ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Sunday, July 03, 2005

The left gets their hopes up....

Downer posted the following comment to the Saints post on the latest WOT polls for the President:

uh oh. It looks like your hero may have committed treason and perjery. He could face jail time. Or his boss could even be impeached since Rove follows orders. n...t_id=1000972839
As everybody probably already knows, the link of course is to the Editor and Publisher piece detailing Lawrence O'Donnell's latest charge on Karl Rove being associated with the Plame case:
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.
I've been thinking about this over the past day or so, and thought I'd post my comments on this whole kerfuffle.

The perjury issue is a serious one (if true) and if it comes out that Karl did lie to the grand jury then he deserves to be indicted and tried for the crime.

I'm not going to hold my breath though....

As CaptainsQuarters notes, the issue is the relevant section of the law we're dealing with.
[241]Sections (a) and (b) differ slightly. The first applies to "whoever, having or having had authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent," while the second applies to "whoever, as a result of having authorized access to classified information, learns the identify of a covert agent."
Emphasis is Dafydd's.
All in all, pretty easy defense for Rove, even if he was the source for the leak of Plame's identity as a CIA agent. Note however, that it isn't a defense for perjuring oneself to a grand jury.

Now here's my question. Surely Rove had to have known the relevant statute in question before testifying to the grand jury, either through his own knowledge or from legal advice. So why lie to the grand jury saying you weren't the one? And have to rely on the ethical values (and the willingness to cause contempt of court! -ed) of two reporters who are potentially politically hostile to your boss.

Why not simply take the 5th, or alternatively, utilize the defense of the Plame investigation itself, namely: Plame wasn't a recent NOC, had already been "outed" on the cocktail circuit, and the final defense, simply state that the particular law doesn't apply to you, since you were never authorized to the information in the first place.

Simply speaking, it makes no sense that Rove would lie about something where the lie would cause him greater harm than the original crime.

Combine this with the fact that Rove has publicly released any obligations reporters have to him as a source, therbye alleviating any reason for Miller or Cooper to continue to withhold their notes from the grand jury.

That's an awful lot of mistakes by someone who's credited as being "Bush's Brain" and a master dirty trickster.

More likely is that O'Donnell was told Rove was a source for Matt Cooper, but not the source. Ol' Lawrence and the rest of the lefty blogosphere immediatley starting drawing up articles of impeachment and grand conspiracies involving Jeff Gannon.

I'm dying to see for myself the original source of the Plame investigation, as well as the information contained in the notes of Miller and Cooper. I want to see whats so important that they are risking contempt of court for it. My guess is that it doesn't lead to Rove....and certainly not to Bush.

Any bets?

Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Brian