Scarborough again denies Rove's role as Novak source in Plame leak
SUMMARY: In again refusing to acknowledge that former White House senior political adviser Karl Rove was involved in leaking the identity of former CIA operative Valerie Plame to conservative columnist Robert D. Novak, MSNBC's Joe Scarborough falsely suggested that Rove was not a source for Novak.
On the February 1 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough again refused to acknowledge that former White House senior political adviser Karl Rove was involved in leaking the identity of former CIA operative Valerie Plame to conservative columnist Robert D. Novak, again falsely suggesting that Rove was not a source for Novak. Scarborough asserted that "liberals have spent the past 30 years calling Bob Novak a liar. And every time liberals call Bob Novak a liar, they're the ones who end up with egg on their face." As an example, Scarborough claimed that Novak "told us from the beginning, 'This wasn't an ideologue that gave me the name. This wasn't Karl -- this wasn't a Bush operation.' And liberals, 'Oh, he's lying, da da da da da.' " Scarborough later added: "[A]nd, of course, Novak was right. The liberals were wrong." In fact, Novak attributed his information about Plame to "[t]wo senior administration officials," whom he later publicly identified as former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and Rove.
During an interview with Novak on the July 18, 2007, edition of Morning Joe, Scarborough suggested that Rove had played no role in the leaking of Plame's identity, saying that the press "followed [the CIA leak investigation] like a pack of dogs talking about was it Rove, is it [Vice President Dick] Cheney, is it [President] Bush, who was it, who was it, and when they found out it was [then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard] Armitage, everybody kind of yawned and went on."
The next day, after Media Matters for America pointed out that Scarborough had falsely suggested that Rove was not involved, Scarborough claimed that Media Matters was "very upset because of my interview yesterday with Bob Novak, talking about the narrative that the left wing had for a very long time that this whole Valerie Plame leak was a diabolical plot hatched by Karl Rove." Scarborough later introduced Novak -- appearing for the second straight day on the show -- and said he was "[h]ere to clear that up and talk about his book, Prince of Darkness [Crown Forum, July 2007]." In response to questioning from Scarborough, Novak explained that Rove was his confirming source.
As Media Matters has noted, Rove also allegedly leaked Plame's identity to then-Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper.
From the February 1 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
SCARBOROUGH: That he also -- it's just broke. The Wall Street Journal has written a story about how John McCain complained to conservative lawyers that Samuel Alito was too conservative to be on the Supreme Court. Bob Novak wrote a follow-up article and said the same thing, that people that were in that meeting said John McCain was complaining that Sam Alito was too conservative to be chief -- to be a Supreme Court nominee.
MIKA BRZEZINSKI (co-host): Well, now, you said that earlier in the show, and we actually did get a comment from the McCain campaign about that, saying that what you're saying, in terms of quoting those articles, is "absolutely absurd. Both Novak and The Wall Street Journal stories were based on a blind quote. McCain never made that comment about Alito, and it was widely reported that he declared the report absolutely false."
SCARBOROUGH: You know what I love? OK, so --
BRZEZINSKI: "You'd be hard-pressed to find a Republican who fought harder than John McCain to get Alito on the bench, and the White House recognized it. "
SCARBOROUGH: All right, so here we have John McCain proving once again that he's a liberal, and I'll tell you why. Because liberals have spent the past 30 years calling Bob Novak a liar. And every time liberals call Bob Novak a liar, they're the ones who end up with egg on their face. I remember during the Valerie Plame episode. Remember, Bob Novak told us from the beginning, "This wasn't an ideologue that gave me the name. This wasn't Karl -- this wasn't a Bush operation." And liberals, "Oh, he's lying, da da da da da." And then remember earlier this year, Bob Novak -- and, of course, Novak was right. The liberals were wrong. And then earlier this year, you had Bob Novak talking about how the Clintons were shopping dirt on Obama.
BRZEZINSKI: Well --
SCARBOROUGH: Now, hold on. I've got a point to make here. Everybody called Bob Novak a liar. "Oh, what's Bob Novak? He's not a respectable source." I had somebody on my show, while I was on vacation, saying, "Bob Novak is not a respectable source." I nearly jumped off the couch and ran up to the studio. And so now we have McCain and McCain's camp saying, "Bob Novak is a liar. The Wall Street Journal is lying." Despite the fact that if you read Bob Novak's article, Mika, Bob Novak called several of these lawyers that were in the meeting blind. They did not know that Novak was calling. And Novak said what? They said the same exact thing; their jaws dropped. That John McCain said that this man, Samuel Alito, was too conservative to sit on the Supreme Court. So, they don't have to attack me.
BRZEZINSKI: They're not.
SCARBOROUGH: They can attack Bob Novak and call Bob Novak a liar --
BRZEZINSKI: Well, no, they're flatly denying --
SCARBOROUGH: Because you know what? There is a great history of liberals in America calling Bob Novak a liar. So if they want to call Bob Novak a liar, they can. It just proves conservatives' point once again.
BRZEZINSKI: Well, all I'm doing is reporting the fact that the campaign flatly denies this --
SCARBOROUGH: Well, sure.
BRZEZINSKI: -- whether it's from The Wall Street Journal, Bob Novak, or you. And I think that, you know, there's interesting questions about his conservative credentials. I think you're absolutely right about that. I think there's another narrative at play here, too, and that is John McCain is an interesting candidate, especially up against Hillary Clinton.
SCARBOROUGH: Right.
BRZEZINSKI: And John McCain does have a great personal story, and he does have a lot of things about him that make him an attractive candidate. The question is can he bridge the gap between him, himself, and the conservative base?
SCARBOROUGH: And the conservative movement. And I'll tell you one way you don't do that is by being like Joe Wilson and calling Bob Novak a liar. One way you aren't like that is being like the left wing and calling The Wall Street Journal a bunch of liars. This is what liberals have done for years. He will not bridge that divide by saying that Bob Novak's a liar. That's all I'm saying.















There was no involvement by Rove or Libby. The one who originally spilled the beans about Plame was her fat idiot of a husband Joe Wilson.
Andrea Mitchell said that everyone in town knew she was CIA.
This whole thing is just another smear by the lying left to cover their own malfeasance..
.
That is a profoundly stupid comment.
Joe Wilson DID NOT reveal his wife's identity:
In fact, Wilson's statement during a July 14 interview on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports merely emphasized that his wife's cover was blown the moment Novak revealed her identity in a July 2003 column.
It is simply NOT TRUE to state that "everyone knew" Valerie Wilson was covert:
As I finished reading the column, Joe ventured out onto his deck and offered a neighborly hello. I held up the paper and yelled over, "I had no idea about Valerie!" Joe looked stricken and gestured to me to keep my voice down.
You need to start reading and quit spreading what I must characterize as either misinformation or outright lies, depending on your motives.
That is a profoundly stupid comment.
Joe Wilson DID NOT reveal his wife's identity:
In fact, Wilson's statement during a July 14 interview on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports merely emphasized that his wife's cover was blown the moment Novak revealed her identity in a July 2003 column.
*****AHEM.. regarding the stupid statement above:
A month before Bob Novak published Valerie Plame’s name and disclosed that she worked at the CIA in a department that monitored weapons of mass destruction, the gossipy Richard Armitage at the State Department already knew all about her.When asked how he knew about Plame, Armitage said he knew because Joe Wilson was "calling everybody" and telling them. And by "everybody" Mr. Armitage certainly meant reporters.
It is simply NOT TRUE to state that "everyone knew" Valerie Wilson was covert:
As I finished reading the column, Joe ventured out onto his deck and offered a neighborly hello. I held up the paper and yelled over, "I had no idea about Valerie!" Joe looked stricken and gestured to me to keep my voice down.
Just another lie from that fat idiot Joe
You need to start reading and quit spreading what I must characterize as either misinformation or outright lies, depending on your motives.
The only liars...and it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt...are Val and her fat idiot husband Joe. They both should be rotting in jail
andrea mitchell subsequently took that statement back.
She was just covering her ass to avoid prosecution and to protect the fat idiot Joe Wilson
Umm...so Rove's saying that "he had heard that too" when it was Matt Cooper who had actually brought it up actually means he outed Plame?
...amazing
Stranger:
Novak's own comments contradict yours. Why do you disregard anything that doesn't fit into your version of reality?
apparently you, my good patriotic american, do not care that the bush administration went out of it's way to out an undercover agent and destroy her entire spy network, in
Actually it was that fat idiot husband of hers and his lifelong buddy and co-worker at the State Dept. Marc Grossman that outed Plame and Brewster Jennings back in 2001.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3257725.ece
Grossman, Plame and her fat idiot of a husband should be rotting in jail
Aside from picking on the Maverick, Joe's right. Armitage leaked the name to Novak. It's indisputable that Novak claims to have had the info before talking to Rove. Whether Rove leaked to cooper is a distinction which Joe does not address. But at any rate, the leftwing was set ablaze when Novak so disappointed their expectations
I don't think NOvak disappointed anyone's expectations. Everyone who's paying attention expected him to lie. It was also expected that many people would react by asking "who cares?" and many more would be satisfied with the lie.
Don't worry, expectations for the media and those who believe them are very low.Nice job,Joe, No-Facts, and the posters who love them.
very consistently. Pay close attention to the part where his lips are moving.
I tried to watch the whole thing, but I'm on the low bullsh_t diet.
2 disgraced Americans eating up the lies, must see TV indeed.
I'm not surprised that Ollie's working for Fox. I wonder if they pay his salary in snow tires and home security products.
novak originally said his info came from "two senior administration officials".
My intention isn't to defend Joe, rove . . . . But I haven't seen proof of Novak's lie.
Yeah you're right. Any way it's put, Rove disclosed her identity as a CIA op without legal authority. That Novak may have already known beforehand doesn't make it any less sleazy on Rove's part.
I thought Novak stated that Rove was his confirming source all along; I mean after he disclosed Armitage
Brewster Jennings was outed two years pior to protect the black market selling of nuclear bomb info to Trukey and Pakistan, which somehow put North Korea and Iran in possesion of this same information.
MSN is studiously ignoring this story.
Bthis storyrewster Jennings was outed two years pior to protect the black market selling of nuclear bomb info to Trukey and Pakistan, which somehow put North Korea and Iran in possesion of this same information.
MSN is studiously ignoring
Jesus...did you actually read the story? The reason the MSM is ignoring it is because it shows how the fat idiot Joe outed his wife years ago.
Here's the link, but let me break it down for the non-too-bright at MMfA.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3257725.ece
Marc Grossman, the #3 man at State...who also was was the fat idiot Joe's good friend since they went to college together at UC Santa Barbara and all through their time at State together...actually tipped off the Turks who were working to get nuclear technology from North Korea that Valerie Plame and her front company Brewster Jennings were CIA.
...and where did Grossman get this info?
...from his friend of 30 years, the fat idiot Joe Wilson.
it was the fat idiot who outed his wife...
How did Armitage know about the fat idiot's wife? ...from the fat idiot himself, that's who...
When asked how he knew about Plame, Armitage said he knew because Joe Wilson was "calling everybody" and telling them.
I've said this many times before...the easiest job in the history of the world is that of the left wing propagandist...morons will believe anything
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
I agree, Robert Novak is a idealogue nut case, not a liar.
Joe Scarborough is a LIAR, and a idealogue nut case.
Robert Novak testified to a grand jury that Karl Rove confirmed the account of Richard Armitage's disclosure, and that Karl Rove was part of the process of disclosing this classified imformation to Scooter to pass to the press. This is a matter of public record. After 5 appearances before the Grand Jury Karl Rove finally admitted it under oath, only after yanking the prosecutor's chain for 18months first.
Since Scooter had his conviction of purgery, and obstructions of justice commuted by the very source of the leak, we'll never have their testimony to prosecute these men. They knew from the start that Scooter was not going to jail for them, thus we would have his song sung for all to hear which Dick Cheney, and George Bush could not allow. Obstrution of justice from the President himself under the constitutional power of commutation.
Give me Bill Clinton and a dirty dress any day!
Welcome to the definition of justice in America with a Republican Congress & President in power!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
apparently you, my good patriotic american, do not care that the bush administration went out of it's way to out an undercover agent and destroy her entire spy network, in a world where a tip could save us from an attack.
get a grip. she wasn't undercover and had no network. she was just a paper pusher at that point in her career.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/16/hayden-cia-plame-covert/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnQAZxqZqbc
http://rawstory.com/news/2006/MSNBC_confirms_Raw_Story_report_Outed_0501.html
Yeah, didn't you guys know? Some anonymous guy on an internet site, knows WAY more about Valerie Plame's status than the agency that trained and employed her.
Please, if you don't know something, stop denying it, it just doesn't work here. We have functioning brains and Google, we can bust you in under 30 seconds.
Buff:
As I've said before, if you don't actually study history, don't call yourself a history buff. Plame WAS undercover, the CIA has confirmed this, and claiming otherwise is ridiculous.
Buff:
1) There was an underlying crime.
2) Even if there was no "underlying crime" as you claim, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IS A CRIME IN AND OF ITSELF. Libby was found GUILTY of obstruction of justice.
Buff:
Fitzgerald did not prosecute for the crime of exposing an undercover CIA agent and revealing a CIA front company because he could not gather enough information to build a complete case due to the OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE on the part of people like Libby. They lied so much and so often that Fitzgerald could not build a case, which is why Libby was convicted of OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. Remember that obstruction of justice is a crime itself, and the Republicans were happy enough to trumpet to the skies how horrible it was when Clinton was in front of Starr. Unlike, Ken Starr, Fitzgerald actually did his job and prosecuted only when he had a case that clearly showed guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; remember that Starr has said that he should have recused himself from investigating Clinton. Finally, remember that the CIA said that Plame was undercover and that Brewster Jennings was a cover company. Revealing Brewster Jennings also revealed EVERY SINGLE AGENT ASSOCIATED WITH IT. If you can't even face these facts then you have raised denial from a psychological problem to almost an art form.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/what-the-libby-prosecutio_b_52860.html
Buff:
Look at my previous posts. And if you have a law degree from Stanford, as you have claimed, then you should understand that obstruction of justice is a crime. Defending Plame and Brewster Jennings being exposed is disgusting. Ignoring the CRIME of obstruction of justice and pretending that neither Plame nor Brewster Jennings was undercover is beyond ridiculous. You clearly have no understanding of history, politics, or reality.
Thats just dumb. A prosecuter can think a crime was committed but that he cant prove it in court because of things like Libby obstructing justice. Anyone who watched a few Perry Mason episodes much less ANY lawyer would know that
In fact, Fitzgerald has stated that he was unable to determine whether any laws were violated in the leaking of Plame's identity because his investigation was impeded by former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, whom he charged with perjury and obstructing the grand jury investigation.
The obvious conclusion is that Libby wouldn't have lied and obstructed unless he had something to lie and obstruct about. In other words, if Libby hadn't lied and obstructed, Fitzgerald would have prosecuted those who revealed Valerie Plame Wilson's status as a CIA covert operative.
boy, that is some tortured reasoning. you must be shapen like a pretzel.
libby lied and got prosecuted, so the real perpetrators don't get prosecuted, but if he hadn't lied they would have been. let me guess, you flunked geometry.
here is the cite: http://thehill.com/byron-york/no-reason-to-rush-libby-to-jail-2007-06-08.html
give it a rest folks, you need some sleep.
The logic isn't hard to follow at all, except for the terminally stupid or the partisan hack who feigns ignorance or willfully remains unaware of facts that will detract from his already biased point of view. The only question for you to answer is to which group do you belong?
What did Libby lie about and obstruct justice over? The name of the person who revealed to him Valerie Plame Wilson's status as a CIA covert operative:
"Libby was convicted of one count of obstruction, two counts of perjury and one count of lying to the FBI about how he learned Plame’s identity and whom he told."
Why did he refuse to divulge this information? Because if that person's identity became known, and it could be proved that he or she had definite knowledge of Plame's covert status, he or she could be prosecuted for violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Those are FACTS that cannot be controverted.
Simple logic and deductive reasoning told Fitzgerald and should tell you that if Libby was willing to lie and obstruct justice to cover for others, those others must have been higher than him in the White House hierarchy. It's absolutely factual that those higher than Libby, the Chief of Staff to the Vice President and Counselor to the President were President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Bush's then-Chief of Staff Andrew Card, and Card's deputy, Karl Rove.
We KNOW Card talked about Valerie Plame Wilson's identity. We KNOW Rove did, too. Guess what -- Cheney and Bush also talked about Valerie Wilson's status as an undercover operative.
Since we know that these individuals divulged Valerie Wilson's CIA status, what did Libby try to obfuscate by his lies and obstruction? Logically, Libby's secret was whether these individuals KNEW that Valerie Wilson was covert. Deductive reasoning tells you that they must have known. But since definite knowledge of her status would have been necessary to prosecute under the IIPA, Fitzgerald would have had to PROVE that the leakers definitely knew, which he couldn't do unless one or more of them admitted it. If Libby talked, Bush, Cheney, Card and Rove, and possibly others, would have been prosecuted and could have faced impeachment, jail time and/or fines. THAT's the secret Libby was willing to commit perjury and obstruct justice to protect.
Of course, Bush could tell Libby just to keep his mouth shut, and if he was prosecuted, he'd never serve time ... he'd get a commutation.
And that's how it worked. A criminal conspiracy to undermine America's national security for petty partisan pique, and with the power to obstruct justice and then escape punishment by abusing presidential pardon power.
That's the Bush Administration: Corrupt, criminal, conspiratorial, and cowardly.
Republic,
Well said. Unfortunately, Hstrybuf seems disconnected from reality. Perhaps he thinks that reality has a liberal bias.
Good to see you back Solon.
Buffy your a wanker.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
The schmucks that defend, or re-invent history to protect their tax cuts, will care not the untold damage the Plame matter has done to national security. We did offer the protection of secrecy regardless of politics before the Neo-Cons told us we were all idiots, and they knew better about everything for everyone. Oooooooppppppss, turns out they had it backwards!
How is it we can offer any kind of protection to covert operatives, or resourses when we know a Republican with a bone to pick will sell them down the river, with the pavarrati?
The idea that Republicans would with a straight face claim bonafides in national security is so funny it's tragic.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady