Huh?

The New York Times reports tangentially on Rove’s role in the Plame affair in an article headlined For Time Inc. Reporter, a Frenzied Decision to Testify, which basically describes Cooper’s attempts to get a "certain, unambiguous waiver" from his source before testifying—even though he had a signed waiver.

Around 7:30 on Wednesday morning, Mr. Cooper had said goodbye to his son, resigned to his fate. His lawyer, Mr. Sauber, called to alert him to a statement from Mr. Luskin in The Wall Street Journal.

"If Matt Cooper is going to jail to protect a source," Mr. Luskin told The Journal, "it's not Karl he's protecting."

That provided an opening, Mr. Cooper said. "I was not looking for a waiver," he said, "but on Wednesday morning my lawyer called and said, 'Look at The Wall Street Journal. I think we should take a shot.' And I said, 'Yes, it's an invitation.' "

In court shortly after 2, he told Judge Thomas F. Hogan of the Federal District Court in Washington that he had received "an express personal release from my source."

That statement surprised Mr. Luskin, Mr. Rove's lawyer. Mr. Luskin said he had only reaffirmed the blanket waiver, in response to a request from Mr. Fitzgerald.

Then, in a Washington Post story, headlined Rove Told Reporter of Plame's Role But Didn't Name Her, Attorney Says, in which staff writer Josh White kindly outlines Rove’s entire jagoff defense, we find out a little bit more about this waiver:

After the investigation into the leak began, Luskin said, Rove signed a waiver in December 2003 or January 2004 authorizing prosecutors to speak to any reporters Rove had previously engaged in discussion, which included Cooper.

"His written waiver included the world," Luskin said. "It was intended to be a global waiver. . . . He wants to make sure that the special prosecutor has everyone's evidence. That reflects someone who has nothing to hide."

Cooper had indicated he would go to jail rather than expose a confidential source, but he agreed last week to cooperate with the grand jury after getting clearance from his source to testify. Luskin said Cooper had been clear to testify all along -- because of the waiver signed 18 months ago -- but that the waiver was "reaffirmed" on Wednesday, the day of a hearing to decide whether he and Miller would go to jail.

If there’s been a signed waiver in place for a year and a half, what’s all this rigmarole been about? Is Luskin playing a little game of semantics by describing the waiver as granting authorization to prosecutors to speak to reporters, or did it really only grant that permission and not the other way around? Just because it was "intended" to be a global waiver doesn't necessarily mean it was, no? If the waiver didn’t explicitly allow reporters to speak with prosecutors, then is this waiver even relevant, aside from making Rove look innocent and Cooper like kind of a jerk?

Fuck, I can barely tell what’s bad reporting and what’s Rove & Co.’s usual jerk-around. Between the two, both par for the course nowadays, it’s a miracle I can even follow this bramble of bullshit at all.