PlameGate & Rove: the Right Reacts

This weekend began with an apparent bombshell from Lawrence O’Donnell during the taping of the McLaughlin Group:

Time magazine’s emails will reveal that Karl Rove was Matt Cooper’s source. I have known this for months but didn’t want to say it at a time that would risk me getting dragged into the grand jury.

While the left side of the Blogworld has been all over this, we have seen just a few press reports with none from Fox News. The reaction right side of the BlogWorld seems be denial. NRO’s The Corner featured Jonah Goldberg’s prediction on Saturday:

Rove didn’t do it. But, as Glenn Reynolds notes, the possibility will cause many liberals to have a second case of whiplash (the first being their sudden disapproval of the investigation they essentially started when it became clear that the Times and Newsweek would get ensnared). Now that it seems possible Rove did it, many will suddenly re-fall in love with Patrick Fitzgerald. And if the person I *think* did it, did in fact do it, we will see even more plastic-collared liberals in the weeks to come.

While the basis of his prediction seems to be that Goldberg cannot make up his mind, John Podhoretz had this “reasoning” on Sunday:

Newsweek’s story doesn’t say that. It only says Rove spoke to Cooper, and Rove’s lawyer Robert Luskin offers a complete and flat denial that Rove said anything about Valerie Plame: “Luskin told NEWSWEEK that Rove ‘never knowingly disclosed classified information’ and that ‘he did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.’ Luskin declined, however, to discuss any other details. He did say that Rove himself had testified before the grand jury ‘two or three times’ and signed a waiver authorizing reporters to testify about their conversations with him. ‘He has answered every question that has been put to him about his conversations with Cooper and anybody else,’ Luskin said.” Seems to me that unless Luskin is lying, Rove is in the clear.

By Podhoretz’s standard of evidence, we would never need to have trials if the defense attorney declares his client is not guilty. Credit goes to Tom MaGuire for not being so gullible.

Credit should go to Tony Blankey for his comments on he McLaughlin Group as to why the prosecutor should be able to compel the testimony of Matt Cooper. For a similar line of reasoning, see Mark Kleiman.