Viveca Novak's Tale

Viveca Novak, reporter for TIME and casual confidante of Karl Rove's lawyer, Don Luskin, tells her side of the story that may have saved Rove from indictment.  Let's say this - Matt Cooper of TIME has expressed an aspiration to be a professional comic; maybe he could take Viveca into his act. 

And folks who whacked Bob Woodward for failing to disclose his little leak situation to his editor had better strap themselves down and take a sedative before reading Ms. Novak's account.  My question - are Mr. Woodward and Ms. Novak the only two reporters in Washington who don't talk to their editors about every little (and not so little) thing?  Or is keeping the boss in the dark a much more common journalistic practice than the hand-wringing about Woodward might have suggested?

Well.  The article informs us that Ms. Novak is currently on leave from TIME, "by mutual agreement".

As to her story, the broad theme is as expected - she strongly suggested to Luskin that Rove was one of Cooper's sources.  By his reaction to this, she surmised that Luskin was surprised.

And why might this be viewed as at all exculpatory by Luskin and/or Fitzgerald?  Presumably, Special Counsel Fitzgerald has been troubled by Rove's seemingly convenient memory - Rove forgot all about Cooper until Cooper had been subpoenaed and lost an appeal, at which point his fog lifted (or at least, an important email was discovered).

Luskin's pushback - hey, I really was surprised, ask this reporter.  [And it was her hint, not Cooper's impending testimony, that got us hopping.]

And that is how the high-priced investigative talent handles this?  Fitzgerald is relying on a chat with a reporter?  Well, why not - his key prosecution witnesses will be reporters.  Of course, there are obvious problems.  Maybe Luskin is a good actor.  Maybe Rove was being less than fully candid with his attorney (confusing him, perhaps, with a Washington editor).  Who knows?

But that said, this does give Luskin an alternative theory and a witness to support it, something Fitzgerald will want to ponder as he continues his aggressive probe into a leak of a minor bit of classified information.

And a bonus note - Ms. Novak repeats a point made by Bob Woodward when she says that Fitzgerald was scrupulous in limiting his questions exclusively to the Novak-Luskin encounters: "No fishing expeditions, no questions about my other reporting or sources in the case."  All very professional, but not a tack likely to unearth the role that may have been played by reporters such as Andrea Mitchell.

Let's start by highlighting "The editor is always the last to know":

From the week of Oct 24, 2005, after being informed by Luskin that Fitzgerald "might" want to talk with her:

I clung to Luskin's word might, but the next week he told me Fitzgerald did indeed want to talk to me, but informally, not under oath. I hired a lawyer, Hank Schuelke, but I didn't tell anyone at TIME. Unrealistically, I hoped this would turn out to be an insignificant twist in the investigation and also figured that if people at TIME knew about it, it would be difficult to contain the information, and reporters would pounce on it--as I would have.

And following the fateful conversation itself, in March (probably) or May of 2004:

I was taken aback that he seemed so surprised. I had been pushing back against what I thought was his attempt to lead me astray. I hadn't believed that I was disclosing anything he didn't already know. Maybe this was a feint. Maybe his client was lying to him. But at any rate, I immediately felt uncomfortable. I hadn't intended to tip Luskin off to anything. I was supposed to be the information gatherer. It's true that reporters and sources often trade information, but that's not what this was about. If I could have a do-over, I would have kept my mouth shut; since I didn't, I wish I had told my bureau chief about the exchange.

As to memory failures, let's see how our nation's Washington press corps drills into a story:

He asked how often Luskin and I met during the period from fall 2003 to fall 2004 (about five times), when, where and so forth. I had calendar entries that helped but weren't entirely reliable. Did I take notes at those meetings? No. Luskin was more likely to speak freely if he didn't see me committing his words to paper.

...Fitzgerald wanted to know when this conversation [about Rove and Cooper] occurred. At that point I had found calendar entries showing that Luskin and I had met in January and in May. Since I couldn't remember exactly how the conversation had developed, I wasn't sure. I guessed it was more likely May.

...Fitzgerald had asked that I check a couple of dates in my calendar for meetings with Luskin. One of them, March 1, 2004, checked out. I hadn't found that one in my first search because I had erroneously entered it as occurring at 5 a.m., not 5 p.m.

Beautiful.  Remember, it will be testimony like this, as Judy Miller and Matt Cooper explain their notes and email, upon which Fitzgerald will rely in his pursuit of Libby and Rove.  Fitzgerald ought to sell tickets, and we have good news - Matt Cooper's career in comedy is closer than he realizes.  [NOTE:  Where did the March 1 date come from?  Maybe Fitzgerald is psychic!  Or maybe someone else checked his datebook.  Hmm, Luskin, perhaps?]

UPDATE:  We protect our sources until we get mad at them - TIME magazine evidently has a concept of source protection that differs from that held by Bob Woodward and Walter Pincus.

As you recall, Bob Woodward explained that although his source had cleared him to speak to the Special Counsel, he had not released Woodward to speak publicly.  Walter Pincus of the WaPo offered a similar explanation for his partial disclosure in the Nieman Report:

My position was that until my source came forward publicly or to the prosecutor, I would not discuss the matter. It turned out that my source, whom I still cannot identify publicly, had in fact disclosed to the prosecutor that he was my source, and he talked to the prosecutor about our conversation. (In writing this story, I am using the masculine pronoun simply for convenience). My attorney discussed the matter with his attorney, and we confirmed that he had no problem with my testifying about our conversation.

But let's hear from Viveca Novak about the standards at TIME:

One final note: Luskin is unhappy that I decided to write about our conversation, but I feel that he violated any understanding to keep our talk confidential by unilaterally going to Fitzgerald and telling him what was said. And, of course, anyone who testifies under oath for a grand jury (my sworn statement will be presented to the grand jury by Fitzgerald) is free to discuss that testimony afterward.

Shorter - Luskin violated the source's obligation to protect the reporter (should Congress consider a source shield law?), and anyway, it isn't against the law for her to talk about it.  Groan.  Please tell me she realizes that it is not "the law" that prevents Pincus or Woodward from talking, either.  They are guided by their sense of journalistic ethics (Stay Tuned, as the Master of the Obvious explains how to boil water...), which may be a bit more relaxed at TIME than at the WaPo.

Well, this is the last time Ms. Novak's name will appear in a paragraph comparing her with those two journalists, I suspect.  But let's give her more appropriate company - Matt Cooper, after finally testifying about Karl Rove, couldn't type fast enough as he unburdened himself about his chats with both Rove and Libby.  Had they both released him to talk publicly?  I'm sure he would like to think so. 

Greg Mitchell of E&P is a sage on the journailitic ethics involved.  However, he focuses on her shyness with her editors, rather than her tell-all about her chats with Luskin.

Jeralyn Merritt still sees trouble for Rove:

Bottom line: Karl Rove's chances of escaping a charge of perjury before the grand jury increase. But, I believe he's still on the hook for lying to federal investigators before the grand jury was convened in October, 2003 when he failed to tell them about his July 8, telephone conference with reporter Bob Novak when he reportedly said, after Novak told him all about Wilson's wife, "I heard that tool."

Punctuation alert - that should read "I heard that, tool".  KIDDING!  I have made that mistake tool.

As to a false statement charge, I am shamed to admit that I can't say why we think Rove did not initially disclose that chat with Novak.  However, I would hammer on materiality if I were defending him.  The timing of Novak's presumed testimony would be key, but one might well ask, did Rove's initial failure to realize that "I heard that, too" was Novak's confirmation really impede the investigation?

Reddhedd at firedoglake has many thoughts, but I query this:

Rove and Hadley have to genuinely have missed the e-mail in their individual searches, as well as the WH staffers who may have performed the searches having missed it as well (because, you know, who would think to search for "Wilson" *cough*);

First, I don't think for a second that Rove and Hadley checked their own emails - that is why the White House has a legal team.

Secondly, the text of the email reported by the AP does not include the word "Wilson":

"Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he's got a welfare-reform story coming," Mr. Rove wrote Mr. Hadley, who since has risen to the top job of national security adviser.

"When he finished his brief heads-up, he immediately launched into Niger. Isn't this damaging? Hasn't the president been hurt? I didn't take the bait, but I said if I were him, I wouldn't get Time far out in front on this."

The Anon Lib had lots on this last November. 

Now, the problem for Rove seems to be, why was the email discovered so late?  Doesn't it make it appear that they sat on the tip from Viveca Novak for several months, if she alerted Luskin to a Rove-Cooper connection on March 1?

Let me suggest a painfully obvious circle-squarer - suppose Luskin gave Fitzgerald a heads-up in March (or May, depending on his talk with Ms. Novak), telling him that he had an idea that Rove and Cooper had talked, that Rove had no notes to jog his memory, and that the search for evidence was on.  Would that be a plausible thing for a defense attorney to do?

If he had, it would sove another puzzle - the case can be made that Matt Cooper's second subpoena did not name a specific offical.  Based on the appeal (at Fitzgerald's site), Cooper's first subpoena was negotiated down to cover only chats with Lewis Libby.  Other reporters apparently were grilled only about specific conversations and sources (as Ms. Novak describes here with Fitzgerald, or see Pincus, Woodward, Russert, or even Miller).

So Cooper seems to stand alone as having received a subpoena that looks like a fishing expedition.  Either Fitzgerald broke practice with Cooper, or he knew something about Rove that has not been disclosed. 

So maybe a tip from Luskin was it.  Of course, a tip from someone else might also have driven this, but who was in a position to know?  Hadley received the email, obviously, or maybe it was a tip from the TIME side (I bet TIME doesn't rush to break that story.)

Comments

[Dwilkers]

"And that is how the high-priced investigative talent handles this? Fitzgerald is relying on a chat with a reporter?"

Think about that for a minute.

If we're to believe the implications of this, Novak's conversation with Luskin was of at least some significance to Fitz in deciding whether or not to charge Rove.

In other words, the perjury/obstruction stuff is so thin something this obscure, this slender a judgement, was a deciding factor. Without Novak Rove might have been indicted, is that what we're to take away from this?

Fitz should pack it up and go home. I for one am very near the point of losing all confidence in his efforts on this case.

[Gerald Hansen]

I wonder if there is any possibility that Ronnie Earle and Patrick Fitzgerald are related?

[J. Jonah Jameson]

As more information comes out about this case, the more confusing it becomes. In fact, I think I forgot what this case was originally about. Every reporter appears to have memory problems as bad if not worse than Libby & Rove. Plus every reporter involved seems to be rewarded with a "leave of absence" from their employer.

This case is giving us a glimpse into the opertations of our newsrooms and the journalistic skills of their employees, and it is not a pretty picture. Someone please close the curtain.

[Pete]

It seems to me that the key here is that Rove did not initially disclose his conversation with Cooper (to both the Feds and the Grand Jury). It seems a little convenient that just when Cooper was being squeezed, Rove changed his Grand Jury testimony.

Rove and Luskin are reacting to the new developments by digging up something that they claim helps their case. I fail to see how Novak's testimony helps Rove. Fitzgerald should indict on both the false statement charge and the perjury charge.

[Jim E.]

Viveca Novak hired a lawyer, met with the SP for a couple of hours on Nov. 10, and DIDN'T TELL HER EDITORS! This was at the very moment that Judy Miller was in everyone's crosshairs. Her arrogance and lack of professionalism is stunning. Then again, maybe it really isn't stunning. It's apparently the case that Viveca's behavior is the norm.

Heck, after reading Viveca's pathetic account, I may become a believer in TM's Andrea "I know more than I am saying" Mitchell suspicions.

More arrogance: at the end of her column, Viveca expresses her anger at Luskin because Luskin disclosed that he had a conversation with her! How dare he!

[richard mcenroe]

Dammit, Jim E., don't you realize sources are supposede to protect their journalists' confidentiality!

[clarice]

I think I have a big blockbuster of a scoop alomg the who knew and when and how line coming up. I'll post it when I do.

In a case where the question is did someone leak classified information to "out" someone, it seems to me that the very nature of this investigation was designed NOT to answer that question.

[Jim E.]

"sources are supposede to protect their journalists' confidentiality."

Ha!

[kim]

Well, Pete, let me explain. This helps show Fitz that Plame was a bigger deal to the journalists than to the White House. You do understand that don't you? Fitz knows now.

If he folds now, the cause is lost. He must persist now, either getting the truth out himself or letting Libby's defense do it.
=========================================

[Cecil Turner]

I liked this bit:

Fitzgerald was extremely pleasant, very professional, and he stuck to his pledge not to wander with his questions.

Well, I made no such pledge. So, hey, Viveca, what other sources were reporters talking about over at Time, Inc.? Did you hear anything about CIA sources backing up Wilson? Or the relationship between those sources and Wilson? If so, when? (Not that I expect any answers, but I'd like to think somebody cared enough to ask.)

[kim]

C, I've said motive and intent will matter a lot to a jury, and Fitz seems not to have addressed that yet.
=======================================

[Jim E.]

kim wrote: "This helps show Fitz that Plame was a bigger deal to the journalists than to the White House."

Actually, no, this shows no such thing.

[David Walser]

From all of this, it seems Fitzgerald mislead us in his press conference. Remember how he made a big deal about how his job was to assemble all the facts and then determine if a crime had been committed? (This was his point about how bad it is to throw sand in the eyes of the umpire. It keeps them from calling balls and strikes accurately.) But, it seems Fitzgerald was ONLY interested in facts that might reveal a crime had been committed by someone in the Administration. He did NOT ask any questions that might reveal that someone in the CIA (or elsewhere) had done anything wrong. That does not sound like the impartial gathering of facts followed by an objective call as to whether a crime was committed that Fitzgerald described.

[clarice]

This has gone from comic opera to The Three Stooges.

[clarice]

I'm still awaiting the storyline that Fitz will tell in his opening statement--for it is evident that his presser one--from Libby to the world-- is D.O.A.

[Kate]

Go, home, Fitz, go home. He's so nice, nice to the reporters, makes me want to barf.

If he indicts Rove on this nonsense, he's a fool. It will be only because he's wants a do over on that silly presser.

[kim]

Possibly, yes, this shows such thing.
======================================

[kim]

I agree C, I think Fitz will moult not bolt.

I suspect he is getting curiouser and curiouser.
============================================

[David Walser]

"It seems to me that the key here is that Rove did not initially disclose his conversation with Cooper (to both the Feds and the Grand Jury). It seems a little convenient that just when Cooper was being squeezed, Rove changed his Grand Jury testimony." -- Pete

If, as V. Novak reports, it is believable that she did not recall a March 1st meeting with Luskin -- after having reviewed her calendar -- why is it not believable that Rove forgot about a phone call he'd had with Cooper? Novak met with Luskin face-to-face. Rove simply took a call on his way out of the office. Novak had a fixed appointment and may have had to travel to get there. She was able to anticipate and prepare for the meeting. Yet, still, she forgot it had even taken place until Fitzgerald refreshed her memory. Rove did not prepare for nor did he travel to nor did he anticipate a call from Cooper. Novak's memory lapse is understandable. Rove's "seems a little convenient." I'm sorry, but the standard Rove's memory is being held to is far too high. I know I would not want to be held to such a standard. I cannot recall most of the calls and emails I made last week, let alone months ago.

[clarice]

There is no shift in Tradesports odds on Delay's conviction (still 22%) or Libby's(50%) but the odds of Rove being indcted are about (15%).

I predict the odds on Libby's conviction will fall further as more people come forward and when they do, the big moult..

[kim]

I still wanna know if this is Joe alone, or Joe and Val, or the CIA, or the Democrats. I still wanna see more MSM balderdash revealed. C'mon, Fitz.
=================================================

[Jim E.]

Kate,

So now you're nauseated at Fitz's professional and civil manner towards witnesses?

That Fitz isn't as emotional and shrill as website commentators should be a plus in his favor, not a negative. I believe President Bush also remarked on Fitz's serious, coureous manner. If so, would that also make you barf?

[clarice]

I've given up on Fitz doing that. At this point I think he's too busy trying to salvage his own reputation. He looks like a dunce.

[Jim E.]

It remains unclear what Viveca’s displays of arrogance and lack of professionalism have to do with Rove’s guilt or innocence. It is clear they have nothing to do with Libby’s case. It cracks me up how Republican partisans here spin everything as anti-Fitz, and make every new revelation, no matter how trivial or obscure, the turning point that proves Rove’s and Libby’s innocence. We don’t know what Fitz knows. For example, Fitz knows Woodward’s and Bob Novak’s sources, while we don’t. That information alone (and it’s not the only disparity of information) puts Fitz on an entirely different playing field than the rest of us. The testimony of the 2004 Viveca/Luskin conversations are Luskin’s idea of exculpatory evidence, so I fail to see how pursuing this line of inquiry reflects poorly on Fitz.

[clarice]

I am reasonably certain that the regulars here know more about Wilson/Plame/ the press corps and the Kerry camp than Fitz does. He has been tracking the case with a penlight and pocket magnifier and we have been using a searchlight and telescope.

[Jim E.]

"I am reasonably certain that the regulars here know more about Wilson/Plame/ the press corps and the Kerry camp than Fitz does."

That you would think so tells us more about your partisan, anti-Fitz view of the world than it does about reality.

[boris]

It remains unclear

To you, no suprise there. For the rest of us Republican partisans it demostrates her typical hostility to the admin and resentmtne at being "forced" to provide exculpatory information to the Fitz investigation of Rove.

It's obvious from her comments that she did provide Luskin and Rove with incentive to seek and find the email referencing the Rove Cooper call. Hence the theory that the discovery was faked is even less plausible.

[boris]

than it does about reality.

Back at you.

[clarice]

Instapundit is on the LAT piece--two interesting points:
(a) From a reader:"If the French knew in 2001 and 2002 that the Niger reports were baseless, why was the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs Director for Nonproliferation telling the United States on November 22, 2002 (per the SSCI report) that they had intelligence showing that Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Niger?"

(b)some pertinent questions that need to be answered Linkhttp://www.seixon.com/blog/archives/2005/12/why_out_italy.html

[Pete]

"If, as V. Novak reports, it is believable that she did not recall a March 1st meeting with Luskin -- after having reviewed her calendar -- why is it not believable that Rove forgot about a phone call he'd had with Cooper? Novak met with Luskin face-to-face. Rove simply took a call on his way out of the office. Novak had a fixed appointment and may have had to travel to get there. She was able to anticipate and prepare for the meeting. Yet, still, she forgot it had even taken place until Fitzgerald refreshed her memory. Rove did not prepare for nor did he travel to nor did he anticipate a call from Cooper. Novak's memory lapse is understandable. Rove's "seems a little convenient." I'm sorry, but the standard Rove's memory is being held to is far too high. I know I would not want to be held to such a standard. I cannot recall most of the calls and emails I made last week, let alone months ago." - David Walser

It is true that one canot recall everything. But given that the administration had their guns pointed at Wilson and Plame, the issue of Rove not recalling his conversation with a journalist (especailly when a few weeks later this became a national story) is not in the same league as a journalist recalling years later the exact dates when she met someone.

[Mister Haney]

"The testimony of the 2004 Viveca/Luskin conversations are Luskin’s idea of exculpatory evidence..."

Well Fitz potentially exculpatory as well since he supposedly was willing to give the case against Rove an additional look back when Luskin told Fitz, on the eve of indictments, about the Viveca conversations.

Luskin/Rove searching for independent verification of a Cooper/Rove call about Plame being prompted by Viveca mentioning to Luskin in passing a possible Cooper/Rove conversation is a big deal for Fitz in comparison to his initial thinking: a subpeona to Cooper prompting Rove's memory. It is the difference between a valid recantation and a possible perjury indictment.

[topsecretk9]

Clarice:
I wish I could edit last nights "late" comment just a wee bit (just a too few many confusing grammatical typos--arggha)

As far as V-Nov---HOW IRONIC

Ftzgerald had asked that I check a couple of dates in my calendar for meetings with Luskin. One of them, March 1, 2004, checked out. I hadn't found that one in my first search because I had erroneously entered it as occurring at 5 a.m., not 5 p.m.

TM is right, comedy. pure comedy!

[topsecretk9]

"If the French knew in 2001 and 2002 that the Niger reports were baseless, why was the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs Director for Nonproliferation telling the United States on November 22, 2002 (per the SSCI report) that they had intelligence showing that Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Niger?"

But they were secretly telling Val something different?

[clarice]

Everything but the pig bladders.TS--after about midnight there's a dispensation for all spelling errors, typos, grammatical gaffes. It's in the fine print here somewhere.

[Harry Jackman]

Is "Pete" the commenter = Pete Yost? Both make sh*t up, e.g.: "But given that the administration had their guns pointed at Wilson and Plame...". LOL. Good one!

I am sure if Viv testified 4-5 months, like others, after her conversations she could remember the exact dates and times.

[Joe Solters]

It's clear Fitz doesn't want to know whether Plame's job was 'common knowledge' to Wash. insiders. How can someone who is known be 'outed'? Fitz is building a very selective house of cards which ultimately can't be held together. All these press witnesses will be called to testify, without protection of the Fitz blinders. Ka-boom for his case.

[clarice]

Yes, Joe..and I love Pete's thesis that "But given that the administration had their guns pointed at Wilson and Plame," when virtually all the evidence is that the journos called THEM. Now, which way were those guns pointed or where they the kind where the barrel is reversed?

[Les Nessman]

"But given that the administration had their guns pointed at Wilson and Plame,.."

Heh. It is always amusing to see this Admin portrayed as the aggressor in this case, when really it was yet another political hack that nobody had ever heard of being given credibility and publicity by the NYTimes.

Pointed their guns at? Clearly a case of self-defense.

[richard mcenroe]

topsecretk9 — The woman can't tell morning from evening. How can you possibly doubt her quality as a reporter?

[TP]

I am waiting to hear from some publication other than the WSJ about the cold wind that is blowing in newsrooms from this investigation. This is like watching sportswriters, who, have spent a lifetime second guessing athletes, being faced with the reality of actually having to play the game. I would hope that, over the long run, they will develop a real appreciation for the players.

[richard mcenroe]

topsecretk9 — Hey! Maybe she meant she talked about "Victoria Flame" at 5 a.m, but Valerie Plame at 5 p.m.?

[clarice]

TP--It's already hitting them in the ass in the Ho case. Ho ho ho.

[Rick Ballard]

"Fitzgerald was extremely pleasant, very professional, and he stuck to his pledge not to wander with his questions."

OK - he's Inspector Jarseau - A man exhibiting enormous amounts of pitiless naivete.

"or were they the kind where the barrel is reversed?"

Commonly referred to as Polish (or you pick it) target pistols. You find them at estate sales with "only used once" tags on them.

[kim]

Pete, that's pretty lame memory stuff. Do you think a juror will go for it?

This is blowing up in Fitz's face, and if he wants to save any of it he's got to torment journalists. If he gets his dander up, and I still pray he will, then for Joe and al, California ani't far enough. What's that line? You can run but you can't stay covert.
===========================================

[Jim E.]

boris wrote: "it demostrates her typical hostility to the admin and resentmtne at being "forced" to provide exculpatory information to the Fitz investigation of Rove."

Viveca's "hostility" (I don't think that is the right word) was towards Luskin, not the administration. And since Luskin was a personal friend, her annoyance at him (however misplaced) is presumable anything but "typical."

Also, none of us can know how relevant, if at all, Viveca's testimony is. We don't know if it is exculpatory or not (for her part, Viveca also seems unaware of its significance). Therefore it is unfair of you to claim Viveca somehow wanted to avoid helping Rove's legal case. While perhaps annoyed, Viveca cooperated every step of the way.

[Terrie]

Clarice, your penlight and magnifier analogy is priceless. Brava!

[topsecretk9]

AND just as I suspected...

“I began spending a little more time than usual with Luskin as I tried to keep track of the investigation..."

So it is okay for reporters to exploit/use their relationships if the potential to get a scoop (to advance their agenda) is possible...HOWEVER, bad if the reverse happens.

Exactly HOW long are the self-less truth pursuers going to keep up the charade their they belong on a pedestal? If only Morpheus could rush a case of "red pills" to DC!

[clarice]

Well, she is on leave from Time at the moment. It doesn't seem her editors are happy that she passed on to Rove's lawyer what Cooper was blabbing to his colleagues (and there may be more to that than she's disclosed) and that she never told her editor about the conversation with Luskin or Fitz.

I don't think that Time is any happier with her than the Post is with Woodward although if journos were smarter they'd know these two are probably doing more to save them than anyone.

[kim]

Someone please apprise Fitz of what Chouet is saying today.

Jim E, we'd like a short discussion of Vivecka's mental state when she realized whe had told Luskin a tremendously important piece of information, and, apparently, regretted doing so.
======================================

[clarice]

Thank you, Terrie.

[clarice]

Was it Val or one of the VIPS who was Hamburger's hot source today? I think Vince Cannistraro has been going to incredible heights to point the barrel away from his sorry two-timing ass.

[boris]

none of us can know how relevant, if at all, Viveca's testimony is.

It's relevant to our understanding of the story. It clearly confirms what several posters on this site have suggested.

V.Novak "resented" her friend Luskin forcing her to provide exculpatory information to Fitz because of her "hostility" towards Rove and the admin.

[TP]

Blind Man Bones Chicken!!!!

Stop The Presses!!!

[topsecretk9]

Clarice
I think VAL--weak parting shot, disinfo...getting hot in DC this winter.

[kim]

So far, C, they represent the only whiff of truth from MSM. And look, it's coerced. I just love it.
==========================================

[clarice]

Pray today that my scoop pans out..then we'll be free to concentrate on issues of much greater import--like what happened to Natalee Holloway and did Jacko o.d. in Dubai.

[kim]

C'mon, TP, he used a magnifier and a penlight. I could bone a chicken with my eyes closed with those two tools.

Count your legs, Fitz.
=================================================

[Terrie]

I think we need to get the policy standards of these editors and publishers on record. Are their standards for the journalists they supervise consistent or situational? Is a penalty merited only when the reporters' actions potentially help Rove and Libby, et al?

Are Woodward and Pincus held to the same standard? Miller and Kristof? V. Novak and Cooper?

There seems to be little accountability required by the idiots-in-charge of the MSM.

[windansea]

Clarice...quit teasing will ya

will you post here or at AT?

PS thanks for correcting me on Npod in other thread

[TM]

Heck, after reading Viveca's pathetic account, I may become a believer in TM's Andrea "I know more than I am saying" Mitchell suspicions.

If we can win one convert a day, then after a year there will be... maybe enough angry leterr-writers that some news outlet will pick this up.

Naaah.

But wait! If each convert wins *TWO* new converts, then after just a month, we will outnumber the voters in Ohio!

Or somewhere. But we will surely be multitudes upon multitudes (with attitude).

[topsecretk9]

I told him I was trying to get a handle on the Valerie Plame leak investigation. "Well," he said, "you're sitting next to Karl Rove's lawyer." I was genuinely surprised, since Luskin's liberal sympathies were no secret, and here he was representing the man known to many Democrats as the other side's Evil Genius.

What a total lying joke. Yes I am sure that 4 or 5 months into the investigation it came as a total "surprise" that she just happened to be sitting next to Rove's attorney and she just "happened" to be trying to get a "HANDLE" on Plame Investigation. GEE, what luck! HA

Her later indignation that she felt violated by Luskin is pathetic.

[clarice]

Terrie, as soon as I have the story, I'll post it on AT and then post it here.

TM --maybe we should have a contest to see who can even come up with a plausible opening statement for Fitz after Vallely and V, Novak and Woodward. Remember, the SP may not state as something to be proven in that statement which he hasn't evidence for..

[clarice]

missing ANYTHING:

Remember, the SP may not state as something to be proven in that statement anything which he hasn't evidence for..

[TP]

Kim. It looks like she was a little rubbery after the deposition. Time has laid her off because she is only useful as a filet.

Speaking of lay offs, I wonder when one of these news organizations will lay off their first man in all of this mess.

[topsecretk9]

Jimminy Clarice

I am crossing my fingers for you!

[clarice]

Thanks, ts.

[clarice]

Ts--Yeah, V.N is either stupid or disingenuous --

[Jim E.]

Prior to Viveca's article, there were several leaks about the Viveca/Novak conversations. A major issue seems to be about when the key conversation took place.

One leak said the conversation took place in May 2004. Therefore, that leak was probably coming from Viveca, since her article says that was her testimony (or that it was March).

The other two sets of leaks were at the other extremes. One leak said the conversation took place in either late summer or fall 2004, while a recent leak said the conversation took place in January 2004. Those seem to be Luskin leaks. Was Luskin unsuccessfully trying to coach Viveca with those (for the sake of this post) self-serving leaks? Which date did Luskin testify to? (I would say the January date.) Why would Luskin and Rove want the conversation to have happened real early, or real late, in the year?

The late conversation would be helpful to Rove because Luskin could say, "On the basis of that conversation, I initiated a second search of e-mails that uncovered the Hadley e-mail. Rove still doesn't remember the conversation, but he knows it happened. That's why he was able to alter his testimony during his October 2004 GJ appearnce."

The hope for a January 2004 conversation could be that Luskin and Rove could say: "We were told about the Cooper conversation in January 2004. Even with the information that several people were talking about a Rove-Cooper phone call, Rove didn't bring it up in his Feb 2004 testimony because he honestly didn't remember it. No one would be dumb enough to cover-up a phone call knowing that colleagues of Cooper were apparently talking about it. Therefore, he testified to the best of his knowledge. He merely forgot the phone call." Such a scenario might, in a reasonable-doubt kind of way, have helped Rove in terms of his Feb 2004 testimony. I don't know how it explains the second e-mail search 9 months later.

It would seem that Viveca's testimony kinda sorta placing the call in spring of 2004 does nothing to help Rove. It doesn't seem to hurt him, but I don't see how it would be exculpatory, or have spurred a second search for e-mails several months later. Other than the possibility of a fall 2004 Luskin-Viveca conversation, I still don't see how Luskin's 11th hour disclosure of this gave Fitz "pause." Why did Luskin wait until the last second to bring this up with Fitz?

Lastly, as I understand it, Rove originally told an unbelieving FBI that he had nothing to do with Bob Novak's column at the center of all of this. Yet the Libby indictment clearly shows that "Official A" (aka Rove) spoke to Novak, knew that Novak was going to write about Wilson's wife, and then told Libby about it before publication. I'm left to wonder about Rove's status with regards with those (seemingly false) statements he told the FBI. Did he recant those as well? If so, why?

[kim]

Or she's both, or she wrote it under duress, or, most likely, all three.
================================================

[Pete]

"virtually all the evidence is that the journos called THEM." - clarice

Sure the journos were calling Rove, Libby. et al. And the Rove/Libby leaks were taking the desired effect.

There is plenty of disclosure in the Libby indictment about how administration insiders were contacting the CIA and the State Department to get information on Plame.

[clarice]

Let's urge her to get a good lawyer and clean out the Time till as Miller did. After all like Miller certainly had dirt on the paper's disparate treatement of her and Kristof, she could make a claim of disparate treatment about her and Cooper. Throw in se discrimination, too.

In no time at all this MSM fandago will mean the only people making money in the news media are the lawyers.

[kim]

Interesting point, Jim E, about which I'm not sure you are making too much. Might have Cooper's testimony not been important enough to the Rove/Luskin team to go looking for other email until Cooper lost his battle?

Aren't you being a little speculative about Rove's testimony?
==================================================

[clarice]

Pete- There's something big missing in your analysis. The folks in the WH are entitled to that information and are cleared to get it. The question is did they deliberately pass on classified information to reporters. And the record is clear--even Fitz never claimed that because it didn't happen. And if Fitz knew what he was about, he'd know that however "classified" that information was, most reporters who cover that beat knew it before Libby and Rove did and knew it from Wilson and Plame and officials outside the WH.

[Gary Maxwell]

Well I am certainly not surprised by this continuing serial bad behavior of the scrivener class in Wash DC.

Jim E. I got to give you credit for hanging in here. If Fitz bugs out will you too, or will it be a book tour for you like Mary Mapes?

We dont know what Fitz knows, is that your final position after another cup of coffee? Cuz its more accurate that Fitz doesnt know what the reporters know. When forced to testify by the Defense, this is going to be the most revolting stew that a jury has been asked to swallow in a long time.

Its starting to look to me that even if Libby was more out of control that I ever expected a trained lawyer to be, a jury will never allow a conviction due the behavior of the press.

Maybe you are right, but nothing has come out since the indictment that makes your case more convincing and a lot has come out (and its a fraction of what will come out).

[TP]

C. I wonder how these reporters are going to respond to the new levels of compliance that the lawyers and editors are going to put in to place over the next couple of years.

These guys are going to have to settle with Wen Ho Lee and it isn't going to be pretty.

[boris]

Was Luskin unsuccessfully trying to coach Viveca

You seem to have no problem reading all kinds of ulterior motive when it suits your POV.

Her reluctant confirmation (If I could have a do-over, I would have kept my mouth shut) of triggering the search which turned up the email bolsters the Rove/Luskin version of events.

but I don't see how it would be exculpatory

On the basis of disproving your version of events ??? ok so what ? It forces you one level deeper into the depths of conspiracy nutland.

[Pete]

"Pete- There's something big missing in your analysis. The folks in the WH are entitled to that information and are cleared to get it. The question is did they deliberately pass on classified information to reporters. And the record is clear--even Fitz never claimed that because it didn't happen. And if Fitz knew what he was about, he'd know that however "classified" that information was, most reporters who cover that beat knew it before Libby and Rove did and knew it from Wilson and Plame and officials outside the WH." - clarice

Cooper's testimony shows that Rove did pass that information to him. Cooper did not know it and Rove told him.

Cooper's testimnony blows away your entire hypothesis.

[Jim E.]

kim wrote: "Might have Cooper's testimony not been important enough to the Rove/Luskin team to go looking for other email until Cooper lost his battle."

I think kim's onto something here. Trouble is, the scenario she paints is exactly the one that Rove wants to deny happened.

[clarice]

The record shows that he was telling him the story was wrong; that he should not go out on a limb with it and that Tenet was about to issue something to clarify the record.

Not in the record, but fun to anticipate on cross is how he didn't know, when his wife (like Wilson) was a high level Clinton appointee who undoubtedly attended many social events together--probably with Walter Pincus and his Clinton appointee to the DoS wife.

[topsecretk9]

Cooper did not know it and Rove told him.

total BS. Coop knew. Red Pill time.

[kim]

Pete, you don't know what Cooper's testimony will be yet, and neither does Fitz.

When will the defendants' be allowed to confront their accusers? Maybe not until Fitz is no longer standing in the way.
==========================================

[Pat]

I have a few questions about the whole Plame Blame Game that maybe someone here can answer. Did Fitzgerald ever interview Wilson and/or Plame? If, so, was it under oath?

[boris]

exactly the one that Rove wants to deny happened

Not quite. Rove denies he lied. You just imply lack of due diligence in the search, that's completely different.

[topsecretk9]

Cooper's testimony blows away your entire hypothesis.

well like everybody in this, Coop. has severe memory problems too "Welfare Reform", however Coop had an easy time finding her name... He GOOGLED HER, HAH!....but um Pete...were you in the GJ room when Coop testified?

[topsecretk9]

Cooper's testimony blows away your entire hypothesis.

well like everybody in this, Coop. has severe memory problems too "Welfare Reform", however Coop had an easy time finding her name... He GOOGLED HER, HAH!....but um Pete...were you in the GJ room when Coop testified?

[Jim E.]

boris,
It seems clear that Luskin has been telling about three versions of events every time a new story comes up about his client. I was merely trying to figure out, in this case, why he was leaking different times for the conversations (assuming he was, in fact, the source for the different time-frames).

"Her reluctant confirmation (If I could have a do-over, I would have kept my mouth shut) of triggering the search which turned up the email bolsters the Rove/Luskin version of events."

Not if it happened four or nine months before the search was initiated. That wouldn't really look like a "trigger."

[clarice]

It's just my guess, Jim E. but I'd expect Luskin's records to be more accurate than a reporter's , a reporter who can't tell a.m. from p/m/ in her notes.

[boris]

That wouldn't really look like a "trigger."

To you. Yet That's what Luskin, Rove and V Novak claim.

[kim]

Jim E, I may not be on to what you think I'm onto that I don't think I'm onto. I've given an explanation for why the delay between V. Novak's conversation with Luskin and the turning over to Fitz of the email. I otherwise think V.'s testimony is very helpful to Rove in that it shows Fitz that Luskin was apparently surprised about the info. Another little mentioned topic, is just how much else Fitz asked her about the 'talk in the newsroom'. That might explain the redeye to New York and the leave of absence.

Overall, I believe we are seeing the picture of a prosecutor for whom the scales are falling from the eyes. It is only in retrospect that I regret my optimism; prospectively it gives life.
==================================

[topsecretk9]

Another little mentioned topic, is just how much else Fitz asked her about the 'talk in the newsroom'. That might explain the redeye to New York and the leave of absence.

if the phrase "Welfare Reform" was circulating...that would be HIGHlarious

[TM]

Interesting point by Jim E that we could track the leaks by the dates they gave for the conversations.

Let me reperat his bit:

One leak said the conversation took place in May 2004. Therefore, that leak was probably coming from Viveca, since her article says that was her testimony (or that it was March).

The other two sets of leaks were at the other extremes. One leak said the conversation took place in either late summer or fall 2004, while a recent leak said the conversation took place in January 2004. Those seem to be Luskin leaks.

Hmm. Viveca says that her first guess was either January or May. I will guess that folks familiar with her testimony leaked the January date.

Fitzgerald asked Viveca to check for a March meeting, so presumably he got that date from Luskin.

The late summer leak just makes no sense based on her story, especially with the supplemental clue that Fitzgerald gave her a date to check.

Advantage - Luskin, on that minor point. Unless Viveca it totally in the tank.

[clarice]

Pat, I believe early on Wilson said he and his wife were separately questioned by FBI agents. They were never called before the GJ. Since Fitz seems to have swallowed the Wilson tale whole, it seems that no one ever went back to them after the case started falling apart.

[Jim E.]

boris wrote: "That's what Luskin, Rove and V Novak claim."

V Novak would have no basis to independently claim anything about what did or did not "trigger" the second e-mail search. So your quote comes down to Rove and Rove's lawyer having the same account. Wow.

[topsecretk9]

Clarice

it seems that no one ever went back to them after the case started falling apart.

Maybe we could ask "Tom Hambuger" if this is still true?

[kim]

Surely Fitz was aware of what the SSCI did to Joe's credibility. If he didn't that might explain a lot.

I still think, though, that Fitz is playing a deeper game. He is rolling up journalists, Joe is hightailing it out of town, the CIA is in lockdown, Les Francaises are getting into the act, but why indict Libby except to get at journalists' testimonies?
===============================

[clarice]

TS, He'd certainly know.Probably numero uno on the Wilson rolodex.

Jim E. If you truly believe that you have a big money making possibility. The Trade Sports odds on Rove being indicted are down to 15%--place your money where your mouth is.

[Cecil Turner]

But given that the administration had their guns pointed at Wilson and Plame . . .

Imagine for a second Rove, Libby, et al were never interested in outing Plame, but only in correcting Wilson's narrative (specifically, that they sent Wilson and he debunked the Niger story). Further assume that they were aware of Plame's employment (but thought she was an analyst). Would their subsequent failures to remember what was to them a minor part of the story be farfetched? Now try the same exercise, but assuming the goal was to "out" Plame in retaliation. Obviously the memory failures would not be believable. But do the other actions (e.g., failing to log a phone call, but keeping an e-mail; "forgetting" to tell the SP about it . . . but "finding" it in time to recant . . .) make any sense?

To my mind, the answer to the above is obvious. And I think the problem with most lefty analysis on the subject is a failure of imagination: they cannot conceive of a scenario in which Karl Rove's motivation is less than mendacious.

[kim]

Is it suggestive that Joe has not given testimony a second time. He's not been offered a chance to correct his testimony. I think that is meaningful.
=============================================

[clarice]

kim, I wish I could agree. Before the Libby indictment, I thought Fitz had figured out the game. I doubt he'd indict someone and force him to resign such an important position to get to that.

CT, yes, that's it..the triumph of hope over logic.

[topsecretk9]

He's not been offered a chance to correct his testimony. I think that is meaningful.

and with all these reporters being unearthed it must be excruciating...

BTW, am I right in reading V-Nov, that she met with Fitz twice - only once under oath and she withheld talk number 1 from editors?