« Why Rove Left | Main | Uh-oh »

August 14, 2007

Comments

I found a passage which remains interesting in the July 2005 Senate Judiciary committee appearance by Pearlstine, there.

In rejecting our claims, the court also relied on eight pages of Judge Tatel’s
opinion analyzing the Special Counsel’s secret evidentiary submission. But the
court redacted the entirety of this discussion and so those pages are blank. The
court rejected our argument that basic due process afforded us a right to see this
evidence and thus denied us any insight into the Special Counsel’s reasons for
seeking to force Cooper and Miller to testify. Our petition for rehearing by the full
D.C. Circuit was denied.

I wonder if those eight pages remain redacted now three years later. A lot more is known historically now about the ingenuity the administration was to exhibit over the ensuing few years, in dividing states secrets cases from first and fourth amendment arguments, though much which could inform crafting of a federal shield law remains sequestered by administration document management policies.

It was interesting to glance at Pearlstine's resume, law degree, economics journalism, foreign press office.

John

Thanks for linking to that--Pearlstine puts that--verbatim, I think--in the book. Of course, all but two pages of this have been unsealed by now, and enough of it had been unsealed before Pearstine went to press. Like the AP and WSJ, he appears more interested in complaining about not knowing what's in those pages than looking to see for himself.

Reading Anatomy of Deceit two times — both before and after the Libby trial — I was struck by how much sense the whole narrative makes if we accept Fleischer's testimony at face value, that he did indeed tell Dickerson about Mrs. Wilson and her CIA role on that roadside in Uganda, and that the magazine had two reporters who were put in the know.

Viveca Novak's information-running efforts to Rove/Luskin strike me as an effort to stave off disaster for the magazine... Rove, after all, would have almost certainly known about the magazine's false assertions regarding Cooper as the sole leak recipient. Rove would therefore have had considerable blackmail material on the magazine, knowing it had deceived the court, and knowing (probably) that Ari had copped his own immunity deal, too...

No wonder Time, and Pearlstine, did everything posssible to keep readers from knowing the truth about the leak (appealing all the way to the Supreme Court to keep its readers in the dark). After the Supreme Court ruled against them, Time had the strongest of motivations to keep Rove out of jail. It was all about saving the magazine's reputation, and obviously, Pearlstine is still spinning as fast as he can.

So what does Pearlstine say about Viveca Novak? As little as possible, I imagine.

We need to look to the future. Stop sopping up the past like some kind of sticky narcotic syrup.

Mr Karl Rove has returned to his roots!

TNH should return to the present!

Jodi,
Understanding the past is absolutely important for understanding the present and the future.

I wonder whether the "Rule of Law" bit is preemptive propaganda for Risen and Lichtblau in the Tamm case.

The truth shall set us free.

Jodi

"History doesn't always repeat itself. Sometimes it jsut yells 'Can't you remember anything I tell you?' and lets fly with a club."

Also
"Those who do not remember history are condemned to repeat it."

I don't know about you, but I'm getting tired of the amnesiacs in DC.

Not sure if you check these old threads Marci, but was wondering if you wouldnt mine dropping me an email. I will be attending a smallish chat with Norman Pearlstin next week that my employer has put together and I was wondering if you had any suggestions for a good question to ask him . . .

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad