterhead and Niger Embassy stamps. By mixing the papers, the stolen documents were intended to establish the authenticity of the forgeries.

more...

[leftchick]

25. do you have a link to this?

pretty damning stuff here.

[Uncle Roy]

27. Here you go...

November 21, 2005 Issue
Copyright © 2005 The American Conservative

Forging the Case for War
Who was behind the Niger uranium documents?
by Philip Giraldi

http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html

[leftchick]

29. thank you!

I can't believe I want to read the American Conservative!

[kanrok]

61. This deserves it's own thread, dontcha think?

n/t

[54anickel]

74. Thanks for covering the link for me. Can't believe I left that out. I

feel so :silly: Sorry about that.

[aquart]

49. Holy hell. They've got they story. For conservatives?

They are implicating the frickin' Pentagon for conservatives????? Madre de dios.

[kainah]

66. author was interviewed last week on MSNBC

(or maybe earlier this week)

In any case, I thought that was quite interesting. Certainly, the Niger forgeries are not a new story to MSNBC but that was the most in-depth examination on the network that I had seen. My guess is that they weren't willing to go with it as long as most of it was coming from leftists. Only when it appeared in THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE did they dare tackle it.

[otohara]

88. Here's A Link w/ 2 Radio Interviews Giraldi

http://weekendinterviewshow.com/InterviewDisplay.aspx?i=118

Nuke Iran?

Tuesday at 5pm eastern time, I will be filling in on the boss's show, and talking with former CIA man Philip Giraldi about this curious bit he wrote in the American Conservative (not online) among other things:

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option. As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States. Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/comments.php?id=P2244_0_1_0

[1776Forever]

82. Forging the Case for War - What a Wicked Web They Weave!

Comments:

*January 2001 - Wow - 9 months BEFORE 9-11!

*Niger is the country where Joe Wilson went to investigate the selling of uranium to Iraq for WMD.

*Rocco Martino - Spy who says he was doped into giving the forged paperwork about the WMD to the French and others.

*Italian and American governments were behind the eventual forgery - one more reason to question why we went to Iraq!

Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz within the White House Iraq Group, the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans and the office of the National Security Adviser--all determined to produce the evidence for "regime change" in Baghdad.

Why should we care? Try 2,000+ dead solders for a start and thousands more wounded, and then add in BILLIONS of dollars paid to such corporations as Halliburton! This is taking money right out of our citizens pockets who need Health Care and help with heating costs this winter!

Look at just one contract awarded without competition:

Halliburton Co.'s $7 billion contract, awarded without competition, to make emergency repairs to Iraq's oil infrastructure also gives it the power to run all phases of Iraq's oil industry, according to U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

Halliburton, where Vice President Cheney served as chief executive from 1995 to 2000, has come under persistent criticism for its handling of several Iraqi reconstruction contracts. For example, auditors turned up $1.8 billion in "unsupported costs" in a $10.5 billion Army logistics contract that KBR won on a competitive bid. Despite those findings and a recommendation to withhold some of the payments, the Army decided last month (April, 2005) to continue paying Halliburton in full, plus performance bonuses.

[otohara]

86. This article is a big HELLO!

especially since it's in a conservative magazine. Whoa!

[Skip Intro]

6. unnamed sources -

- lawyers in the case

- an associate of mr. rove

- one lawyer with a client in the case

- associates of Mr. Rove

said:

- mr. rove never intended to withhold details

- mr. rove testified fully

Smell something?

[Nothing Without Hope]

47. EXACTLY. These "leaks" are coming from sources friendly to the WH

and/or Rove's legal team and are almost worthless. They were deliberately put out there for reporters to affect reporting on the case and sway public opinion. This says NOTHING about what Fitzgerald's plans truly are, which the "leakers" - and we - have no way of knowing at this time.

I find it surprising that people would take this story so seriously, given what must be the source and motivation for the "leak."

Fitz's team doesn't leak, which makes reporters eager for any scrap of information, even from biased sources with a known agenda. And the ones who are "leaking" for stories like this don't know squat and are only trying to manipulate public perception. The truth isn't well served by stories which portray such "leaks" as actual insider info on Fitz's secret short- and long-term intentions.

So chill, folks.

[Mr_Spock]

59. I agree - these leaks should be taken literally as "piss on the public"

A loaf of bread has more integrity that Roveco...

[Nothing Without Hope]

63. It's rotten of the NYT to be publishing this too - I've expanded on this

in another post in this thread - #62, near the bottom. DUers should know better than to trust the WH/Rove agenda-sponsored slant in this article.

[KoKo]

8. It's a NYT's article quoting lawyers for the various people involved and

not Fitz who isn't speaking, though. I don't know if anything the NYT's reports about this is the truth anymore. I don't even trust the WaPo's reports because all the lawyers for all these people who have been involved are probably falling all over themselves trying to spin.

I can't give up hope yet. There's so much falling out of the woodwork these days between DeLay, Abramoff, Gayle Norton and Scalito that it might just all be coming together in a way we don't yet see.

[carolinalady]

24. Weren't these the same "reputable sources" that blithely

reported Rove was in the clear last week? I think they are talking out their ass on this one.

[goforit]

9. This has been the most frustrating scenario ever.

[Olney Blue]

22. It would have been more frustrating if Fitz had walked away

with NO indictments.....

[Raiden]

10. Dammit!

Rove cannot get away with this; hopefully, the damage is already done

[understandinglife]

11. "Lawyers" spewing ... trying to save Rover's job at the WH ...

... we will not know what Mr Fitzgerald will do with Karl until Mr Fitzgerald closes the case.

He's still working on the Ryan case, more than five years after the initial indictment.

Wait and watch and don't believe anything "lawyers in the case" have to say, unless that lawyer is Mr Fitzgerald or one of his staff speaking at a press conference or in open court.


Peace.

[Wordie]

18. Very good point. The "sources" have been wrong about so much. eom

[anitar1]

19. Amen. these so called informed people really know

nothing until Fitz speaks. I would not want his job. But I have every confidence he will do the best he can.He is up against some prime liars.

[thinkingwoman]

64. I was going to post the same thing

but I'm glad you beat me to it.

Du'ers, please, please, please stop getting worked up about statements from DEFENSE lawyers. They are spinning themselves silly. Be patient and WAIT for statements from Fitzgerald. :eyes:

If any of you cannot imagine how to fill your time and distract yourself from the propaganda, I'd be happy to accept help cleaning my house, re-landscaping, painting, or starting my business. :evilgrin:

[applegrove]

12. Thanks for posting.

[paulthompson]

14. Trust this article no further than you can throw it

It says:

"In was in that conversation that Mr. Rove first learned the name of the C.I.A. officer from Mr. Novak, according to lawyers in the case."

Yet doesn't Fitzgerald's indictment clearly state as fact that Rove was the one who told Novak, not the other way around?

Seems to me this is Rove lawyer's fantasy view of things. It is highly irresponsible for the NY Times to print this without noting the complete contradiction between this and Fitzgerald's indictment.

[The Judged]

16. Excellent point! Propaganda alert!

[fearnobush]

17. After all, its the Judith Miller Times.

<>

[Catherine Vincent]

15. The Washington Post had a different take.

I'll try and find the link.

[remfan]

20. Why was this e-mail not turned over in 2003?

Call me crazy, but if you're asked to turn over ALL documents related to a certain subject during a SEPCIFIC period of time, how do you miss this e-mail?

[EuroObserver]

26. Little technical problem...

Blame it on William Gates. :sarcasm:

[Griffy]

60. I noticed this too.. I smell a fabrication, electronic forgery! oooh..

.. Rove has used fake documents in several of his operations in the past, and he needed a piece of evidence that would create the doubt of his guilt. Now.. if he did this he is in deep shit if he is caught... and I would say, with Fitz knowing of the Niger forgeries, he may very well suspect these are fakes too... Im sure there are several laws this breaks. They are struggling in quicksand... and the internet is storing it all, and the case builds and builds. I know this isnt over and scoff at those that are sad, be patient... we waited this long, let him squeeze Libby, or better yet, take it to trail! Nothing could be better than a trail.. say over the summer... leading into the mid-terms...

35% approval now.. wait till 6 months...

BE the MEDIA!!!!

[LiberalinNC]

21. And yet the Bu$h admin. still stands by this jerk!

:eyes: I starting to believe that Libby really IS the "fall guy".

[rfranklin]

28. They have to stand by him...

if he goes down, he drags them all down with him.

[wordpix]

31. not to mention, Bushie will have no brain

[wordpix]

33. if BushCo can swing it, Libby falls and gets million$ once out of jail...

and maybe a radio show and M$M pundit spots like that Nixon criminal, Gordon Libby

[aquart]

50. Liddy wasn't 55. And he wasn't a rich man.

Jail is a lot more uncomfortable for rich old guys who are used to the linens just so and the really expensive mattress. Not to mention the bathrooms. Country club locker rooms are a whole lot fancier than prison showers.

[No Exit]

78. One thing we need to do is NOT buy his book.

NOT buy his book to come, and NOT buy that piece of crap he wrote where the bears are having sex with the 10-year-old girls. (Geez... somebody call DHR and check on his children or something!)

I heard the Amazon rating for his crappy spy book was up. That made me disappointed in people.

[SillyGoose]

23. Take this with a grain of salt.

Fitz isn't leaking this, its those with an agenda who are doing the leaking.

[Catherine Vincent]

30. That is true.

The Fitz and his team doesn't leak anything. It's just speculation again from the Rove lawyers.

[bemildred]

32. More babble from the mind-reading plaintiffs lawyers. nt

[yellowcanine]

34. I agree. No one knows what Fitz is up to least of all the N.Y. Times. I

still think Rove is in deep doo doo and probably Cheney as well. People forget how long it takes to develop a major investigation involving the White House. The Watergate breakin occured in July of 1972 and Nixon didn't resign until August of 1974.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

36. true. heck, the NYT doesn't know what IT is up to, much less Fitz.

The paper has really lost its editorial strength. Too bad.

[bemildred]

38. Sulzberger is a "really great" publisher, ain't he?

A "giant" in the business.
:rofl::rofl:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

39. if you support AIPAC and J. Miller over truth and honesty, yeah

he has been a tremendous success.

Speaking of which, where is the outrage for the AIPAC spy scandal - against our country's bests interests? Why are they still here?

[hvn_nbr_2]

40. I love this whole little sub-thread

More babble from the mind-reading plaintiffs lawyers (well, except that it's the defendants' lawyers)

No one knows what Fitz is up to least of all the N.Y. Times

Heck, the NYT doesn't know what IT is up to, much less Fitz


This spin (it's clearly not real information) has to be coming from Rove's lawyers. The prosecutor's office hasn't been leaking throughout the whole investigation, and the only reason they would be doing so now would be to psych out any defendents.

The NYT has its head so far up its ass that it thinks it can tell which way the wind blows by listening to its own farts.

[bemildred]

42. Mea culpa, right you are. nt

[barb162]

56. Yeah but they still have some of the best columnists anywhere

Krugman, Herbert....

[Verve]

37. "Mr. Rove corrected his testimony in a grand jury appearance on Oct. 14

after which Mr. Luskin said Mr. Rove had answered all questions truthfully."

So let me get this straight. His fourth appearance to the grand jury was to "correct his testimony", otherwise known as coming clean about the lies he told the grand jury on the other 3 occasions.

Now, we are supposed to believe his 4th testimony was truthful. Actions speak louder than your attorney's words Mr. Turd Blossom.

Fitzgerald won't buy it.

[Catherine Vincent]

45. Why was Rove allowed to correct his previous testimony?

Was he correcting a lie or was he correcting a "I don't know" statement?

[No Exit]

41. Looks like Fat Karl called the NYT today, just as he called the WSJ,

and told them what to say.

Arrest Fat Karl!

[longship]

43. Calm down folks

Let Fitz do his job. Remember, these statements are coming directly out of the defendants lawyers' offices, probably vetted in the West Wing. Why would they say anything positive about our side of the case?

So relax. Eat some popcorn. Have a doughnut.

[Spazito]

44. LOL, Whenever the NYT quotes the lawyers involved in the case

I file the article under "We (the NYT) screwed up and want this investigation to go away so we will print anything that says it is narrowing, finishing, etc, etc, etc." If the NYT is saying this, odds are the opposite is true, imo.

[savemefromdumbya]

46. It is obvious who the leaker is now

so many complained that Libby was not charged on 'the leak' itself only OOJ, perj etc. The actual leaker wasn't Libby.

[nolabels]

53. And it continues, the bit players may have changed but.........

As the beast moves behind the fog of the scenes you can sense someone taking aim for that animal. The beast as it tries to hide behind the cover gives it outline to those who watch with intent. Someone is now being hunted and the hunter seems to have a real rendering device stoking in fear in the actual target. The uncertainty of the situation is a major part of the fear itself ;-)

[ClintonTyree]

52. Are we now back to believing that the NYT is a credible source?

There was a brief moment there when I thought most people had wised up to the New York Times and their disinformation campaign. Remember, Judas Miller, the Times standing behind her knowing she was a lying bush whore and letting her spread the bushit in the run-up to the Iraq war? Has everyone forgotten? :shrug:

I believe nothing that comes out of that rag anymore. Believe this at your own peril of being sucked in yet again.

[Duer 157099]

54. The only relevent point I see in this article

(although I have only read the excerpt posted above) is that, contrary to what many were saying last week, Fitzgerald is STILL gathering evidence against Rove, presumably on a perjury/obstruction charge.

That should be viewed as good news, I would think.

Remember how many interpreted Fitz's comments to mean he was done with the investigation portion and was just dotting some i's?

This report, if true, shows that investigation is ongoing.

[Spazito]

55. If the NYT had any integrity left, they would print the following

on their front page and ABOVE the fold:

The NYT will not be printing any articles touching upon the CIA leak and the subsequent investigation as we recognize our credibility on this story is non-existent and to pretend otherwise would be an attempt to mislead our readers.

[MellowOne]

57. This case will never be over until the truth comes out

Americans are now aware of the leak and the lies that lead us to war. An investigation is underway in the Senate. People are asking questions and they want answers. People I know who fully supported Bush are jumping ship.

[myrna minx]

58. Kick.

:kick:

[Nothing Without Hope]

62. This shameful article: a prime example of what's rotten at the NY Times.

They got talking points and innuendo from the WH and/or defendants' lawyers, misdirection intended to convince people that Rove was cooperating, that there was nobody else - not Cheney or Bush or Bolton's office, that nothing to do with the Iraq War lies would be, COULD be pursued. Nothing really serious. Move along, nothing here, this is a narrow investigation and almost over. Everybody is cooperating.

Right.

This information came from people who not only have no way of knowing Fitz's plans, but are pushing an agenda to distribute misleading hogwash exactly like this for the strategic and public relations benefit of Bush, Cheney, and their circle. This is more than spin - it's a whole campaign.

And look how many people swallowed it even in this thread! Hook, line and sinker. All the "Fitzmas is a bust" folk that actually believe this Administration-serving nonsense. Reading through this thread, there are a number of people who clearly "get it," but there are also a lot who were totally taken in by this crafted propaganda. At DU, home of clear-eyed progressive activists!!! Evem after we witnessed the NYT leading the pack in the push to war with unexamined lies!!!! See how well the propaganda machine works and remember it.

Wake up, people. Use your critical faculties and your experience. Only Fitz and maybe some trusted people on his team know what his strategy and long-term plans for this case are, and THEY DO NOT LEAK. If the innuendos and "hints" in this piece of dreck printed in a once-respectable newspaper happen to hit any point with a resemblance to the truth, it's sheer coincidence.

What we have here is very analogous to the NYT campaign to drive the Iraq War. In this case what's being driven is a campaign to protect Bush and possibly Cheney if that can be done - problematical since he's the ultimate spider in the middle of all the webs - and take the heat off the Administration. Rove is "cooperating" and Bolton's office - where the Plame CIA info came from - isn't mentioned at all. This is all just "technicalities," not actually about crimes, it's almost over anyway, move along, move along. It's WH & Rove damage control and it is based on deliberate false implications: that the statements here have anything to do with Fitgerald's plans, which are actually UNKNOWN by anyone except him and his closest associates.

Shame, New York Times editors. You show once again that you have learned nothing at all about journalistic integrity - what a laugh that concept must be to you. Useful to pretend you have it and get on that soapbox, but you really don't have a clue about it and wouldn't want it if you did.

DU'ers - CHILL. We don't know what Fitzgerald's plans for this case are. Based on his previous cases, they may be extensive and just beginning to be revealed. He takes things step by step and his priority is to get the truth and build the strongest case on it - NOT to entertain hungry reporters with leaks of his intent (which might well damage his case) or to employ people who would.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

65. In some ways...

...I think it might turn out to be more crippling to the administration that Rove wasn't indicted. His involvement in the leak is known to all. If Karl is kept on he will be a big political liability further damaging Dubya's credibility (if that's even possible). Leaving Dubya to wrestle with the decision of whether to do the right thing and fire Karl, as opposed to making this decision easy with an indictment, may be a good thing because it shows Dubya in all his moral bankruptcy when faced with a moral dilemma. Just thinkin' out loud.

[culturalelite]

68. poetic justice?

I hope Rove told the truth to the grand jury, but gets convicted of perjury anyway. That would be just retribution for his participation in the scheme to ruin Wilson's reputation by falsely accusing him of lying. I can't believe the Washington Post on Oct 29 published an op-ed that included the absurd (but oft-repeated)claim that Wilson falsely suggested that Cheney sent him to Niger. I know it's only the opinion page, but come on. (My letter to the post refuting several claims in this op-ed was not published.)

[DarienComp]

69. The whole article is based on blind quotes

most likely coming from the defense. It is not credible.

[DarienComp]

70. The whole article is based on blind quotes

most likely coming from the defense. It is not credible.

[Quixote1818]

72. Why is this lame article posted on the home page?

[No Exit]

73. CORRECTIONS TO NYT STORY:

No, the corrections WEREN'T made by NYT staff. They were made by Jane Hamsher (a much more trustworthy "editor".) The "corrections" are in caps:

http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/


"Okay, this is my audition for editor at the NYT (caps mine):

'The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case has narrowed his investigation of Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, to whether he tried to conceal from the grand jury a conversation with a Time magazine reporter in the week before an intelligence officer's identity was made public more than two years ago, KARL ROVE'S FURIOUSLY SPINNING lawyers in the case said Thursday.'

(snip)

'Mr. Fitzgerald no longer seems to be actively examining some of the more incendiary questions involving Mr. Rove ACCORDING TO ROVE'S WANKY LAWYERS WHOSE WARES NOBODY THIS SIDE OF MICHAEL ISIKOFF IS BUYING. At one point, he explored whether Mr. Rove misrepresented his role in the leak case to President Bush - an issue that led to discussions between Mr. Fitzgerald and James E. Sharp, a lawyer for Mr. Bush, an associate of Mr. Rove said, IN AN ATTEMPT TO FLOAT A MORE PLAUSIBLE STORY AFTER THAT ONE ABOUT FITZGERALD STOPPING BY TO TELL SHARP EVERYTHING THAT WAS GOING ON IN HIS CASE WENT OVER LIKE THE HINDENBURG.'

'Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, declined to discuss his client's legal status, BUT HAD SOME MINION ON SPEED DIAL WHO WAS HAPPY TO DO THE HONORS, but AND THEN TRIED TO THROW EVERYBODY OFF THE SCENT WHEN HE referred to a statement issued last week in which he expressed confidence that Mr. Fitzgerald would conclude that Mr. Rove had done nothing wrong, AT LEAST NOT IN THE PAST FIVE MINUTES.'"

[Nothing Without Hope]

76. This is WONDERFUL!!!!! And utterly, totally true. HERE IS THE PERMALINK

for the piece you cite that gives the TRUTH that the NYT massacred in its slimy article - your link is to the blog's home page and it would be a shame to lose the connection to this fine piece of corrective journalism:
http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005/11/toast.html

It should also be noted that the title of this fine piece at Firedoglake is "TOAST" and it features the faint but recognizable image of a familiar face on a piece of ... toast, ready to serve. :evilgrin:

How I hope that the widespread reading of this piece will have an impact on the resolutely tainted reporting on this case by the NYT. I can dream, can't I?

Firedoglake - It's the best single place to go for Fitz fixes.

[No Exit]

77. Yes, it is!! (Fitz "faxes"?)

Now, wait a minute, I DON'T think Fitz is faxing anybody! He seems to like his job as a prosecutor too much to do that!

Anyway, I love that blog and I'm so glad I found it as I was always hungry for news on the CIA leak affair. I have absolutely no connection to anyone related to that blog, but I just can't stop recommending it because it's great!!

Thanks for the permalink!

[Nothing Without Hope]

80. Look again - it's "Fitz FIXES" - like intense encounters with dark

chocolate truffles when they are needed most as antidotes to life's nastier passages. (I do feel sorry for those who don't truly enjoy chocolate.) IMO "Fitz fixes" is rather catchy and nicely alliterative, and all in all, I'm rather proud of it.

And no, I imagine Fitz doesn't fax his secrets very often. ;)

[No Exit]

84. LOL.. DOH! Thanks! (Moran, here!) n/t

[thefloyd]

75. Rove Did not believe Reporters would cave

My theory on why an email was produced after the fact is simply because Rove did not believe Fitz could get reporters to testify based on first amendment issues. Rove figures email is irrelevant and pushes email to bottom of pile. Fitz gets reporters to testify, Rove volunteers email and states "my bad" thus framing the debate and making himself look like he has nothing to hide. Just my theory though

[No Exit]

79. Good theory.

Fatass Karl is a master liar. Master liars' stories always evolve to fit subsequent discoveries.

Think back to the most duplicitous person you've tangled with--maybe an ex, or maybe a co-worker, etc. Think back how they'd try to rationalize or cover up their lies as soon as you began to hone in on the truth.

That will give you a good picture of what Fat Karl is like, I think.

[dchill]

81. "no longer seems"

Mr. Fitzgerald "no longer seems" to be actively examining some of the more incendiary questions involving Mr. Rove.

(Quotes mine.)

This is "news"? NOT. This is conjecture shaded by bias and shaky nerves.

[jmowreader]

83. If you were Fitz, what would you do?

Patrick Fitzgerald knows better than we do how dirty Rove is.

If I was Fitz, I would encourage "lawyers in the case" to go on every talk show in America and talk about how I'm narrowing my focus in this case to some relatively inconsequential point...but not actually narrow my focus.

I figure that if they think I'm not really looking at the broader treason, but merely who talked to who about it, they might let their guard down and say things they really shouldn't--remember, "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law."

Even if they don't start talking, when the actual Rove indictments come down it's gonna shock the shit out of them..."but they said they weren't looking at that!" They'd spent all that time developing a defense against a he-said/she-said case, and all of a sudden they're facing a totally different set of charges.

Tell ya true, I wouldn't even indict on the obstruction charges if that's all Rove thinks Fitz has. He's ready for an obstruction case; he's NOT ready for a few counts of providing classified information to someone not authorized to receive it, some counts of damaging national security and a whole lotta counts of perjury.

[Nothing Without Hope]

85. ***More criticism of this column, with a Tom Tomorrow CARTOON:***

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5273075
thread title (11/5): Tom Tomorrow CARTOON SKEWERS NYT role in Treasongate & NYT STILL doing it

Will the NYT ever re-earn integrity? As the outrageous column in the current column shows, their editors and owners have actually learned nothing about journalistic integrity since Judith Miller's Chalabi-channeling spree despite all their loud mea culpas.*


________________
*For younger DUers: mea culpa = Latin, often translated as "through my fault" - an admission of guilt. It was part of the Roman Catholic mass for a long time before Latin was superseded by the vernacular, so it's one of those phrases that entered the English language. The flavor is that it goes with a bowed head, grave face and breast-beating.

[Nothing Without Hope]

87. For a CLEARER, LESS BIASED analysis of the Fitz investigation, see this:

An 11/4 analysis by John Dean, who actually looks at what is KNOWN: the text of the Libby indictment, relevant law, and codified procedures for federal prosecutors. Here's a DU thread citing it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x170559
thread title (11/4): John W. Dean: 'A Cheney-Libby conspiracy, or worse?

I put my own post together on this important John Dean analysis, including a video interview with him with Keith Olbermann on Fitzmas (10/28), here:
http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=127&topic_id=683&mesg_id=683
thread title (11/4): New John Dean analysis of Treasongate 11/4: "A Cheney-Libby Conspiracy, Or Worse..

Based on FACTS, John Dean thinks it is very likely that there will be more Fitz indictments and that Dick Cheney is a target. He documents and explains his reasoning, so you can judge for yourself. His analysis of the situation is based on much more solid foundations than the spin of the NYT article discussed in this thread, and it is far more plausible. Yet unlike the NYT article, which is disguised as news, Mr. Dean clearly indicates which parts of his writing are facts and which are reasoned extensions or speculations.

[jazzjunkysue]

89. And there's even more to it than this. It's about ARAMCO

the oil company that Cheney et all co-own with some of the Suadis, including Bin Laden. They had to get Plame out of her jobe for that reason alone. She was probably getting too close to ARAMCO, and this forgery.

This is a Rove. He has been substituting a sort of bad problem as a final reason for something even worse. He's done that all these years.

Red herrings. Ooops, we goofed. End of story. No sense looking further.

"We used old intel and forged the documents" reads much better than

"George and Dick are in business with Bin Laden, and will profit from a permanent war in the middle east."