I was on my way over here to post that link, too. It's an interesting take on Rove's lawyer's remarks.
This is what I'm curious about:
On Friday, I broke the story that the e-mails that Time turned over to the prosecutor that day reveal that Karl Rove is the source Matt Cooper is protecting.
any of those emails came from Rove and if
Rove made any mention of Valerie Plame being Wilson's wife and a CIA operative, then Rove may be in trouble if
he denied ever having divulged such information to Cooper.
One theory floated about in the blogs is that the prosecutor is pursuing perjury charges, possibly against Rove. The reasoning behind this is that since the prosecutor already knows the source(s) of the White House leak, thanks to Novak and probably Russert, he's shaking down Cooper and Miller for corroboration, something about perjury needing to have at least two different sources of evidence. With Novak and/or Russert, there may not be any written record to challenge Rove's testimony. With Cooper, there is now since Time released the documents.
So it looks like this is an effort to build a case about something. If it's hard to convict someone of willfully disclosing the identity of a CIA agent, maybe it's easier to go for perjury. Again, that depends on any discrepancy between what Rove told the Grand Jury and what the emails and other documents reveal.
Edited by Spectacles, 03 July 2005 - 01:06 PM.