Woodward's Source - Now The Times Points To Armitage

Who leaked to Bob Woodward that Valerie Plame was at the CIA?

The NY Times provides a handy pop-up graphic highlighting denials and folks who are "not telling".

The pretty slim "not telling" list consists of Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State and our leading suspect; David Addington, counsel to the Vice President; and Catherine Martin, former public affairs director.

According to Bob Woodward's editor Len Downie, "the source was one who had been interviewed many times for Woodward's 2004 book", according to Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft.

Hmm.  Of the three candidates on offer, who would be the most likely fit?  I'm staying with Armitage.

MORE:  Sure, someone could be lying.

STILL MORE:  What do we know about Woodward's source?  Here is the old clue, from WaPo editor Len Downie:

DOWNIE: ...he had first told me in late October about the fact that he had had this conversation back in June of 2003.

It was a very brief part of a much longer interview that Bob was conducting for his book with a source that he had conducted many interviews with for his book. And at the time, he doesn't think if was very important. And it was a king of byplay that wasn't even part of the interview that he was conducting.

And here is a new clue from WaPo ombudsman Deborah Howell:

The senior administration official who told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame and her position at the agency is a confidential source in a book Woodward is writing on President Bush's second term, "a book I will be delighted to be judged on," he said.

Does that rule out Armitage, who does not leap to mind as a likely authority on Bush's second term?  Not exactly - in his original statement explaining this, Woodward did mention that in mid-2003 he was doing research on the second term book:

The interviews were mostly confidential background interviews for my 2004 book "Plan of Attack" about the leadup to the Iraq war, ongoing reporting for The Washington Post and research for a book on Bush's second term to be published in 2006.

As the astute "MJW" points out in the comments, "The circumstances surrounding Rice's replacement of Powell as Secretary of State will certainly be covered in the book".  So Armitage would certainly have a lot to add to that.

UPDATE:  Laura Rozen tells us that reporter Viveca Novak will be testifying.

Here is the AP:

A second Time magazine reporter has agreed to cooperate in the CIA leak case and will testify about her discussions with Karl Rove's attorney, a sign that prosecutors are still exploring charges against the White House aide.

Viveca Novak, a reporter in Time's Washington bureau, is cooperating with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity in 2003, the magazine reported in its Dec. 5 issue.

Novak specifically has been asked to testify under oath about conversations she had with Rove attorney Robert Luskin starting in May 2004, the magazine reported.

Novak, part of a team tracking the CIA case for Time, has written or contributed to articles in which Luskin characterized the nature of what was said between Rove and Matthew Cooper, the first Time reporter who testified in the case.

What Fitzgerald hopes to get from her that he can't get directly from Luskin is a mystery to me.  And why the reporter agreed to cooperate is a puzzle - is Luskin suspected of some crime?  Did he lie to Fitzgerald but tell the truth to a reporter?

If Luskin is not suspected of a crime, why does he not retain the normal source confidentialty privileges?  Did Luskin waive them for some reason?  Were all of his interviews completely on the record?  Or has TIME simply thrown in the towel and decided not to oppose this prosecutor?

Sorry for all the questions - here is the TIME article itself, which answers none of them.  Not of interest to their readers, I guess.

And here are two articles by Ms. Novak that seem to be on point: "The Rove Problem", July 17, 2005 and "Rove Testifies in Wilson Leak", Oct 15, 2004.  Perhaps another tea-leaf reader can find something in them, but I do not.

TIME also has their own "Best Of" for coverage of the Plame case.  Perhaps some other piece by Ms. Novak is more interesting.

Comments

[kim]

What did Woodward know,
And when did Woodward know it?
And when and why,
Did Woodward lie,
By choosing not to say it?

Little Miss Andrea,
Wish she hadn't saya,
Who got game?
I know Plame.
And that's just how I playa.
==============================

[r flanagan]

In an interview Downie referred to
Woodward's source as "he".

[kim]

Woodward, the Hero of Journalism, is mute.

But why is the source mute?

It's game over. Fines are rising. They won't let you check out another. You don't care? No, but I do, and you should. And is your homework done?
==============================================

[richard mcenroe]

Man, that Karl Rove is like Green freakin' Arrow, baby! Always one more trick shot in the quiver.

I cannot wait< to see what he comes up with next. Times like this I don't miss cable.

[kim]

Some Halloween he'll dress up as a toadie and do Sousa.
==================================================

[Jim E.]

I can't get the pop-up to work.

Fitz wants to talk to another one of Time magazine's reporters about Rove related stuff.

[kim]

Kermit drum majoring the band.

And to think that I saw it on Blackberry Street.
================================

[kim]

Somebody else prettying up over there, just in Time?
===================================

[windansea]

Fitz wants to talk to another one of Time magazine's reporters about Rove related stuff.

wishfull thinking dude

Listening to Meet the Press, heard Russert mention that now Time's Viveca Novak has been asked to testify by Fitzgerald. She wrote the big Time piece on Woodward's conversation with his source ... Is she being asked to testify about what Woodward told her? As I remember, what was key about what Woodward told her, was that he (Woodward) had pushed his source to come forward to Fitzgerald:

... When Fitzgerald said Libby was the first known Administration official to reveal Plame's name to a reporter, Woodward called his source, he says, and noted the timing of their conversation. "My source then said he or she had no alternative but to go to the prosecutor," he says. "I said, 'If you do, am I released [from our confidentiality agreement]?'" According to Woodward, the source said yes, but only to talk to Fitzgerald about the conversation, not to reveal the source's name publicly. Woodward has refused to say publicly who the source is but notes that "the process of my reporting was the catalyst for the source to go to the prosecutor and for me to be called by Fitzgerald." Woodward also told TIME that he had gone to his source twice before -- once in 2004 and the second time earlier this year -- and asked to be released from his pledge, but that the source had declined. ...

Has Woodward's source suggested to Fitzgerald otherwise?

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/003149.html

[dorf]

Amazing that Russert is allowed by network to report on any aspect of the story.

[kim]

C'mon Fitzie, Shabbas, go home and take a rest. Some of this stuff you shouldn't see.
============================================

[kim]

What will amaze someday is that anyone listened to these people(there is that locution again...'these people'....let me go wash).
===========================

[Dwilkers]

"My source then said he or she had no alternative but to go to the prosecutor,"

That struck me as a really odd statement the first time I read it and continues to strike me that way on each subsequent reading.

Why no alternative?

Because Woodward jogged his memory? Woodward says he had talked to the guy about it before.

Because Woodward was going to spill the beans?

What am I missing there?

[Jim E.]

windansea,
It's not wishful thinking, dude. The wire reports clearly specify that Fitz wants to hear about conversations between Luskin (Rove's lawyer) and V Novak. Laura Rozen apparently hasn't read the wire reports yet.

[Jim E.]

WASHINGTON - A second Time magazine reporter has been asked to testify in the CIA leak case, this time about her discussions with Karl Rove's attorney, a sign that prosecutors are still exploring charges against the White House aide.

Viveca Novak, a reporter in Time's Washington bureau, is cooperating with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity in 2003, the magazine reported in its Dec. 5 issue.

Novak specifically has been asked to testify under oath about conversations she had with Rove attorney Robert Luskin starting in May 2004, the magazine reported.

Novak, part of a team tracking the CIA case for Time, has written or contributed to articles quoting Luskin that characterized the nature of what was said between Rove and Matthew Cooper, the first Time reporter who testified in the case in July.

[Jim E.]

windansea,
Laura Rozen just updated her post, dude.

[Jeff]

wishfull thinking dude

I guess the AP and TIME are wishful thinking too:

Viveca Novak, a reporter in Time's Washington bureau, is cooperating with Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who is investigating the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity in 2003, the magazine reported in its Dec. 5 issue.

Novak specifically has been asked to testify under oath about conversations she had with Rove attorney Robert Luskin starting in May 2004, the magazine reported.

Of course, it's possible that she's also being asked to testify about another Bush administration official who talked to Woodward, and this is a piece of indirection from TIME.

The thing that surprised me about the Times graphic was that Hadley was nowhere to be found, as far as I could see. I thought he was the second leading candidate after Armitage. Or did I miss him?

[Kate]

OK...my opinion of Fitzgerald is dropping, dropping. Why couldn't he get the nature of Rove's talk w/Cooper from, er, Cooper and Rove who were involved in the little chats. Does he think one is lying and is now reduced to going to Cooper's colleague to get the truth, because, we all know reporters never lie (stop laughing!). He needs to go home. If he indicts Rove based on his shoddy investigation, he'll look like an even bigger fool.

Maybe Fitz is going to indict all the lawyers first and then all the reporters.

Bush should never have agreed to a SP, this is a joke.

[kim]

As jokes go, this is a long running farce. Stop me if you've already heard it.
=================================================

[richard mcenroe]

Second Time Reporter to Testify

[Jeff]

Because Woodward was going to spill the beans?

That's what I think, more or less.

Kate - Are you sure your opinion of Fitzgerald is dropping, dropping? I could have sworn the view you're expressing now is identical to the view you've expressed in the past.

[Lew Clark]

I've heard rumors that Fitzgerald is preparing to indict all 576 government officials who "leaked" Valerie Plame's identity and also indict the 17,431 reporters they leaked to, who did not come forward.

[Kate]

Jeff, Initially, I have to admit that I thouhgt Fitzgerald tried to be fair. At least he didn't indict 22 Bush officials like the leftists were predicting.

I do admit to being somewhat baffled by his baseball analogies and I'm a baseball fan.

I'm starting to think that Fitzgerald bought off early on Rove and Libby as the bad guys. We've had many more revelations and he's stuck on, well, Rove. I mean could he at least look at:

Woodward's source
Wilson and Kristoff
Andrea Mitchell
Pincus

I mean, if it's not related to Rove or Libby, he's not interested. He bought off on the narrative of Wilson as whistleblower and Rove and Libby as bad guys and can't look elsewhere, not a sign of a good investigator.

However,I do have some hope. I truy believe, he would not have gone for a second GJ to just rehash Rove material. He could have borrowed a GJ.

No, he's going after something else besides Rove, who I expect he will clear. So maybe he finally is branching out.

[Jeff]

Who knows how precise this is, but this from Howell, who spoke with Woodward, in the WaPo today sure makes it sound like his source is someone other than Armitage:

The senior administration official who told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame and her position at the agency is a confidential source in a book Woodward is writing on President Bush's second term, "a book I will be delighted to be judged on," he said.

I suppose it's possible that Armitage, who didn't make it anywhere near Bush's second term, resigning shortly after the 2004 election, is a confidential source for Woodward's book on that second term. And maybe this is a deliberate piece of misdirection on Woodward's part. But it sure makes it sound like it's someone else.

[Jeff]

Kate - That is some odd reasoning you've got going on, and a couple of missed facts, such as the fact that Fitzgerald has questioned Woodward's source. And we really still hardly know what is actually going on with the investigation, so for all we know he may be interested in more people than just Libby and Rove. But anyway, I think you may have misread the AP story. It did not claim to know what about her discussions with Luskin Fitzgerald is interested in. The AP just was characterizing what was published in TIME. So it seems wrong to criticize Fitzgerald for doing something that it's not at all clear that he's doing (asking V. Novak where he could ask Cooper or Rove, for instance).

[Kate]

Jeff, do you have a link for the WAPO article. My understanding is that Woodward was doing interviews for a book on Iraq--Plan of Attack--when he interviewed "Mr. X."

It sounds like Woodward is shamelessly pushing his new book and trying to increase interest by linking the mystery person to that book as well.

I agree with you though. Armitage would hardly qualify as a source on Bush's second term.

[don]

fixated on Rove and Libby....Ah yes, that is always the prosecutor's downfall. they become blinded to their own theory of who the bad guys are...and never stop until they have enough garbage on them.

[windansea]

I guess the AP and TIME are wishful thinking too:

AP report sources Time reporting in Dec 5 issue....anyone have a subscription to see their exact wording on this?

and dudes....relax!!

[Kate]

Jeff...it is far from a fact that Fitzgerald interviewed Woodward's source during the first GJ. I've read:

-that he didn't interview the source
-that the source was interviewed by Fitzgerald but did not appear before the GJ;
-that the source did appear before the GJ.

I read the AP article and the implication was that Rove was still in legal danger because Fitzgerald wants to question her about talks between Rove's lawyer and the reporter.

[Jeff]

Here's the WaPo story from Howell today.

Kate - Yes, pretty clearly Fitzgerald did not talk to Woodward's source about his conversation with Woodward while the first grand jury was seated since he (Fitzgerald) didn't know about it then. The point is that he has questioned both of them now, and we have no idea where, if anywhere, that will lead. There's no reason to imagine that there is one and only one track to the investigation. Maybe Fitzgerald is pursuing the investigation of both Rove and Armitage or Hadley or whoever Woodward's source is, to say nothing of others. We just don't know.

[Kate]

Jeff, is our wonderful Fitz allowed to investigate anyone other than the MSM demands be investigated. Evil Rove, bad Libby and other neo-cons.

And since we have two Novaks and only one Rove, perhaps, our intrepid, baseball loving investigator can trade us a Novak for a Rove and an over the hill, lying ambassador to be named later.

This is getting tedious. The whole case rests on the testimony of biased, er, fibbing reporters.

[Jeff]

is our wonderful Fitz allowed to investigate anyone other than the MSM demands be investigated.

Yeah, it's clear that Fitzgerald takes his marching orders from the dread liberal MSM.

[kim]

Not so clear. Oh, I get the irony.

What I love is the suspense.
============================

[Tollhouse]

The left side of the blogosphere seems to think Vivica is Robert Novak's daughter. The web doesn't seem to want to give up any info on such a relationship. Does anyone know if this is real or not?

I've noticed in the past that it can be difficult to determine the truth of these things, knowing how sensitive people are to nepotism, for good reason I might add, Americans HATE nepotism, but if this fact were true, it would certainly ADD some interesting info to Bob's blowup last year.

[TP]

One wonders if Fitz now has a bone to pick with Rove's attorney. I wonder if he has become a soft target of the investigation.

[kim]

Who's who?
============

[windansea]

The left side of the blogosphere seems to think Vivica is Robert Novak's daughter. The web doesn't seem to want to give up any info on such a relationship. Does anyone know if this is real or not?

they are not related

[kim]

Yeah, that would have been a longshot.

Americans do not so much despise nepotism as it's undue use. It's too much like inherited privilege. Always there, always a trap for the unwary.
===============================================

[j.foster]

Armitage ? Armitage ? Whats an Armitage ? Isn't that some kind of wine from France ? Fitz .

[Marcel]

Don't forget Bob Joseph and Fred Fleitz. The NYT article doesn't name either of them as denying involvement. Both would have known about Wilson's wife. And both would have had enough inside information to be among Woodward's sources for "Plan of Attack".

Woodward claims to have interviewed 75 key decision makers for his book. That number surely includes many in the White House, State and CIA who knew about Wilson's wife - more than the Times has on their list.

[kim]

Or baking soda? You know Armitage Hammer, from Russia, with lovely lushious vanilla.
==============================================

[kim]

Richard the Cowardly Lion Unhearted, Ise'd like ta' ask ya' a coupla heartless questions.
=========================================

[richard mcenroe]

Kate — Keep in mind, it's the AP of the fake "boos."

I'm not sure what Fitz can be after talking to a reporter who talked to Rove's lawyer.

Perhaps it's some sort of attempted end-run around lawyer-client privilege?

Perhaps he's still trying to hang a Libby-ish perjury charge on Rove, possibly claiming Rove tailored his testimony on the basis of his lawyer's conversations with reporters?

Perhaps he's just fishing wildly?

Maybe the lawyer laughed diabolically to the reporter and told her Plame was finished, Rove would see to that?

[kim]

Fitz wants to know if this is Inverness why does he have a loch monster on the line.
================================================

[Jim E.]

"Perhaps it's some sort of attempted end-run around lawyer-client privilege?"

Are you just being stupid on purpose with this one?

"Perhaps he's just fishing wildly?"

I thought that's what Fitz's critics wanted him to do.

[cathyf]

"Perhaps he's just fishing wildly?"

I thought that's what Fitz's critics wanted him to do.

No, this critic wants him to fish methodically and thoroughly, paying attention to the information that he gets, even if it doesn't match his preconceptions.

cathy :-)

[kim]

Jim E. It is clear that Fitz is stymied by journalistic privilege. Why not add lawyer-client? And spousal? Hey, some of these people need doctors. And some, priests.

Oops, rabbis.
=================================================

[kim]

Too many want him to be Ahab.
================================

[kim]

Has anyone noticed his crew hasn't mutinied?
============================================

[JM Hanes]

I'm intrigued by the inclusion of Catherine Martin. I know zero about her, except for the fact that Chris Matthews quoted her saying that "Scooter thinks anytime anybody uses the word 'neoconservative' it's anti-Semitic." In that regard, it seems almost more likely that she might have been the SAO who originally pulled the plug on the outing operation -- not the one doing the outing herself.

Matthews & Wilson were obviously in touch, and Martin's comment seems more than a little out of school for a WH spokesman, doesn't it? What else do we know about her? Does anyone know the circumstances of her departure?

[JM Hanes]

kim

I don't know about anybody else, but your double dashlines make the flow between posts really confusing for me. Makes it look like your name goes with the text below, and your text with the name above. I wonder if maybe they show up differently in your browser than they do in mine, because they trip me up almost every time -- even when my own posts are the next in line!

[kim]

What an interesting thought. I'd give more credence to the quote but remember it was in the presence of Matthews.
===========================================

[kim]

Those double lines are my attitude adjustment. You should see it pre-edit.
===================================================

[MayBee]

How common is it to question a reporter about a conversation with someone's attorney to get to that person? What of attorney/client privilege? Not applicable here?

Reporters don't want to talk about their sources, and attorneys aren't supposed to have to reveal information about their clients...yet Fitzgerald wants this to happen?
What might be happening here that makes this not a big deal?

[MayBee]

Ooops. I posted before I hit refresh. Now Jim E. is going to call me stupid.

I like kim's double dash lines. Makes me know it's kim!

[kim]

I have such a poor memory that the lines allow me to refresh a thread quickly. Also, I originally learned to use them on a board with unique and antique software. I don't even remember all the ways they helped.
========================================

[MJW]

Though Armitage may be a slightly less likely candidate for Woodward's source for the Plame information if the same person was also a source for Woodward's book on Bush's second term, he is by no means eliminated. The circumstances surrounding Rice's replacement of Powell as Secretary of State will certainly be covered in the book, and not only did Armitage work under Powell, but they are also good friends.

[kim]

We had a nursing home ladies sewing circle, the purty dozen, who'd parallel process a millenium of living into some purty potent pearls. They got a little steamed at griesedieck boilermaker jack-off Daniel's fierce lyin' an' den Maudie got snide about male escorts.

She'll learn.
===============

[TM]

The senior administration official who told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame and her position at the agency is a confidential source in a book Woodward is writing on President Bush's second term, "a book I will be delighted to be judged on," he said.

Interestingly, in Woodward's original statement he mentioned that his source was involved with either Plan of Attack or an upcoming book on Bush's second term.

All the follow-up focused on "Plan of Attack" (and what do we do with Downie's statement about the source?), but none of the folks clealry mentioned by Woodward looked like good picks for the second term book.

Anyway, very interesting.

[kim]

Lyins' and Thai girls, and bare, oh my.
===========================================

[kim]

Does he prefer to be judged 'on the book', or 'upon it'? What about it's contents? Some of its characters need judging. The plot develops. It's got lyin's.
===============================================

[Jim E.]

I retract my "stupid on purpose" statement. While I think the end-run around attorney client priviledge unlikely (how big a mouth would Luskin really have in 2004?), I've seen enough Law&Orders to imagine a scenario. Sorry.

[kim]

Felt was a sorcerer's apprentice. Woodward's a schmuck.
=================================================

[kim]

Too bad Libby's retained the talent; Luskin could use some.
==========================================

[kim]

Maybe you just have to try to hover over das Fitz and drop a Joe charge into the depths now and then.
================================================

[MJW]

To add to my previous post, according to Woodward, his source told him about Plame in mid-June 2003, so if he was being interviewed for a book about Bush's second term, it was purely speculative; while if he was being interviewed for Plan of Attack, which was published in April 2004, it would be about right.

[TP]

Fitz could also checking out information given to him by Luskin which Luskin may have claimed to have received Viveca. It is hard for me to think he is going after Luskin, or Rove, by pressuring Luskin. But, as Jim E says, it could be a Jack McCoy type trick.
: ^ )

No telling what these prosecutors will do if they feel like they are being jerked around.

[kim]

I knew a man he danced with his gal, Cracklin' Rosie.
===============================================

[TM]

Jim, I fixed the pop-up link, I hope.

Jeff, Hadley is right under Rice.

Viveca Novak - I am sure she has some other connection to this story - I remember someone saying "no relation", for obvious reasons.

[TP]

TM. Your post 7-31-05 TIME on Plame. Viveca was one of the article contributors concerning the INR memo.

[TP]

I think Viveca is the only one of the reporters working on the story who was not on the list of reporters Fitz was interested in.

[cathyf]

While I think the end-run around attorney client priviledge unlikely (how big a mouth would Luskin really have in 2004?), I've seen enough Law&Orders to imagine a scenario.

I gotta go for unlikely. I mean Fitzgerald is really going to jettison the 5th & 6th Amendments entirely to avoid stepping on journalistic privilege, which is basically just an emanation of a penumbra of the 1st amendment?

Nah, not unless Fitzgerald has jumped the shark.

cathy :-)

[TP]

Am I wrong, or does it appear that Fitz is taking a backwards trip down time line lane.

[Terrie]

Tom, don't forget that Woodward made the following slip-up, according to the Media Bistro transcript of last Monday's interview on Larry King Live:

"So I said to this source, long substantive interview about the road to war. You know, at the end of an interview like this, after you do an interview on television, you might just shoot the breeze for a little while. And so, I asked about Wilson, and he said this."

And Woodward was being so careful with his him/her, he/she, his/hers pronoun-cements!

You can find the quote in question nearly two-thirds of the way down the transcript located at http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/woodward_king_transcript_28489.asp#more.

If accurate, you can cross off Catherine Martin.

[Terrie]

Oops! The transcript url got cut off when I posted my comment.

Try this: http://tinyurl.com/afsrl.

[Dwilkers]

I wonder how long Armitage can hold up to the pressure of not issuing a denial - assuming it isn't him. I was really expecting to hear something like that the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. I mean, he's just about all alone as the chief suspect right now.

The longer we don't hear from him the more I think its him. Especially when we have the news dailies and weeklies openly speculating about him.

[Dwilkers]

Here's what gets me about Woodward's statement:

When Fitzgerald said Libby was the first known Administration official to reveal Plame's name to a reporter, Woodward called his source, he says, and noted the timing of their conversation. "My source then said he or she had no alternative but to go to the prosecutor," he says.

To me this implies that his source had not previously been interviewed by Fitz. Woodward appears to be saying that since Fitz said Libby was the 'first known' at his news conference his source was then required to go set the record straight. So I think whoever his source is, he either has not (or had not then) talked to the SP or Woodward thinks that's the case.

"I said, 'If you do, am I released [from our confidentiality agreement]?'" According to Woodward, the source said yes, but only to talk to Fitzgerald about the conversation, not to reveal the source's name publicly. Woodward has refused to say publicly who the source is but notes that "the process of my reporting was the catalyst for the source to go to the prosecutor and for me to be called by Fitzgerald."

"the process of my reporting was the catalyst for the source to go to the prosecutor and for me to be called by Fitzgerald."? What reporting? I haven't seen or heard of Woodward doing any reporting on the Plame matter. What had Woodward learned, or what could he possibly have learned, that became the catalyst for this person to come forward?

Assume its Armitage for example. What could Woodward have learned and told him that would somehow impel him to come forward, when nothing heretofore had done so - including Libby being indicted with the SP making statements about the case that this source knew weren't true?

There's something I'm missing here.

[MayBee]

Dwilkers, can't process of my reporting include the calling and interviewing and prodding of the source? That's what I think he means. I'm watching him right now on LKL, btw.

I don't know that his source will ever come forward, unless there is some benefit to that source. Or some harm to Scooter Libby if s/he doesn't come forward publicly. The source could easily decide to wait it out, knowing the public has a relatively short attention span.

[kim]

The public's attention span has lengthened of late.
====================================================

[r flanagan]

Re attorney/client privilege , apparently there isn't a simple answer. Firedoglake
has a very long discussion in which she acknowledges she changed her mind a couple of times .Meanwhile anticipating the charge that liberals will approve because they're desperate to see Rove indicted: I'm desperate to see Rove indicted and I don't approve.

[kim]

Well, bravo.
============

[MayBee]

The public's attention span can be flamed with the flow of new information. I'm just thinking, if it's an Armitage leak - or I should say if it doesn't point to Rove or Cheney- those that fan the flames will lose interest.

I'm still perplexed by the Novak/Luskin story. As far as I can tell, Luskin is under no obligation to be truthful with a reporter, and when he was truthful, if it was about his client, I don't see how Fitzgerald can go after that.
Fitzgerald wouldn't be going after something as lame as Luskin leaking Grand Jury info, would he?
I must be way off base.

[Jeff]

MJW and TM's collective point is well taken, though I find the idea that Woodward was conducting interviews for his book on Bush's second term in mid-2003 a little odd. I guess we know who he was rooting for in 2004: wouldn't want all that research to go to waste. Given that Woodward seems to want his source's identity to be revealed, it seems weird that he would give Howell such a misleading line, if Armitage is his source. But who knows.

As for Fitzgerald and V. Novak and Luskin, has anyone considered the idea that Fitzgerald is still doublechecking Rove's last-minute stories and so he may be looking to Novak for what he expects to be exculpatory testimony? I have no idea, just a thought.

[Anonymous Liberal]

MayBee,
There is no attorney-client privilege issue here. Anything an attorney says to a third party is, by definition, not privileged. I don't see how anything Luskin said to Viveca Novak is covered by the attorney-client privilege.

TM,
As for DOJ guidelines, they may not be an issue here either. If Fitzgerald is asking Novak about conversations she had with Luskin on the record, there is no reporter-source issue and (unless I'm mistaken) the DOJ guidelines don't apply. If Luskin was an anonymous source, that's another issue. But that may not be the case given that Luskin has already been named as the source in question. For whatever reason, Fitzgerald may be interested in confirming what Luskin told Novak on the record.

[BurkettHead]

Attorney/client privilege is the client's to waive, not the attorneys. Disclosure of privileged information by the attorney might land the attorney in malpractice land, but it wouldn't necessarily waive the attorney/client privilege.

Fitz might be after attorney work product, though - where Luskin is going (or coming from) with his defense. It's certainly an interesting tactic.

[kim]

One might hope that Fitz is as perplexed as we are, and doesn't want to stay that way anymore than we do.
===================================

[Jim E.]

If Rove was leaking stuff to Viveca, via Luskin, in May 2004 that he didn't remember until October 2004 or October 2005 (I think he testified both Octobers), Rove would seem to have a problem. If so, I would think Rove would want to immediately fight to disallow Viveca's testimony from ever taking place.

On the other hand, if Rove and Luskin don't go apeshit over Viveca's being allowed to testify, it would appear that they WANT her to testify. While I can't figure out a scenario in which Viveca helps Rove, maybe what Rove told Fitz right before Libby's indictment can be verified by Viveca. I just don't get this.

[dogtownGuy]

I like kim's double dash lines. Makes me know it's kim!

LOVE it too!

IIRC Cooper seemed to do a bit of a "backpedal" or "switch"-O-"change"- O ALA Andrea ...AFTER the indictment.... THIS was a topic on a previous thread.

Could not this be of interest to Fitz and could perhaps VIV be of help on this?

Just asking.

[Terrie]

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the blogosphere...

Empty Wheel has posted a theory once or twice removed from Daily Kos about V. Novak's testimony, for whatever it's worth. The speculation has Luskin talking to Novak about Rove's conversation with Cooper at a time before Rove "officially" remembered the Cooper call, thus contradicting Rove's testimony.

The Strata-Sphere believes this development is further proof that Fitzgerald has run amok, far afield from his mandate.

Needlenose wonders how the V. Novak testimony fits into Justice Department guidelines "which state that reporters should only be pursued as witnesses in last-resort situations where their testimony is crucial to determining guilt or innocence."

[MJW]

Jeff, I may not have been clear, but the point of my second post was that I think it's very unlikely Woodward's source was being interviewed in June 2003 for the book about Bush's second term, given that the date of the interview was well before the election and fits well into the timeline of the earlier book.

The point of my first post was that Woodward may well have -- in fact, almost certainly -- interviewed Armitage after the election for his take on Powell's resignation (which, though it occured prior to the inauguration, is closely tied to the new term).

[MJW]

Terrie, if the Empty Wheel speculation is true, and Luskin mentioned the Cooper phone call to Novak before Rove told Fitzgerald, Rove should try a combination of an incompetent counsel and insanity defense: his lawyer was nuts. It's difficult to imagine how revealing the the conversation with Cooper to another Time reporter while keeping it from the grand jury would work to Rove's advantage.

[kim]

Likely empty speculation. Why wouldn't Rove turn over that email as soon as it was discovered?
===========================================

[arrowhead]

So, we're back to "he said, she said, he said" or Fitzgerald's version of "Who's on first."

We're in the middle of a freaking war and the most important thing that this "prosecutor" can focus on is the sequence of Beltway gossip - started I might add by the sacrosanct Wilsons themselves!

[MJW]

I zoomed into the Strata-Sphere" to read the criticism of Fitzgerald's questioning of Novak (which, not surprisingly, I tend to agree with), and I discovered a new post from AJStrata casting doubt on TM's Armitage theory. I must say, it left me confused. First, it asserts that Armitage has denied being the source, which, if true, is news to me. Second, it seems to argue that Armitage wasn't a source for Plan of Attack because he wouldn't have spoken so negatively about his friend Powell's boss, Bush. I'm not sure I follow the logic, since no one says he was the sole source for the book. I'm doubt if I'm doing Strata's post justice, since frankly I don't understand his argument.

[dogtownGuy]

Does this Wilson/Cooper "back to back" CNN appearance on Nov.1 shed any? Help Any? See Any?

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/01/lkl.01.html

[MJW]

Reading the two Time columns TM linked to, I saw nothing in the Oct. 15, 2004 column that might have piqued Fitzgerald's interest. The July 17, 2005 column contains some quotes attibuted directly to Luskin which were pretty clearly made after the Cooper conversation was already made public.

I'd guess, if anything in the article was of interest to Fitzgerald, it's:

But Rove had learned Plame's identity from someone: a source who has been briefed on Rove's account to Fitzgerald, says Novak called Rove the next day, July 8, and mentioned to him that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. According to the source, Rove replied, "I've heard that too," and told Fitzgerald that he had heard it from a reporter -- or perhaps from someone else in the Administration who said he got it from a reporter -- Rove just couldn't be certain or remember which one.

It may be worth remembering how Luskin supposedly gave Fitzgerald some information at the last minute that forestalled a Rove indictment. Perhaps the questions to Viveca Novak are an attempt to verify Luskin's information.

[dogtownGuy]

"I've heard that too,"

Maybe Rove Actually said

"You've heard that too? From who?"

Novak replied...?

Now Fitz is seeking a perjury charge on Rove vs. Novak?

Fitz: So Mr. Rove, did you say "I've" heard that too OR "You've" heard that too? Which is it

Rove: I don't know

Fitz: Well did Novak TELL you Armitage already told him or did he say "would you confirm what Armitage said"

Rove: I don't know

[JeanneB]

DWilkers:

What had Woodward learned, or what could he possibly have learned, that became the catalyst for this person to come forward?

My theory from the get-go has been this:

Woodward hears Fitz's incorrect statement about Libby being the first to reveal Plame's identity. He knows that to be false, so he calls his source and suggests the source needs to contact Fitz. The source resists and refuses to release Woodward from their confidentiality agreement.

Woodward then suggests to the source that his "reporting process" doesn't require him to honor the confidentiality after the source's death---as in Deep Throat. After the source's death, Woodward would reveal (or leave instructions to reveal) his identity as the leaker who knowingly allowed Libby's indictment to be based on faulty information.

Assuming this source cares about his legacy, he wouldn't want such an item prominently appended to every historical reference to his career.

I think Woodward played hardball with the source, who then "had no alternative but to go to the prosecutor".
_______________________

Question: Given that the source went to Fitz AFTER the GJ was adjourned, his testimony isn't subject to GJ secrecy. Is Fitz required to reveal Woodward's source to Libby's attorneys????

[Dwilkers]

"The speculation has Luskin talking to Novak about Rove's conversation with Cooper at a time before Rove "officially" remembered the Cooper call, thus contradicting Rove's testimony."

While that sounds interesting at first blush I don't see what Fitz would or could do with it.

Assuming Luskin said something about the Cooper convo to Novak prior to Rove 'remembering', and Fitz judges Rove to have therefore lied, how would he prove it?

Novak could only testify about a conversation with Luskin, and Luskin couldn't testify at all. I don't think that adds up very well.

*sigh*

Fitz seems to be doing everything except trying to get to the bottom of who leaked classified info. How is Luskin's conversation with Novak going to help him find out who started leaking Plame status, or name, or whatever?

[kim]

Either he's very subtle and is going to get to the bottom of it, or he's figured the referral was bogus and is now slapping the annoyances that disturbed his regal procession.
===============================================