Murray Waas has just posted another Rove scoop. I agree with his ultimate conclusion:

In the meantime, however, what has propelled the investigation -- and led to the extraordinary jailing of the Times’ Judith Miller -- has been the strong belief by federal investigators that Rove, Novak, and others may have misled them and the public, and that one or more of the participants may have devised a cover story with others to avoid public or legal culpability.

I'm glad to see Waas stay on the subject of Fitzgerald's investigation. I think that those who are fixating on trying to figure out whether reporters told Rove or Rove told reporters about Plame's status are falling for the Republican talking points.

Whether Karl Rove was only a "confirming source" or learned about Plame from reporters is immaterial to Fitzgerald at this point. He's known what Karl Rove and other White House officials have said since 2003 when grand jury investigators interviewed them and through their grand jury testimony.

The fact that Fitzgerald told the Judge early this month that Judith Miller's testimony was essential to the successful conclusion of the investigation indicates that this investigation has moved far past the stage of who outed Valerie Plame and whether she was or was not a covert operative and on to whether White House officials and/or reporters lied in their initial interviews with grand jury investigators or during their grand jury testimony - and whether there was an attempted cover-up that would amount to a conspiracy to obstruct justice.

by TChris

Comparing the allegations of wrongdoing by Karl Rove to the prosecution of Jonathan Randel, John Dean offers this analysis of laws that Rove (and/or others in the White House) may have violated.

Rep. Henry Waxman has released this fact sheet (pdf)today on Karl Rove's non-disclosure agreement with the White House. In it, Rep. Waxman writes:

The nondisclosure agreement signed by White House officials such as Mr. Rove states: “I will never divulge classified information to anyone” who is not authorized to receive it.

THE PROHIBITION AGAINST “CONFIRMING” CLASSIFIED INFORMATION

Mr. Rove, through his attorney, has raised the implication that there is a distinction between releasing classified information to someone not authorized to receive it and confirming classified information from someone not authorized to have it. In fact, there is no such distinction under the nondisclosure agreement Mr. Rove signed.

Update: Craig Crawford also believes Fitzgerald has new leakers from within his camp to investigate. Evan at Alternet highlights my theory.

***************
Original Post 6:35 am

Karl Rove's loyalists are promoting a new version of the Valerie Plame leak to the New York Times. Now, they say, Novak called Rove on July 8 and told him about Valerie Plame, and Rove merely said, "I heard that too.."

How dumb do they think we are?

Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.

After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too." The previously undisclosed telephone conversation, which took place on July 8, 2003, was initiated by Mr. Novak, the person who has been briefed on the matter said. The person who provided the information about Mr. Rove's conversation with Mr. Novak declined to be identified, citing requests by Mr. Fitzgerald that no one discuss the case. The person discussed the matter in the belief that Mr. Rove was truthful in saying he did not disclose Ms. Wilson's identity.

Then, there's this:

From Pontificator, over at Daily Kos: A sample Indictment in the Valerie Plame leak probe.

Named defendants: Rove, Libby, Hannah, Miller, Novak and Bolton.

Is he missing anyone?

Update: Crooks and Liars now has the video of Joe Wilson on the Today Show.

******
Bloomberg News reports that Joseph Wilson's accusations against White House officials hold up against Republican accusations against him.

The main points of Wilson's article have largely been substantiated by a Senate committee as well as U.S. and United Nations weapons inspectors. A day after Wilson's piece was published, the White House acknowledged that a claim Bush made in his January 2003 state of the union address that Iraq tried to buy ``significant quantities of uranium from Africa'' could not be verified and shouldn't have been included in the speech.

While the administration was justified at the time in being concerned that Hussein was trying to build nuclear weapons, ``on the specifics of this I think Joe Wilson was right,'' said Michael O'Hanlon, a scholar of foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

Wilson appeared on the Today Show today and called for Karl Rove to be fired for abuse of power. And Raw Story has an exclusive new interview with Wilson.

The Republican talking points are belied by early news accounts of the Valerie Plame leak. Here's what Novak told Newsday reporters Timothy M. Phelps and Knut Roycea week or so after his article was published.

Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

and on who sent Joseph Wilson to Niger:

Novak reported that his "two senior administration officials" told him that it was Plame who suggested sending her husband, Wilson, to Niger.

A senior intelligence official confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked "alongside" the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger. (my emphasis)

But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. "They [the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story] were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising," he said. "There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason," he said. "I can't figure out what it could be." (my emphasis)

Time to connect some more dots. This is a long one.

Atrios brings Ari Fleischer back into the mix in the Karl Rove scandal. Let's go back to July 7 to July 12, 2003, when President Bush took his trip to Africa. Bloomberg today reported:

People familiar with the inquiry say Fitzgerald also is reviewing testimony by former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer, though it is not clear whether the prosecutor is focusing on him or seeking information about higher-ups. Fleischer last night refused to comment.

We know that Fitzgerald subpoenaed the complete transcript of his July 12, 2003 press gaggle conducted at a hospital in Nigeria. We know that he subpoenaed telephone records for Air Force One during a portion of the trip. We also know that he subpoenaed the July 6 to July 30, 2003 records of the White House Iraq Group, a public relations kind of task force formed by Cheney's staff to promote the Administrations' view of the war.

We also know that the White House won't release the names of those who accompanied President Bush on the trip, although we know that Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell and Andrew Card were with him.

Why would Fitzgerald want these documents? I don't think it's to get Ari Fleischer. I think it's to catch Lewis Libby and others on Vice President Cheney's staff, and/or Karl Rove, who attended almost all the White House Iraq Group meetings, in a lie. Ari Fleischer's statements may lead Fitzgerald to the lie - and establish a conspiracy to out a covert agent or obstruct justice - or perjury or false statements to federal investigators by these White House officials.

This just in from Murray Waas - House Democrats to Introduce Resolution of Inquiry on Rove tomorrow morning....

House Democrats tomorrow morning will introduce a formal resolution of inquiry demanding that the Bush administration turn over information and documents relating to Karl Rove and the Valerie Plame affair, according to congressional sources.

Among the members who will be calling for the inquiry are such Democrat heavyweights as Rep. Henry Waxman, the ranking minority member of the House Government Reform Committee; Rep. Tom Lantos, of California; and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, of Maryland. The resolution effort was spareheaded by Rep. Rush Holt, of New Jersey, who is a senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Here is the text of Karl Rove's waiver to Matt Cooper, dated July 6, 2005. Luskin is correct that all it does is affirm that the prior general waiver Rove is valid. Cooper's lawyer is correct that it specifically states the waiver applies to Cooper. But it is not a new waiver, it's the same old waiver.

July 6, 2005

Dear Mr. Luskin:

This is to confirm our telephone conversation of this afternoon at 12:30 p.m. You have consulted with your client, Karl Rove, who has authorized you to represent to me and to my client, Matthew Cooper, the following statement: Consistent with his written waiver of confidentiality he previously executed, Mr. Rove affirms his waiver of any claim of confidentiality he may have concerning any conversation he may have had with Matthew Cooper of Time Magazine during the month of July, 2003.

When you receive a copy of this letter, please initial and fax back to me at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

Richard Sauber

It seems to me Matthew Cooper was being a bit hyperbolic when he talked about receiving,

"in somewhat dramatic fashion" a direct personal communication from his source freeing him from his commitment to keep the source's identity secret.

It really just affirms he had been freed long before.

Time reporter Matthew Cooper testified for two and one half hours before the grand jury today. He named Karl Rove as his source and said he would write about the details of his testimony in an upcoming Time article. His lawyer handed out copies of a waiver signed by Robert Luskin, Karl Rove's attorney.

Two and a half hours is a long time to be in front of the grand jury to testify about a single conversation. I wonder what else he was asked?

President Bush has now had enough time with his advisors to come up with a response to questions about Karl Rove. Unlike yesterday, where he just ignored reporters who asked him about Rove, today, with Rove seated right behind him, he said:

"I have instructed every member of my staff to fully cooperate in this investigation. I also will not prejudge the investigation based on media reports," Bush told reporters in response to a question. "We're in the midst of an ongoing investigation and I will be more than happy to comment further once the investigation is completed," Bush said.

Thank you, Mr. President, for that illuminating answer.