Last updated Monday, March 17, 2008 08:18 AM
You are here:
This free script provided by JavaScript Kit

Why Karl Rove will walk free
in the Valerie Plame scandal
Karl Rove will walk, says reporter once jailed for protecting sources

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." - Bill Clinton

By Jim Moore

In 1975, I was jailed for three months in Williamson County, TN for refusing to name my source on a story that described an "enemies list" local police officials claimed they were given by the city commissioners of Fairview, TN.

The "official" reason for my incarceration was that I was in violation of a "blue law" (now unconstitutional) that prohibited me from having my newspaper office open on a Sunday. We published on Sunday.

The more accurate reason had to do with my investigative reporting into wrong-doing in county law enforcement, including drug dealing by certain deputies, a burglary ring involving law enforcement officials and, finally, the murder of an honest deputy as he was driving to my home one night to bring me documentation of the the drug and burglary operations.

I had been meeting with the sheriff of a neighboring county, in secret midnight rendezvous, along with a local police chief, trying to document the case.

I lost my newspaper, The Fairview Sun, and eventually my family and everything of any value that I owned. The story was widely covered on local television and print media, as well as in Editor & Publisher.

So it is with special interest that I have followed the case of Karl Rove, Lewis Libby (right) and Valerie Plame-Wilson.

Karl Rove's biggest threat is the mostly-black, mostly-female, mostly Democrat grand jury hearing the case.

But the Republicans have taken a lesson from the successful exploits of Bill Clinton. Rove can truthfully say he did not "reveal the name" of Valerie Plame. Clinton's response was "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." Clinton testified he was not [at the moment] engaged in a sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky. The word "is" means present tense, not past. The Bush-Rove team is clinging to a very similar legality over whether Rove revealed the name of Valerie Plame.

But if I were to tell a reporter that Dick Cheney's wife was a spy for the CIA, it would pretty much narrow it down, since Cheney (as Wilson) is married to only one woman. It isn't necessary to actually name a name.

Add to this the fact that Rove did not call Matt Cooper at TIme magazine - Cooper called him, supposedly to ask a question or two about Social Security.

Add to this the fact that Valerie Plame does not meet the legal definition of a "covert operative" (overseas covert assignment within the previous five years).

Add to this the fact that her husband somewhat embellished his own accounts of his trip to discover Iraqi links to uranium purchases, and who sent (or recommended) him.

Personally, I think Karl Rove is a slime-ball with a long history of dirty tricks that goes back to Nixon and Watergate. But were I a member of the jury, I could not vote to convict or even indict him - unless there is evidence from Robert Novak that Rove committed perjury. That is the "October surprise" in this case.

Rove and his lawyer seem to change their stories, true. First, Rove - backed by Bush - said he had nothing whatever to do with the leak. But that was a lie, at least to the public.

Then Rove claimed he heard it first from Cooper. That, too, was a lie.

Now, he claims to have heard it first from Novak. Is that yet another lie?

Jailed NY Times reporter Judith Miller is probably also protecting Rove, on the belief that he was coerced into signing a waiver of confidentiality. That may be true.

Robert Novak, said to be a former CIA employee himself, is the wild card.

In this case, when the source is lying through his teeth in a leak that has endangered not only a CIA operative (Plame) but also the whole cover company that she was operating under, I think reporters have to carefully think about how far they are willing to go to protect sources with obvious agendas of their own.

If Valerie Plame is found to have been endangered (and the CIA certainly felt she was), and if her exposure is indeed a threat to national security, then Rove should at least be asked to resign.

But based on the known evidence, I can not envision an indictment or conviction - unless it's on the basis of perjury.