Asked by investigators how he knew enough to leave Mr. Novak with the impression that his information was accurate, Mr. Rove said he heard portions of the story from other journalists, but had not heard Ms. Wilson's name.
The key clue that it is spin? Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, isn't endorsing it. Which, to me, says it's a public relations ploy, coming from one of Rove's lawyer/p.r. friends who thinks he or she is helping Rove by this disclosure. Defense lawyers and public relations people often do not see eye-to-eye. One is trying to protect a client's liberty. The other is trying to protect the client's reputation. In a criminal investigation, the lawyer is usually right. The less said in public, the better.
Robert D. Luskin, Mr. Rove's lawyer, said Thursday, "Any pertinent information has been provided to the prosecutor."
Update: The unidentified Rove supporter has moved on to the AP which identifies him as working in the legal profession. The source again claims Rove heard about Plame's identity from a reporter. Is this source a government lawyer or employee of one, and is he or she violating the law by disclosing matters that occurred before the grand jury?
Presidential confidant Karl Rove testified to a grand jury that he learned the identity of a CIA operative originally from journalists, then informally discussed the information with a Time magazine reporter days before the story broke, according to a person briefed on the testimony.
The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of the secrecy of grand jury proceedings, told The Associated Press that Rove testified last year that he remembers specifically being told by columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame, the wife of a harsh Iraq war critic, worked for the CIA.
It's only a crime for a Government attorney or someone associated with one to disclose matters occurring before the grand jury. Witnesses before the grand jury and their attorneys are not under a secrecy rule. Only Government attorneys and personnel are allowed in the grand jury room. Transcripts of grand jury proceedings are not available to witness' lawyers before Indictment. Yet this source seems to be quite familiar with Karl Rove's grand jury testimony. Karl Rove's lawyer wasn't in the grand jury room.
Maybe Fitzgerald needs to add another subject to his investigation - this source in the legal profession who claims to be privy to Karl Rove's grand jury testimony and is now leaking it. He seems to be (now or in the past) on the government's team.
One more point: The source tells the AP that Rove testified that Novak told Rove about Valerie Plame on July 8 and Rove had already heard it from another journalist. But Rove can't remember which one. How convenient.
Update: The Washington Post has this account, mostly confirming the New York Times account, and reporting that the source is a lawyer. It does not say the source is working for Luskin. The source also seems to be familiar with Lewis Libby's grand jury testimony.
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, has also testified before the grand jury, saying he was alerted by someone in the media to Plame's identity, according to a source familiar with his account. Cooper has previously testified that he brought up the subject of Plame with Libby and that Libby responded that he had heard about her from someone else in the media, according to sources knowledgeable about Cooper's testimony.
And, the article references "Republican lawyers working with Rove" which I also interpret as meaning lawyers not from Luskin's office.
Then there's this:
Sources who have reviewed some of the testimony before the grand jury say there is significant evidence that reporters were in some cases alerting officials about Plame's identity and relationship to Wilson -- not the other way around.
So now there are multiple sources familiar grand jury testimony who are talking. Again, the only persons who are allowed to review grand jury testimony at this stage are government lawyers and personnel, and if they disclose it to those not authorized to have it, they can be found in contempt of court.
Update: I suspect this e-mail I received presents a view that is shared by many readers:
I enjoy your analysis of the Rove matter but I think your latest posting is off the mark. the source in the NYT, WP and AP is Luskin himself. think about it. he would be in a position to know what Rove said in the grand jury room and is attempting to save Rove's reputation. He has resorted to this means because Fitzgerald has asked witnesses and their attorneys not to speak about their testimony. I think that you will agree that this is not an implausible hypothesis. Thanks again for the insights.
My response:
It seems logical but I don't buy it. And Luskin is not allowed to see Rove's testimony, he only knows what Rove told him he was asked and what Rove told him he answered.
See the Wash Post article, there are multiple sources now disclosing grand jury testimony. Luskin wouldn't use an anonymous source, he'd come right out and say it. It's not a violation for the witness and his lawyer to do so. But yes, your theory is plausible.
Luskin is an experienced criminal defense attorney. I don't think he'd get this specific with the media about what his client's grand jury testimony was, when he has only his client's oral recollection of it to go by. He's sticking to the modern equivalent of "no comment" - "Any pertinent information has been provided to the prosecutor."
