By Matthew Cooper – Time Magazine
Monday 25 July 2005 Issue
Matthew Cooper reveals exactly what Karl Rove told him–and what the special counsel zeroed in on.
It was my first interview with the President, and I expected a simple “Hello” when I walked into the Oval Office last December. Instead, George W. Bush joked, “Cooper! I thought you’d be in jail by now.” The leader of the free world, it seems, had been following my fight against a federal subpoena seeking my testimony in the case of the leaking of the name of a CIA officer. I thought it was funny and good-natured of the President, but the line reminded me that I was, very weirdly, in the Oval Office, out on bond from a prison sentence, awaiting appeal–in large part, for protecting the confidence of someone in the West Wing. “What can I say, Mr. President,” I replied, smiling. “The wheels of justice grind slowly.”
After a fight that went all the way to the Supreme Court, the wheels of justice have stopped grinding–for me, anyway. Last week I testified before the federal grand jury investigating the leak. I did so after I received a specific last-minute waiver from one of my sources, Karl Rove, the President’s top political adviser, releasing me from any claim of confidentiality he might have about our conversations in July 2003. Under federal law grand jurors and prosecutors are sworn to secrecy but those who testify, like me, are under no such obligation, which is why I’m able to tell you what happened in the grand jury room. Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel, told me that he would prefer that I not discuss the matter, and I suspect he said the same thing to White House officials who are now treating his request as a command and refusing to comment on the case. I don’t know if I can illuminate this confounding investigation, but I can at least explain my small part in it. Like the blindfolded man and the elephant, all I know is what seems to be in front of me.
So here’s what happened last Wednesday.
Before going into the grand jury room at 9:30 a.m., my lawyers and I met briefly with Fitzgerald, a couple of his attorneys and the lead FBI agent in the case. It was, to say the least, unsettling sitting there in the federal courthouse in Washington with the man who, for months, had tried to get me to testify or he would put me in jail. Fitzgerald counseled me that he wanted me to answer completely but didn’t want to force any answers on me or have me act as if I remembered things more clearly than I did. “If I show you a picture of your kindergarten teacher and it really refreshes your memory, say so,” he said. “If it doesn’t, don’t say yes just because I show you a photo of you and her sitting together.”
Grand juries are in the business of handing out indictments, and their docility is infamous. A grand jury, the old maxim goes, will indict a ham sandwich if a prosecutor asks it of them. But I didn’t get that sense from this group of grand jurors. They somewhat reflected the demographics of the District of Columbia. The majority were African American and were disproportionately women. Most sat in black vinyl chairs with little desks in rows that were slightly elevated, as if it were a shabby classroom at a rundown college. A kindly African-American forewoman swore me in, and when I had to leave the room to consult with my attorneys, I asked her permission to be excused, not the prosecutor’s, as is the custom. These grand jurors did not seem the types to passively indict a ham sandwich. I would say one-third of my 2 1/2 hours of testimony was spent answering their questions, not the prosecutor’s, although he posed them on their behalf. I began to take notes but then was told I had to stop, so I’m reliant on memory.
For my part, I sat at the end of an L-shaped table next to one of the prosecutor’s lawyers, who handed me various documents to review while an overhead projector displayed the documents on a screen near me. Virtually all the questions centered on the week of July 6, 2003. I was new to covering the Bush White House, having been the deputy Washington bureau chief for TIME. As it happens, that week was a big one at the White House. On that Sunday, the New York Times had published former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s now infamous Op-Ed describing his mission to Niger to investigate whether Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium to make nuclear weapons. Wilson said he had found no evidence of that and was confounded as to why the President would claim otherwise in his 2003 State of the Union address. As a freshly minted White House correspondent, I told the grand jury, I was all over that story by midweek, especially because it emerged as a likely candidate for TIME’s cover the following Monday.
The grand jurors wanted to know what was on my mind, and I told them. The White House had done something it hardly ever does: it admitted a mistake. Shortly after Wilson’s piece appeared, the White House said that the African uranium claim, while probably still true, should not have been in the President’s State of the Union address because it hadn’t been proved well enough. That was big news as the media flocked to find out who had vetted the President’s speech. But at the same time, I was interested in an ancillary question about why government officials, publicly and privately, seemed to be disparaging Wilson. It struck me, as I told the grand jury, as odd and unnecessary, especially after their saying the President’s address should not have included the 16-word claim about Saddam and African uranium.
I told the grand jurors that I was curious about Wilson when I called Karl Rove on Friday, July 11. Rove was an obvious call for any White House correspondent, let alone someone trying to prove himself at a new beat. As I told the grand jury–which seemed very interested in my prior dealings with Rove–I don’t think we had spoken more than a handful of times before that. I recalled that when I got the White House job a couple of weeks earlier, I left a message for him trying to introduce myself and announce my new posting.
As I told the grand jury–and we went over this in microscopic, excruciating detail, which may someday prove relevant–I recall calling Rove from my office at TIME magazine through the White House switchboard and being transferred to his office. I believe a woman answered the phone and said words to the effect that Rove wasn’t there or was busy before going on vacation. But then, I recall, she said something like, “Hang on,” and I was transferred to him. I recall saying something like, “I’m writing about Wilson,” before he interjected. “Don’t get too far out on Wilson,” he told me. I started taking notes on my computer, and while an e-mail I sent moments after the call has been leaked, my notes have not been.
The grand jury asked about one of the more interesting lines in that e-mail, in which I refer to my conversation with Rove as being on “double super secret background,” a line that’s raised a few eyebrows ever since it leaked into the public domain. I told the grand jury that the phrase is not a journalistic term of art but a reference to the film Animal House, in which John Belushi’s wild Delta House fraternity is placed on “double secret probation.” (“Super” was my own addition.) In fact, I told the grand jury, Rove told me the conversation was on “deep background.” I explained to the grand jury that I take the term to mean that I can use the material but not quote it, and that I must keep the identity of my source confidential.
Rove went on to say that Wilson had not been sent to Niger by the director of the CIA and, I believe from my subsequent e-mails–although it’s not in my notes–that Rove added that Dick Cheney didn’t send him either. Indeed, the next day the Vice President’s chief of staff, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby, told me Cheney had not been responsible for Wilson’s mission.
Much of my grand jury session revolved around my notes and my e-mails. (Those e-mails and notes were given to the special counsel when Time Inc., over my objections, complied with a court order.) Owing to my typing, some words were a jumble. For instance, I wrote “don’t get too war out on Wilson,” when I clearly meant “far out.” There were some words in my notes that I could not account for–at one point they read, “…notable…” I didn’t know if that was Rove’s word or mine, and one grand juror asked if it might mean “not able,” as in “Wilson was not an able person.” I said that was possible, but I just didn’t recall that. The notes, and my subsequent e-mails, go on to indicate that Rove told me material was going to be declassified in the coming days that would cast doubt on Wilson’s mission and his findings.
As for Wilson’s wife, I told the grand jury I was certain that Rove never used her name and that, indeed, I did not learn her name until the following week, when I either saw it in Robert Novak’s column or Googled her, I can’t recall which. Rove did, however, clearly indicate that she worked at the “agency”–by that, I told the grand jury, I inferred that he obviously meant the CIA and not, say, the Environmental Protection Agency. Rove added that she worked on “WMD” (the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction) issues and that she was responsible for sending Wilson. This was the first time I had heard anything about Wilson’s wife.
Rove never once indicated to me that she had any kind of covert status. I told the grand jury something else about my conversation with Rove. Although it’s not reflected in my notes or subsequent e-mails, I have a distinct memory of Rove ending the call by saying, “I’ve already said too much.” This could have meant he was worried about being indiscreet, or it could have meant he was late for a meeting or something else. I don’t know, but that sign-off has been in my memory for two years.
This was actually my second testimony for the special prosecutor. In August 2004, I gave limited testimony about my conversations with Scooter Libby. Libby had also given me a specific waiver, and I gave a deposition in the office of my attorney. I have never discussed that conversation until now. In that testimony, I recounted an on-the-record conversation with Libby that moved to background. On the record, he denied that Cheney knew about or played any role in the Wilson trip to Niger. On background, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson’s wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, “Yeah, I’ve heard that too,” or words to that effect. Like Rove, Libby never used Valerie Plame’s name or indicated that her status was covert, and he never told me that he had heard about Plame from other reporters, as some press accounts have indicated. Did Fitzgerald’s questions give me a sense of where the investigation is heading? Perhaps. He asked me several different ways if Rove indicated how he had heard that Plame worked at the CIA. (He did not, I told the grand jury.) Maybe Fitzgerald is interested in whether Rove knew her CIA ties through a person or through a document.
A surprising line of questioning had to do with, of all things, welfare reform. The prosecutor asked if I had ever called Mr. Rove about the topic of welfare reform. Just the day before my grand jury testimony Rove’s lawyer, Robert Luskin, had told journalists that when I telephoned Rove that July, it was about welfare reform and that I suddenly switched topics to the Wilson matter. After my grand jury appearance, I did go back and review my e-mails from that week, and it seems as if I was, at the beginning of the week, hoping to publish an article in TIME on lessons of the 1996 welfare-reform law, but the article got put aside, as often happens when news overtakes story plans. My welfare-reform story ran as a short item two months later, and I was asked about it extensively. To me this suggested that Rove may have testified that we had talked about welfare reform, and indeed earlier in the week, I may have left a message with his office asking if I could talk to him about welfare reform. But I can’t find any record of talking about it with him on July 11, and I don’t recall doing so.
So did Rove leak Plame’s name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the “agency” on “WMD”? Yes. When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don’t know. Is any of this a crime? Beats me. At this point, I’m as curious as anyone else to see what Patrick Fitzgerald has.
This makes that email Rove sent look like an ‘oh shit…’ on his part.
Either that, or this guy Cooper has lied about everything. My question is this: Who has a reputation for being a lying scumbag?
My question is this: Who has a reputation for being a lying scumbag?
That depends, does Cooper work for the NYT? If so then the answer is a slam dunk!!! With all the fraud that has been going on in the media in the last several years I think I am starting to trust the governemtn more.
No used car salesmen and lawyers are still at the bottom of my list but journalists are dropping quick.
Calling Rove a lying scum bag is an insult to lying scum bags everywhere.
Talkingpointsmemo has a good discussion of how things got to this point. Basically TPM suggests that Roves Lawyer mispoke when he gave Cooper permision to name his source. The article is pretty complicated but makes sense.
If that is the case Rove is really in damage controll mode, my question is what will Bush do without turd blossom?
From TPMCAFE.com Everytime you turn around Bush and Co are restoring honor and integrity to the whitehouse.
“Scott McClellan, October 6, 2003: “The topic came up, and I said that if anyone in this administration was responsible for the leaking of classified information, they would no longer work in this administration.”
George W. Bush a few minutes ago, on whether that policy still stands: “If someone committed a crime, that person will not be in my administration.”
And here we thought it was liberals who went around “moving goalposts” and “defining deviancy down,” and George Bush who would bring us a “responsibility era.” Based on Ken Mehlman’s performances in front of the press yesterday (“Hey look! ‘Vindicate’ rhymes with ‘implicate’ – but it means the opposite!”), the Republicans seem to be betting that Fitzgerald won’t be able to prove Rove and company guilty, and that the spin-masters will be able to convince us that that means no one did anything wrong.”
Republicans seem to be betting that Fitzgerald won’t be able to prove Rove and company guilty
And that is what it comes down to in a free society, you can’t arrest people because you disagree with them politically, there has to be proof and a crime has to have actually been committed.
If Fitzgerald fails to find proof then Rove is free and clear.
And what about the fact that Plame was using her covert status to make political attacks against the current administration?
Can a CIA operative use the CIA’s resources and U.S. law to engage in activities that could harm America and the rightfully elected President?
This is what the constitution is supposed to protect us from, government secret agents working against the safety and security of a free America. We have ambassador Joe “Fraud” Wilson being ferreted into Africa at the request of his wife with the sole purpose of creating a fabricated report designed to harm the war on terror.
This Plame lady sounds more like a double agent than a true American patriot as suggested by the Dems, which is funny because they think Kerry was a hero too but we all know how that turned out. We also learned that Bush did better in school but that’s besides the point.
We should be investigating Wilson and Plame and maybe even their DNC handlers who no doubtedly had to have some say in geting all the I’s dotted and T’s crossed. Is the CIA now a left wing entity whose mission is to debunk the efforts of Republican presidents?
Like I told that other guy, I agree a crime was committed but we haven’t even started looking at the usual suspects. We need to stop attacking Rove for being duped and start investigating this political “fact forging” trip Wilson took with taxpayer money to Africa and how the DNC is involved.
Where/When? Source?
Yes…we know, you can’t be a hero unless you vote GOP. That’s the lesson. Hey, here’s a letter Bush Sr. sent to Wilson after his editorial came out:
Looking for a better source on this…stay tuned.
Where/When? Source?
She was a liberal operative, made donations to the DNC and was behind Wilson’s trip to Africa to gnerate a low level report that no one cared about and was found to be a fraud. Wilson is a DNC party hack to the core with a mission to create propaganda against Bush’s policies.
Hey, here’s a letter Bush Sr. sent to Wilson after his editorial came out:
That was over a decade ago. Wilson’s article was crap that was neither truthful nor important to anyone other than DNC strategists.
Looking for a better source on this…stay tuned
Will do.
From right-thinking.com From the mouths of conservatives:
“No matter what you think of Rove or whether or not he did anything wrong, it can’t be denied that the administration has gone from firing anyone “involved” with the leak to anyone “convicted of a crime” involving the leak. You can argue if you like that what Rove has done does not constitute a fireable offense, and there’s probably some merit to that argument. But it can’t be denied that Bush and the gang are backpedaling from what they originally said.
Bush, meet Clinton.”
Wow – they’re not doing what they’re told. Agents have been dispatched to this blogger’s house already I’m sure. The right-wing blogsphere (I’ve begun referring to the posters there as ‘stormtroopers’) have been saying the opposite of what this honest person did.
I’m working on a piece that should lay 99% of this crap to rest.
Karl – we’ve got another contributor on the left and the right (Michael/Herman) – – – we should have another contributor shortly. Growing slowly, but growing nonetheless.
Ed Schultz is broadcasting from Denver soon – you should head down. Have you ever heard his show?
But it can’t be denied that Bush and the gang are backpedaling from what they originally said.
Bush, meet Clinton.”
I remember reading that is was the press secretary who said anyone involved and Bush who said anyone convicted of a crime. Either way, after all the flip flop liberals have done over the decades I think Bush is entilted to one freebie.
Have it that way if you so choose Right. Becuase once this investigation concludes, we’re going to see a lame duck become a dead duck real quick. The RNC is having some fun now, but what everyone fails to understand is this isn’t a campaign. It’s not going to be won or lost with spin, but with the truth.
Have it that way if you so choose Right.
Hey, I just saying what I read, do you have a quote of Bush saying that anyone involved with the leak would be fired? Does that mean Fitzgerald should be fired? Should Novak, Cooper and Miller be fired? Let’s not split hairs, innocent people shouldn’t lose their jobs for being in the wrong place and the wrong time.
If Rove is guilty–fire him, if found innocent or net even charged at all then he keeps his job. Simple as that.
Chris:
Thx for the heads up regarding Ed Schultz, I am not a big Air america fan but I might go check it out anyway. Kepp up the fight, at this point I don’t see a lot of these arguments as Democrat Vs Republican, as people who care about America VS people who will put up with anything as long as they get a pro-life judge.
Even though I rarely agree with the guy at Right-thinking he is at least consistant, maybe more of the GOP storm troopers should try being consistant.
Karl: Democrat Vs Republican, as people who care about America VS people who will put up with anything as long as they get a pro-life judge.
Great analogy…but you are assuming that people who care about america, don’t want a pro-life judge.
I would say its not Democrat VS Republican, but rather, Oppositon VS Majority…Delusions will get you nothing, Dems are the opposition, officially…if they don’t start choosing there fights more carefully, the may fall into oblivion.
Why aren’t they talking about 2.50/gallon gas? Or, offering an alternative to Bush’s SS plan? Or offering the first plan for fixing Medicaid…Democrats must get an agenda that isn’t centered around attacking the president…people respond to positive messages. Find one, and you might win at the polls.
Otherwise…bye bye, Democrats will fade into oblivion…
They can hold a rally with Wilson, a person NO regular person cares enough about to even understand the investigation. Why aren’t they holding conferences about how they have a plan to fix the problems this country is having…They had a rally for opposing president bush’s plan, but not a single rally FOR some alternative to fix the Social Security problem. These are what the American people want…a new tax system, a medicaid system that isn’t going to go in the crapper in a few years, Social Security that isn’t dependent on a government that is as dishonest and political as ever. A strong military and anti-terroism plan, they want to see Osama and Zarqawi in there underwear on the cover of newsweek, just like Saddaam. Do they care about Wilson…NO.
The Wilson/Plame DNC duo is all the Dems have to latch onto. One glimmer of hope for them to say “Ha, Republican Presidents are just as corrupt as Democratic Presidents.” I think that is why the crime angle is being pushed soo heavily, they need another Watergate to offset the Clintons and Kerrys of the party.
It’s too bad that the DNC has become soo partisan as of late, they are in full attack mode fighting anything and everything the President tries to do. All these organizations such as MoveOn, democraticunderground, Amnesty Intl’, Greenpeace and the Media focus on one thing, get Bush, anyway, anyhow.
While I’d love to see 2006 as a huge gain for Republicans I was hoping more for a win by skill and message rather than the other side forfeiting due to insanity. Eitherway, I think America will be better off.
Micheal:
An alternative to Bush’s SS plan? I have not heard Bush or any republican put forth a SS plan.
My point about people who care about America V. people who only care about a prolife judge is based on the fact that right now we are losing a war to Iraq, as you pointed out fuel prices are going through the roof, and Bush’s prescription drug plan was a disaster. But pro-lifers do not care about any of that, all they care about is reversing Roe v. Wade.
I am probably more conservative than most these pro-life wack jobs, their are other issues and the current administration and their supporters ignore all of them.
You are right that it will take the Democrats to fix most of the problems created over the last 5 years, I hope you vote accordingly.
Schultz isn’t on Air America – he’s privately sindicated…I’m LUCKY to get him in Boston. He broadcasts out of North Dakota. Out of all the radio shows I hear in a day – he’s the one I look forward to most. You should definitely check him out. You’ll be glad you did.
Ohh, I’m kind of glad the Supreme Court nomination is here, as the leak story is played at this point. Everything that can be said, has been said at this point. For me – this last piece was the one.
God I can’t wait for football to start up! I feel the need to handicap things all of a sudden. I wonder if it would be possible to set up an offshore gambling company on politics…
I’m so tired of hearing about the pro-life movement…the conviction of that Rudolph character is serving as an apt reminder of who is really the most extreme about judicial nominations…and what the craziest amongst them are capable of. The qualities a great judge should have has nothing to do with politics at all.
You’ve got a short memory. Repubicans scored when they just let Hillary run her health care program into the ground. Once Democrats offer up a plan for SS, their position becomes diminished. This is the GOP’s time to shine. You guys are in charge…complaining about what Dems aren’t doing right now is kind of, ‘clean up your own back yard, before you come knocking on your neighbor’s door’.
Wilson voted for Bush in 2000, and was a Republican up until the smear campaign began. He didn’t join Kerry until they sandbagged him.
Check this out:
http://images.mydd.com/images/user/1360/Natl_Debt_Chart_2004.gif
I don’t see how you guys can say that these guys know what they’re doing. Republicans can’t balance a budget!
Stay tuned – that’s going to be the thing on deadissue towards the end of the week. Right has a piece on it, and the House is voting on a SS bill from what I understand – coming in under the radar. Personal accounts are included in the bill, with a stipulation that you cannot have a guaranteed benefit and a personal account…so if your account tanks, you’re on your ass. The funding…they’re proposing to spend the SS surplus, then funding SS in the coming years with debt.
Right has the first hit on this topic though, Thu or Fri…stay tuned. This issue is ripe for discussion – and couldn’t come at a better time…this Plame stuff is PLAYED.
I’m with you on that 100%. Hell, I used to be one of those people. One issue voters really get under my skin, because on that one issue they tend to go over the line. The pro-lifers use language that overshoots the line where intelligent, respectful discussion can take place, by miles it seems.
Karl: based on the fact that right now we are losing a war to Iraq, as you pointed out fuel prices are going through the roof, and Bush’s prescription drug plan was a disaster. But pro-lifers do not care about any of that, all they care about is reversing Roe v. Wade.
That is a very naive statement from someone who isn’t aware of ‘Bush or any Republican putting forth a SS plan’ ask dead about it, once upon a time he thought it was a good plan, just not with the current deficit…but then he fell in line with the dems, recently.
Look at the variety of topics covered on Right-Thinking’s blog…much more diverse than Deadissue’s 4 to 5 blogs on the SAME THING…
Where’s the civility…do I assume that you don’t care about anything other than abortion on demand?
Karl: I am probably more conservative than most these pro-life wack jobs, their are other issues and the current administration and their supporters ignore all of them.
So I’m pro-life…there are a wide variety of issues that I am aware of and following, and most of them aren’t part of the current administrations doing…for instance H.R. 25, which I’m sure you are surprised to here anyone speaking of issues in terms of the actual bill in the house, especially coming from an ignorant republican such as myself, I’ll let you look that one up, because I’m not sure if you know anything about it. I’m also in support of the Administrations plan for social security…and was surprised to find an endorsement by Dave Ramsey for Bush’s plan, on http://www.DaveRamsey.com. I would like to see some movement towards shoring up Medicaid, but I fear its to late, the already bloated program will just keep bloating until it is forced to be under funded. Can you name 3 bills that have passed through the house and senate this year?
Karl: You are right that it will take the Democrats to fix most of the problems created over the last 5 years, I hope you vote accordingly.
I will vote for solutions…that’s why I urge Democrats to come up with something to stand for…and quick. Right now they have no solutions, no plan and no direction. Although they still foam at the lip for political blood, they will have to do more to win votes than attack Bush, and oppose Republican ideas without presenting an alternative. I can’t tell you how many of my friends wanted a serious alternative to Bush…and the democrats put up Kerry and he delivered astonishing disappointment. He wasn’t an alternative; every thing he said went in one ear and out the other around here, because he promised stuff that didn’t seem plausible. Every promise he made left the impression, “Yeah right, how’s he going to do that?” and the reply was crickets…
Micheal:
HR 25=fair tax, I googled it.
It is an interesting idea that has some merit. The one thing I really like about it is that it encourages savings, if you don’t spend your money you are not taxed on it. Plus it would also discourage consumption, something that I see as a good thing.
One group that comes out behind on this proposal are large families as it is much harder for a big family to control their spending, so they will probably pay more in taxes than a single person or a childless couple. I am not saying that is a bad thing but it makes it unlikely that it will pass.
I agree, because we as a people and a nation are short sighted…and thus so are our politicians. But it is a unique idea, and a possible solution to our over consumption, since it rewards thrift instead of extravagence. The solutions are what I vote for…however politically difficult they might be to acheive, our government can’t live in perpetual atrophy.