Plame Leak: Rove Rumors Continue

Presidential adviser Karl Rove has been under fire in recent days over his alleged role in the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame 's identity. A federal grand jury investigation is currently underway to determine whether or not her name was leaked illegally. President Bush has indicated that he won't comment until the investigation is complete.

Garrett M. Graff , who writes Fishbowl D.C. a blog that covers the media and journalism in Washington, was online Thursday, July 14, at 3 p.m. ET . As the first blogger accredited to cover White House press briefings, he's been covering the Rove leak investigation and the White House's tough questioning by the press this week.

A transcript follows.

____________________

Garrett M. Graff: Welcome everyone, thanks for joining me today. As a reporter said to me on Tuesday, "there's blood in the water" around this whole White House/Karl Rove/Judith Miller/Matthew Cooper/Bob Novak/Valerie Plame leak investigation, and so the press corps has been grilling White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan like never before.

I'll do my best to answer any and all questions you may have about the complicated, confusing investigation.

_______________________

Clifton, Va.: I have lived in D.C. area all my life and often get invited to the same parties as the former ambassador. His spouse's occupation was common knowledge before the leak to include she was allegedly covert. So if it was common knowledge there was no leak. Therefore no crime occurred. There was no compromise.

Garrett M. Graff: Ahh, the good ole D.C. social circuit. Yes, Ms. Plame has long been a fixture around town, and certainly since this story broke she's become much more of a public figure: She posed (in partial disguise) for Vanity Fair last year, and again in this recent issue without any disguise. (Plus as Slate's Timothy Noah pointed out, you can see her on the Nathan's photo page with her husband.)

Her public face makes this all the more complicated to sort out.

_______________________

Adrian, Mich.: Is there any truth to a story I read that Karl Rove was fired by the Sr. Bush for leaking info in 1992?

Garrett M. Graff: Yes, there is. A bunch of people have been dredging that story up recently.

In 1992 Rove was working for the President Bush Sr.'s reelection campaign. The President's reelection campaign was really struggling at the time, and Bob Novak published a column focused on a Dallas meeting where the Texas state campaign manager, a guy named Robert Mosbacher, was taken to the woodshed.

Mosbacher was furious with the column and complained to campaign officials, and while Rove has long denied he was the source of the story, he was labeled the leaker and fired.

Depending on your viewpoint, there are two schools of thought coming out of this history lesson:

1) Rove was fired for leaking in 1992 and almost lost his career. He wouldn't be stupid enough to do it again in this case.

2) The fact that Rove has a history of leaking politically damaging information to Robert Novak shows that it's not much of a leap to see him do it again.

As I said, what you see is largely dependent in this case on where you stand.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: Hi Garrett,

I'm wondering if you really think the reporters in the White House press briefing can really keep up the intensity on the Rove story if there are no more developments?

Can't McClellen -win- this battle if he refuses to say anything else for 4-5 days on Rove...the press will give up and have to start asking about something else eventually, be it the Supreme Court or the London bombings or whatever. Its a tough 3 days...but isn't time on McClellen's side?

Garrett M. Graff: This is one of the big questions hanging out there -- how many days will editors run stories that, in essence, say "Nothing new happened today." Of course we've seen with the Aruba story that they can keep doing that for weeks if they want, but already the press is realizing that they've gotten as much out of Scott McClellan as they're going to get unless the White House decides to change course and be more forthcoming.

The press corps is certainly going to keep the pressure up as much as they can. They smell blood in the water and add to that the appearance that Scott McClellan and the White House misled them over the past two years by saying Rove wasn't involved, and the press corps wants to take their pound of flesh.

Also summertime is generally a bad time for a Washington scandal to happen because there's not much else to cover (remember the wall-to-wall coverage of Gary Condit in summer 2001?), but this might be an exception: there's a lot else happening in the world today from the London bombings to the Rehnquist retirement watch.

Of course, there's also a more cynical way of looking at how long this story will last: As one White House reporter said to me yesterday, "There's nothing about this story that raising the threat level to orange won't make go away."

_______________________

Malvern, Pa.: Garrett,

Where do you think this story turned the corner and went from being blogosphere-only to MSM?

Garrett M. Graff: I think it turned the corner in two places:

1) When Judy Miller went to jail.

2) When Newsweek's Michael Isikoff published the emails showing that Rove was Matthew Cooper's source.

Both of those moments were wake-up calls for the press corps.

This story may come and go for a while, though, much like Whitewater did during the Clinton administration. Don't be surprised if it disappears for a while and then pops back up a few weeks or months later.

_______________________

Wyckoff, N.J.: I have been following this story fairly closely ever since it first broke. One thing I still do not understand: why was no action ever taken against Robert Novak? Did I miss something along the way? It seems that he played a central role in the entire matter; yet, he is ignored as if he were on the sidelines. Thank you.

Garrett M. Graff: No one really knows exactly what Bob Novak's role is. There's a lot of speculation that he either cut a deal with the prosecutor or his source allowed him to speak to the grand jury. He won't comment at all.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: Why has Robert Novak been given a pass by the media when his role was central to the alleged incident?

Garrett M. Graff: This is a very good question. Until recently Bob Novak, despite all of his media appearances hadn't received much scrutiny for his role in the affair.

As of late, though, he's getting some tough questions. Ed Henry

grilled

him on CNN's Inside Politics, Novak's Sun-Times colleague Carol Marin blasted him in a column, and both Al Hunt and William Safire have called for him to come clean.

Jay Rosen, a blogger and journalism professor at NYU, called on media outlets to

ban Novak

until he comes clean. It's a great idea, but so far it hasn't happened.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Was there an agreement ahead of time that the White House press corps would actually follow up on each other's questions about Rove? It was very unusual for these reporters.

Garrett M. Graff: While many days the press briefing seems a random collection of questions depending on who's working on what story, it's not unusual for the White House press corps to stay on line of questioning when there's a big story

So there wasn't any formal agreement, but from Monday on this week the press corps realized that this is a big story. They're going to keep hammering about it until they feel they get some answers--which they haven't gotten yet.

All you hear in the briefing room and the press work space is "Rove this" and "Rove that." It's all anyone is talking about there, so it's not surprising that it's taking up most of the briefings and press gaggles.

_______________________

Hartford, Conn.: Is my sense that the White House press corps smells the weakness in the character of Scott McClellan correct? Though I do not sit in the room, it seems obvious on TV that he is largely uncomfortable thinking on his feet and/or standing in front of the press corps? This certainly must be most frustrating when the press corps cannot get anything from him, like this week re: Rove.

Garrett M. Graff: Scott McClellan has certainly faced the toughest questioning of his career this week, and he's handled it pretty well actually. It takes some talent to say as little as he's said. He's very good at the role the White House has given him, which is to say: Don't say anything remotely interesting.

As I

wrote

this morning, though, the fatal problem may end up be that he has a credibility problem at the end of this: If Rove was involved, McClellan either was misled by his colleagues in the White House or he lied to the press corps.

Neither position is a good place for a press secretary to be.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: My question is what do the reporters at the White House think they are going to get out of Scott? Why do they repeatedly ask the same question? If he says or indicates he has nothing new to add or can't answer that question (like on Rove), what makes the reporters think if they keep asking the same question over and over again that he will suddenly cave - and answer the question?

Garrett M. Graff: The odd thing is that one of the most important jobs of White House reporters is asking questions they know won't get answered.

In situations like this, they have to put the White House on record as not having answered a question. Hence today's lead stories taking how the White House is not jumping at the chance to come to the defense of Karl Rove. Sometimes their non-answers are just as telling as an answer would be.

The tenacity of both sides--in Scott McClellan's continued "ongoing investigation" evasions and the press corps' repeated grilling--is telling as to what they think the stakes are.

_______________________

Louisville, Ky.: Is the attempt to avoid answering any questions about Rove because of grand jury investigation a valid reason to offer no comment? Here in Kentucky, our governor has been making all sorts of comments about the grand jury and our attorney-general. Maybe he is claiming medical exemption from the supposed rule, since he is an M.D.

Garrett M. Graff: ABC's Jessica Yellin has been doggedly trying to track this angle down--is there a valid reason for the stonewalling?

Other people who have spoken with the prosecutor or the grand jury have said they're free to talk about what they said (and Matt Cooper, for one, will be publishing his testimony in Time magazine in the upcoming week).

Since the White House--from the President to Rove to Scott McClellan--has freely commented on the case before without worrying about the "ongoing investigation" there's a lot of speculation that something has changed recently.

And McClellan's not saying why he's not saying anything.

_______________________

San Francisco, Calif.: On September 29, 2003, Scott McClellan said that "if anyone in this administration was involved... they would no longer be in this administration." On June 10, 2004, the President said he would fire anyone who was found to have leaked the agent's identity.

Regardless of whether or not he's indicted, Rove was clearly involved in the leak. Doesn't Bush have to fire him to live up to his word?

Garrett M. Graff: This sounds like a question to Scott McClellan from one of the TV network correspondents! And it's one that they're going to keep asking in just the same way you did....

_______________________

Charlotte, N.C.: Richard Cohen suggested today (writing in The Post) that we have reached 'gate' status. He suggested "Karlgate." Are we indeed there yet? Is there a name floating around D.C. that will stick?

"Karlgate" has a ring to it.

Garrett M. Graff: Almost from the beginning people have called this Plamegate, but that doesn't have much of a ring to it either.

Any suggestions out there?

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: Doesn't the willingness of two members of the press to go to jail rather than disclose their source - most likely a conservative - wet the powder of all those folks who are saying that the press has a liberal bias?

Garrett M. Graff: Something tells me that people who see liberal bias in the press will never be convinced otherwise, just as people who see the press as lapdogs of the administration will never be swayed otherwise.

I've said before that I think people will read into a reporter's story the bias that they want to see in a reporter.

_______________________

Gainesville, Fla.: I would like to know how many times Karl Rove has leaked information to various media outlets over the past five years. He has, McClellan, Rice, Mehlman and so many others to "correct the record". Why was it necessary for him to use a clandestine tactic if his real goal was to expose the truth? It makes no sense.

Garrett M. Graff: I would imagine that "on background" or "off the record" conversations with the media are a daily part of Karl Rove's routine.

Washington lives on anonymous reporting and "senior administration officials." Most of the time it works okay, except for rare instances like the Newsweek Koran story.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I thought that McClellan's comments that the members of the press "know what type of person I am" and "you know me" were telling. If I read between those lines, he's saying to you members of the White House press briefing, "hey, you know I don't lie to you". Which means he was duped.

Garrett M. Graff: Interesting interpretation. You may be proven right on that.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Hey, I hate Robert Novak as much as the next guy, but if the media is going to boycott anything surely it would be a better use of its time to boycott the most tired and overused trope in all of journalism: _______gate.

And as for rising to "gate" status, when was that ever a high bar? Hello? Filegate anyone?

Man, I hate having to have typed "gate" so many times.

Garrett M. Graff: I agree with you, as do a lot of reporters covering this story. If this is a real scandal, it'll stick even without a catchy title. But then again, catchy titles help stories sound cool.

Anyone remember the "nuclear option" earlier this spring?

_______________________

Washington, D.C. As a blogger, what do you think White House correspondents should better/differently? Also, is Scott McClellan as cute in person as he is on tv?

Garrett M. Graff: I think the White House correspondents actually generally do a very good job working under horrendously hard conditions. They're really stymied in their jobs by the fact that the Bush administration is more hostile to the press than just about any other administration in a generation--many veteran reporters will say that the Bush White House is much worse to cover than the Nixon White House was.

For his part, Scott McClellan is a very

nice guy

in person, and he benefits in the briefing room from looking cute and innocent. He's pretty affable too, which helps to make him hard to hate too much.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: How do you think the case would be covered differently if more bloggers had credentials to go to the White House press briefings?

Garrett M. Graff: I'd love to see more bloggers in the White House. Only one other blogger has followed me in since March.

I think they'd have a valuable perspective to add, if only because they would ask the questions the regular reporters long ago gave up asking because they know they won't get anywhere.

Plus after seeing a couple of briefings in person, many bloggers might be a bit easier on the MSM.

_______________________

Albany, N.Y.: One claim that the Republicans have made in defending Rove is that Wilson was wrong. This is a classic attempt to distract by getting bogged down in irrelevant details. Regardless of Wilson's veracity:

1. Valerie Plame's identity was leaked;

2. Karl Rove leaked it;

3. That may have been a crime;

4. Even if it wasn't, it's about as low as you can go. Even the mob leaves the victim's family alone.

Wilson's veracity/accuracy changes none of these facts.

Does it seem to you that these attempts to distract are working?

Garrett M. Graff: The distraction technique is classic Rove, which has a lot of reporters wondering how much he's involved in his own defense.

_______________________

West Chester, Pa.: What about the second source? Novak said he received this information from two sources. Who is the other one?

Garrett M. Graff: Again, no one really knows, but the speculation is that Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff, or long-time GOP staffer Elliott Abrams might be involved too.

_______________________

To Clifton, Va.: Lots of things are "known" in D.C., but I don't think that that should give you a pass on being the person who tells someone else. My mom told me that decades ago the intake person at Arlington Hospital always knew who was CIA or a family member because the exchange for the telephone number of the CIA was known. Folks who came in didn't say they were CIA, but it was known. I don't think that gave anyone a "pass" on passing on the info. (That was pre-Hipa. I'm thinking a chatty intake worker would get in more trouble for saying anything that Rove ever will.)

Garrett M. Graff: Yes, good point. Much is common knowledge socially or professionally in D.C. that shouldn't get published in the newspaper for a wide variety of reasons.

_______________________

Worcester, Mass.: Do reporters ever out other reporter's sources? Surely there must be some knowledge of who is talking to whom. Or is it professional courtesy not to do that?

Garrett M. Graff: I imagine this would be considered a mortal sin in most journalistic circles and circumstances--now that being said, remember that for the last 30 years team after team tried to track down Deep Throat.

There are exceptions to every rule.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I read the transcripts everyday, and was floored by Monday's. Good stuff. Who is going to keep at this, who should I be reading and looking for in the briefings?

Garrett M. Graff: The three TV correspondents: CBS' John Roberts, ABC's Terry Moran, and NBC's David Gregory have been the hungriest. Making Scott McClellan squirm makes for good TV. They're joined by the big reporters for the top news organizations like the Washington Post and the AP.

However one of the surprising aspects of this week is how most of the press corps is chasing this. Some of the best questions have come from April Ryan, a reporter for American Urban Radio.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: I landed on your site for the first time, yesterday. This is simply to say thanks for the hearty chuckles. I had no idea there could be so much comedy in that press room. We need more coverage like that!

Regards.

Garrett M. Graff: Like I said, I think that bloggers can add a much-needed behind-the-scenes perspective to the White House press briefings and other governmental institutions.

Since we're not always focused on the big picture, we can report on things that "real" reporters don't care about--like how awful the

press room conditions

are.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: I've chosen to call this the Plame Blame Game. It has a nice ring to it.

Garrett M. Graff: I like it -- and on that note, we're out of time. Thanks to everyone who sent in questions and read along today.

If you want to keep following the story, I'd encourage you to keep reading my blog:

Fishbowl D.C.

I'm sure we'll be talking about this some time to come.

_______________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.