By now, hopefully everybody has seen the story in the New York
Times detailing Matt Cooper's decision to testify after Rove's attorney let his hubris get the better of him:
"If Matt Cooper is going to jail to protect a source," Mr. Luskin told The Journal, "it's not Karl he's protecting."
My question is this: Why Matt Cooper, specifically? As long as he was being cocky, why not say the same about Judy Miller?
Kossacks, I need your help with this. There are many possible answers to this, most of them innocuous, but I wonder if there isn't something to be revealed about this case in analyzing the possibilities:
1. Luskin was simply answering a question specifically about Cooper. This, while certainly possible, troubles me a little because both Cooper and Miller were facing Judge Hogan on contempt charges the same day. Why would the reporter for the Wall Street Journal ask about Cooper but not Miller?
2. The context of the conversation with the Journal reporter at that moment centered around Time's decision to release Cooper's notes to the court. This, too, is easy to imagine, but did the reporter simply fail to ask about Miller? If so, why?
3. Luskin had other reasons, potentially catastrophic for the White House, for avoiding discussion of whether Miller was released like Cooper was. This is where the speculation could get interesting.
Perhaps some enterprising reporter could get Luskin on the phone and ask him if Miller is in jail protecting his client. I'd love to know the answer... no, scratch that, I'd love just to have the answer. Given the same release that Cooper got, would Miller testify?
There's smoke here. What does it mean?