Just Say 'No' To Novak?

With Times reporter Judith Miller in jail on contempt charges for her refusal to cooperate with Special Counsel Fitzgerald's investigation into the Plame leak, folks are wondering, "Where's Novak"?  His July 14, 2003 column triggered this whole fracas, but at this point, he has not explained his subsequent role - did he cooperate with Special Counsel Fitzgerald, did he testify to the grand jury, what?  Novak is a newsman, this is news - what's the story, Bob?

Robert Kuttner goes off the deep end making this point; Powerline and Mickey Kaus try to steer him home (but not too gently!).

[David Corn has a good piece at his blog, and here, but he missed the Pincus parallel below.]

And let's cherry-pick the Huffington Cacophony:

Alan Dershowitz says that "Robert Novak has not -- to my knowledge -- been presented with the tragic choice of disclosure or imprisonment."

David Sirota says that "Bob Novak Is a Pathetic, Unethical, Unpatriotic Hack".  With undistinguished hair.

Finally, Jay Rosen makes sense with "Time for Robert Novak to Feel Some Chill" - maybe if CNN and the papers that ran his column were barraged with annoyed letters every time Novak appeared, the idea that newsmen should deliver the news would be reinforced.  Contact info will be posted below, eventually.

Well.  Jay Rosen correctly notes the Walter Pincus story may be instructive, but then misses an obvious point (well, it was obvious to me in the update to this earlier post).

Briefly, Walter Pincus of the WaPo got a leak on July 12, 2003 which contained all the info necessary to write the controversial Novak passage.  He did not publish then, but wrote about it on October 12 in order to illustrate two points - other reporters than Novak had received similar leaks, and "because I did not think the person who spoke to me was committing a criminal act, but only practicing damage control by trying to get me to stop writing about Wilson."

Ahh!  So why is Walter Pincus not in the news today?  Did he stand tall and defy Fitzgerald?  Did he cravenly collapse?  Was he, following Dershowitz, allowed to "skate"?

Hardly - as reported in the WaPo, an accommodation with Fitzgerald was reached after the source identified himself to Fitzgerald and gave testimony.  Mr. Pincus provided more details to Editor and Publisher (and the Pincus source is *not* Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby).

The point?  Novak might have received a similar leak from the same source; the source may have chatted with Fitzgerald about both Novak and Pincus, and Novak may have cooperated in the same way that Pincus did.

That would explain Novak's current status, although it leaves unanswered the question of "why so coy?".  We also have no obvious theory about Novak's second source.  However, based on Novak's presumably self-serving account, the second source offered a perfunctory "Oh, you know about it."

And if Fitzgerald has Novak's sources, what is he still looking for?  Well, perhaps he is listening to the echo chamber - reporters passed the Plame gossip back and forth with Administration officials, but someone had to be first, presumably, and that someone may have committed a crime.

Or perhaps he is looking for perjury.

Below we excerpt the leak as described by Mr. Pincus on Oct. 12, 2003, and compare that to the account of the leak Mr. Novak gave earlier, on Oct 1, 2003.  Maybe these two are in cahoots, but their stories overlap nicely.

MORE:  My Big Finish - Rove's attorney is tap-dancing (and see today's WaPo, which picks up the Parse-o-rama we noted in an Update yesterday, and in a longish post a few days back.)  The White House concern at this point is political, not legal - the "non-criminal leak" defense will probably hold in Fitzgerald's court, but not the court of public opinion.  Rehashing the "16 Words" debacle in order to explain the legal subtleties to a baffled (and bored) public is a distraction the White House would rather avoid, and so far, they have managed to hide behind grand jury secrecy, right past the 2004 election.  Mission Accomplished!

Well, my free advice to the Dems two years ago was to drop the legal angle and pursue the potential for humiliating hearings under Congressional bright lights (with grants of immunity).  Too late.  But it's not too late for 2006 - let Fitzgerald's investigation grind to an inconclusive halt, and then sweat Karl under the lights. 

Of course, the Right response will be, c'mon, this has been exhaustively investigated, there was no crime.  But maybe it will be an excuse for Congress to write a reporter shield law.

As to the press, their desire to cover this was never strong, and we see why - first, the press is about source protection, not source prosecution.  Secondly, Fitzgerald is struggling to sort out which Adminstration officials learned about Plame from reporters, and vice versa, and the gossip has muddied the waters - is Fitzgerald investigating our Washington press coprs, or a teenage slumber party?

From the Post:

On July 12, two days before Novak's column, a Post reporter was told by an administration official that the White House had not paid attention to the former ambassador's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger because it was set up as a boondoggle by his wife, an analyst with the agency working on weapons of mass destruction. Plame's name was never mentioned and the purpose of the disclosure did not appear to be to generate an article, but rather to undermine Wilson's report.

From Novak:

First, I did not receive a planned leak. Second, the CIA never warned me that the disclosure of Wilson's wife working at the agency would endanger her or anybody else. Third, it was not much of a secret.

...

During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it." The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

At the CIA, the official designated to talk to me denied that Wilson's wife had inspired his selection but said she was delegated to request his help. He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name. I used it in the sixth paragraph of my column because it looked like the missing explanation of an otherwise incredible choice by the CIA for its mission.

How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry.

A big question is her duties at Langley. I regret that I referred to her in my column as an "operative," a word I have lavished on hack politicians for more than 40 years. While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered" -- working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations.

"Operative" was controversial - Josh Marshall had lots of thoughts, which I will find eventually.  But barring that extrapolation, what Pincus was told is enough to fill in the gaps and write Novak's column.

Comments

[kim]

The one who can't help but perjure himself is Joe Wilson.
==============================

[Jim E.]

I'm surprised you didn't link to David Corn's article from yesterday.

[TM]

Hmm, I'm surprised you didn't leave a link in your comment.

I did see Corn had a very good piece on July 5, and I have meant to link to that.

Well, Typepad is hung up (again), so it doesn't look like I'll be doing much linking at all.

[TM]

OK, here is the Corn article. Hah! Although Mr. Corn may be one of the few people in America more in need of an intervention on the Plame case than I am, he has missed the key Pincus parallel. He guesses at what Novak might have told prosecutirs, but Pincus provides a live example of soemeone who *did* give prosecutors an exculpatory story, with the permission of the source.

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger. '

And, it meets Occam's Razor. So, what's Fitzgerald's point in continuing the investigation?

[Jim]

Maybe the point is simply to serve notice on all government employees - partisan gunslingers or not - that leakers will be persued and punished. This leak did not result in anyone getting killed or a mission being blown. The next one might.

[R C Dean]

However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations.

Bingo. This is why no crime was committed.

Maybe the point is simply to serve notice on all government employees - partisan gunslingers or not - that leakers will be persued and punished.

Bingo again. It has been apparent for some time that no one was going to jail for the leak. The media that feeds off of leakers jumped up and down and screamed for this investigation, so the administration, which hates the culture of leakers, took the opportunity to give them what they asked for, good and hard.

[Jeff]

www.talkleft.com has thoughts along the same lines, and speculates considerably further on the content of what Libby might have told Miller. Curious for your thoughts. Apparently there is a lot of talk (I get this from Huffington) about whether there was a strategy meeting about this that involved Libby and Rove. But best I can see the only source for the idea so far is Joe Wilson's book and comments on it to USA Today at the time of its publication. And Cheney's office denied it.

[Scott Harris]

"so the administration, which hates the culture of leakers, took the opportunity to give them what they asked for, good and hard."

This particular Administration has always had Brer Rabbit's talent for deception. "Please, please don't throw me into the briar patch." But the unwitting press and their Democratic compatriots keep being astounded when Brer "W" keeps crawling out of the "briar patch" unscathed. You would think they would have figured it out by now.

[Rove's Better Half]

Please! This is the same old, tired partisan mud slinging that people like me (middle of America)have grown weary of and disgusted with. This is a complete non-story that the Left has lamely attempted to fluff up into a "scandal." Grow up.

And what exactly is there to be exercised about? Someone in the government pointed out to the press that Wilson was given his mission by his connected wife. It was a valid critique of Wilson's credentials. All the rest of this drivel is faux outrage.

It is amusing to see the Left licking it's chops at the prospect of smearing Rove, but alas, they will come up empty handed again. It further amuses me to see leftists, who on any other day despise the CIA, express such sincere concern about the welfare of one of its operatives. Rest easy my friends. Plame was in no more danger from Novak's column than Porter Goss is from me mentioning that he works for the CIA. (And he knows far more secrets than she does!)

[jerry]

Rove talks to Matalin after Wilson article, Matalin talks to reporter friends about Plame, reporters call the White House, Novak writes article, etc...?

Rove conspiracy, Matalin perjury?

[Dan]

It seems to me that, unless Novak is outright lying, the original leaker can't have been Rove. Nobody could credibly describe Rove as "no partisan gunslinger".

[Jon H]

I'd like to know if Cliff May has been in for a chat with Mr. Fitzgerald.

May claims to have been told by a 'non governmental' source, but May hangs out with ex-governmental people who have or had high security clearances, and may have been in a position to know about Plame.

[TM]

Jeff - I think I saw the sam post byArianna, where the consensus was that the White House is in trouble if the leaks were the result of a meeting where they were planned. Otherwise, accidents happen.

As to meetings and groups, I would dig under "White House Iraq Group", or, I suppose, WHIG.

This old post, where I note the WHIG, has held up well (NOT!) I explain why it is not Rove, and tab Libby Lewis and Hadley.

That said, my reasons for thinking it is not Rove stand up - briefly, how did Wilson guess it was Rove, and not have Cooper or anyone else urge him on?

Sorry for the ghastly formatting - that post is legible, especially if you like green and scroll down.

Eventually Typepad may fix all this.

[Jeff]

Tom - Thanks for the reply. What I really really want to know is if the WHIG was involved in the production or circulation of the Niger uranium docs. But I'll leave that for another day.

Forgive me if this is all obvious, I'm slow on these complicated matters. It seems pretty plausible now that Rove was Cooper's source and personally released him, while Libby is the source for Miller that Fitzgerald is after, and has not released her personally (even though, I think, he seems to have personally released Cooper). Now, if such a release does not happen, that strongly suggests there is something in the substance of their contact that Libby really does not want Fitzgerald getting his hands on. Talkleft thinks the substance is that Libby told her about the relevant strategy meeting, though talkleft calls it a meeting of Cheney's staff, which has been denied -- and your suggestion is a meeting of the WHIG, which both Libby and Rove were a part of, which fits. Right?

On the other hand, I'm not sure what to make of the bit in the subpoena to Miller concerning not Plame specifically but Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium. Lefties want this to be about the larger Niger doc thing, Righties want it to be about Wilson. I've not seen you commit yourself on this. I find it highly implausible that Fitzgerald is going after Wilson in any way.

[Meatsss]

I did read the transcript of an interview of Novak in the last 2 weeks. Can't remember which show he was on. But he stated he couldn't talk about any details of the investigation on the advice of his attorney. No comment on whether he testified before the grand jury. Nor whether he had talked to Fitzgerald. He said he would write a column revealing everything once Fitzgerald published his findings.

[TM]

Jeff - you are ahead of me on the specifics of Fitzgerald's subpoena to Miller; I'll put tracking that down on the list of things to do.

Bonus speculation on why Libby won't release Miller (if, in fact, he is the hold-up, and it is not her own attitude): what if Libby said, "Look, totally off the record, never quote me or even use this, but Dick Cheney wants to cut Wilson's privates off".

Now, releasing Miller doesn't mean she reveals the on-the-record part of their chat, IMHO - she would be obliged to reveal everything, including that ghastly tidbit.

[Mac]

"Look, totally off the record, never quote me or even use this, but Dick Cheney wants to cut Wilson's privates off".

Makes perfect sense. Leahy can use them to go eff himself.

[SteveMG]

TM:
"Now, releasing Miller doesn't mean she reveals the on-the-record part of their chat, IMHO - she would be obliged to reveal everything, including that ghastly tidbit."

So we're not just interested in the "on the record confidential" comments by Rove, Libby et al., but we're also focusing on the "off the record confidential" statements.

And about here is when I start to get woozy.

SMG

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

'...how did Wilson guess it was Rove, and not have Cooper or anyone else urge him on?'

How does Wilson guess anything? He thought that, in an election year, he could write a NY Times article saying he'd been sent on a mission by the CIA. Completely misrepresent what he'd found out on that mission, and then it came as a big surprise that in the ensuing talkfest his one solid connection to the CIA WOULDN'T be noticed?

[Rovean Overmind]

Hmm... I'm a bit confused by this whole scandal. Aren't leakers good? Didn't we just finish celebrating Mark Felt for the whole Deep Throat thing? Is anyone interested in convening a Congressional investigation to determine if he broke/bent any laws? Why not?

Conversely, isn't nepotism bad? Wouldn't it be bad if Dick Cheney sent Lynn Cheney on government junkets to investigate topics about which she had no particular expertise? Isn't it bad when people in positions of authority use that authority to benefit, say, their spouse? What qualifications did Joe Wilson have to investigate the Niger-yellowcake story?(Beyond a wife in a sufficiently influential CIA post.) Isn't it good that this potential example of government nepotism was exposed? Isn't that what we want leakers to do? To keep government honest?

Help me... my head's all atwirl....

[Jeff]

It's on page 6 of the U.S. Court of Appeals decision of Feb 15 of this year. It refers to and quotes from grand jury subpoenas of August 12 and 14 seeking documents and testimony related conversations between her and the specified government official "occurring from on or about July 6, 2003, to on or about July 13, 2003, . . . concerning Valerie Plame Wilson (whether referred to by name or by description as the wife of Ambassador Wilson) or concerning Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium."

I wonder whether we're looking at IIRA or whatever indictment of Rove and espionage indictment of Libby. Probably not, but who knows.

[Mac]

What qualifications did Joe Wilson have to investigate the Niger-yellowcake story?

Are you kidding? You should see that bastard drink sweet tea!

[TalkLeft]

Fitgerald's subpoena to Miller is outlined in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision

"In the meantime, on August 12 and August 14, grand jury subpoenas were issued to Judith Miller, seeking documents and testimony related to conversations between her and a specified government official “occurring from on or about July 6, 2003, to on or about July 13, 2003, . . . concerning Valerie Plame Wilson (whether referred to by name or by description as the wife of Ambassador Wilson) or concerning Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium.”

Note that it requests conversations between her and "a specified government official" so Fitzgerald knew the source. And that the time period is the week before Novak's article was published.

My latest speculations, referred to by a commenter above, are here.

[Leftover]

Based on my reading of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision and the August 12 and August 14 grand jury subpoenae, I am convinced that Rove is guilty of attempted murder-- at the very least. Also, quite possibly, crimes against humanity.

He's also quite ugly.

[kim]

Lefties may not want this to be about the larger Niger, Yellow Cake, papers if the source is CIA or, perhaps, Plame. I think Fitzgerald is on this trail, too.
===============================

[Beldar]

Our host wrote,

Well, Typepad is hung up (again), so it doesn't look like I'll be doing much linking at all.

Tom, when my TypePad response is slow, I blame you. When yours is slow, you should blame me. We're eating all their bandwidth and storage space between us. (Or we could both blame Bainbridge ... yeah, that's the ticket!)

[kim]

Keep that August Swiftie stuff fo evah!
==============================

[TM]

Sure, Beldar thinks a quick quip will get him out of this, but we will drag him into the quagmire before this is over.

Let's see, lots of good stuff:

SMG - we're all woozy.

The Rovean Overmind thinks leakers are good - so do we all, but some of us are making an exception for this case.

Jeff, we are going to study that subpoena, but it has a certain boilerplate catch-all feel at first glance.

Mac, Wilson does a great job with tea, and I have always respected his resume (but not always his judgement, i.e., he lacks credibility, but not guts).

And if that is the real TalkLeft, I will be sure to vex you soon enough.

[Jeff]

If you're right about the boilerplate catch-all feel of the subpoena, good! It discounts the theory kim et al are pursuing.

[kim]

Casting about, hoping for faint whiff of trail, rather than pursuing.

Quelle mystere.
===================

[Jeff]

Kim - fair enough.

[kim]

Why wouldn't a prosecutor like him check out the Yellow Cake Papers source also? It's not as if it couldn't be pertinent.
================================

[TM]

Here is an old stab I took at the forged documents/Plame leak conspiracy.

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2003/10/vpw_seymour_her.html

[kim]

And as of Saturday lunch the newsmedia are not picking this up at all.

New York Times reporter goes to jail protecting Rove? If MSM weren't awfully suspicious they are about to be sandbagged this would be headlines.
==============================

[kim]

June,

July.

Joe'll

Lie.
====

[Katherine]

nice work. They're never in a million years going to hold Congressional hearings though. You know that, don't you? They wouldn't have before 2004 either. These days might makes right in Washington.

[kim]

if you can get it.
==================

[kim]

You know, K, that Eve's 'sin' was pointing out that 'Might should not make Right', and why shouldn't it be a woman's point?
===============================