Seems that Lawrence O'Donnell, and now Newsweek, is reporting that Karl Rove may have been the main leaker in the Valerie Plame case. That would certainly explain why he emerged from the shadows last week with that "liberals wanted to give Osama therapy" speech; if he's on the collar for this, he'll need all the help he can get. Others think the real issue is perjury; that Rove, who has testified before the grand jury, might have said he never spoke to Time's Matt Cooper about Plame, and the now-turned-over notes prove this to be a falsehood.
Just when everybody's steeling for a Supreme Court fight, "The Architect" getting hauled into court would not be the most auspicious of beginnings.
I'll be popping open a Fresca and watching this one with relish. I did mention before that the way in which this came about, by Time forcibly releasing the notes to the grand jury, left a poor taste in my mouth. But what leaves an even poorer one is the notion that literally dozens of other reporters apparently had this information, and none of them came forward to the grand jury. Not the press corps members who wrote or wanted to write stories about it, mind you; I'm talking about colleagues. O'Donnell himself said "I don't want to get hauled before the grand jury, but Rove did it." That kind of talk signals to me that it was an open secret. So ordinary citizens, journalists who weren't protecting sources, knew about the uncovering of a CIA agent, and just sat on the news?
Digby is wondering the same thing:
This is a very interesting professional and ethical question for the media. Does the reporter's privilege extend to his friends? Here you apparently have quite a few members of the DC press corps with a piece of very juicy information (allegedly) about the most powerful political operative in the United States --- information that also has to do with an important matter of national security and a Justice department investigation. In some sort of friendship extension of the reporter's privilege they say nothing. Amazing.
And during the time they say nothing an election is held in which the political operative in question works feverishly to smear his client's opponent with scurrilous charges of borderline treason and cowardly behavior during wartime. The entire election is premised on the fact that the president, this man's client, is the only one capable of handling national security. His prior campaign had been waged with an overt promise to bring honor and integrity back to the White House. Still nothing.
Finally, when their friend seems headed to jail and his boss has agreed to turn over notes, they start to step up and reveal what they know.
Hookay. I think it's time to convene another conference on blogger ethics and professional journalistic standards. I get so confused about these things.