Apparently, the talking points have arrived at Faux News. “Fair and balanced” Britt Hume, without mentioning Karl Rove by name, is mounting Karl’s defense on the issue. The defense?
1) That it would be really hard to prove that someone “knowingly” revealed this information;
2) That Rove has authorized the reporters to give their notes;
3) That Fitzgerald is out of control, and that Judith Miller is wrongly defending a source. See, Britt knows that Miller is wrong about feeling like she needs to defend the source, because he…uh…;
4) Fitzgerald is “on a fool’s errand”
No mention of the potential crime. No mention of the implications of allowing government officials to out CIA agents. No mention of the fact that Rove told Chris Matthews that Plame was “fair game.” No analysis of the suspicious timeline of the leak.
This is the most stunning display of managed news I have seen. I am watching one Fauxcaster lob up softballs to another, who is answering with what can only be described as Administration talking points on the issue. After steadfastly ignoring breaking news for a full weekend, Faux finally “broke” the story with an obvious, partisan spin.
Lawrence O’Donnell has three questions for Robert Luskin, Karl Rove’s lawyer, over at Huffington. While O’Donnell is clearly coming across as more personally invested in the story than perhaps he should, be the questions are pretty legitimate ones, questions I suspect we will not get an answer to anytime soon.
Q: You’ve said Rove is not a target of the investigation. Is he a subject of the investigation?
Q: Since Time delivered its e-mails to the prosecutor on Friday, have you asked the prosecutor whether Rove’s status has changed? From witness to subject? Or subject to target?
Q: You told Newsweek that your client “never knowingly disclosed classified information.” Did Rove ever unknowingly disclose classified information?
Finally, what about Bob? Somehow, Bob Novak, perhaps the most loathsome conservative ideologue ever to grace the airwaves and print, continues to skate. Robert Kuttner boils down the issue to a simple dilemma in the Boston Globe today.
But what about Novak? He obviously knows who leaked the name to him. Why is Miller, who never even wrote an article, facing jail? If anyone should be threatened with contempt of court, it is Novak.
There are only two possibilities. Either Novak did tell the prosecutor the names of the officials who leaked the name and the prosecutor is going easy on them, or Novak refused and the prosecutor is going easy on Novak. Either explanation reeks of favoritism, selective prosecution, and cover-up.
Karl Rove Plame: 418
“Shasta Groene” 3,070
“Natalle Holloway”: 11,400