Novak Speaks! (OK, Writes...)

Bob Novak describes his role in the Plame investigation in a column available at Human Events.  Here is coverage from Howard Kurtz of the WaPo, David Johnston of the NY Times, and Pete Yost of the AP.

Duty calls, so more later, but briefly - the biggest surprise of this story is how plausible and unsurprising it is. 

Novak discussed three sources with Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury - Karl Rove, CIA Press flack Bill Harlow, and an as-yet-unnamed government official who has not been identified in this story (let's just say, Richard Armitage, former Deputy Secretary of State):

However, on Jan. 12, two days before my meeting with Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor informed Hamilton that he would be bringing to the Swidler Berlin offices only two waivers. One was by my principal source in the Valerie Wilson column, a source whose name has not yet been revealed. The other was by presidential adviser Karl Rove, whom I interpret as confirming my primary source's information. In other words, the special prosecutor knew the names of my sources.

When Fitzgerald arrived, he had a third waiver in hand -- from Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column confirming Mrs. Wilson's identity. I answered questions using the names of Rove, Harlow and my primary source.

I had a second session with Fitzgerald at Swidler Berlin on Feb. 5, 2004, after which I was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury. I testified there at the U.S. courthouse in Washington on Feb. 25.

And why was Novak wiling to cooperate?  Let me pick this out:

The FBI soon asked to interview me, prompting my first major decision. My attorneys advised me that I had no certain constitutional basis to refuse cooperation if subpoenaed by a grand jury. To do so would make me subject to imprisonment and inevitably result in court decisions that would diminish press freedom, all at heavy personal legal costs.

Based on Judy Miler's experience, his attorneys were correct.  And I bet that if we understood Bob Novak's business set-up, we would find that he pays his own legal bills - just a guess, but he looks like a one-man media empire.

He gives us this on the enduring Who's Who mystery:

Following my interview with the primary source, I sought out the second administration official and the CIA spokesman for confirmation. I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America."

Novak gave a sense of his story in this Oct 1, 2003 column and in this Aug 1 2005 column responding to Bill Harlow's account to the WaPo (my thoughts here).  Jeralyn Merritt had a good post introducing the controversy as of August 2005, and was kind enough to link to me having a great deal of fun at the expense of Ms. Kornblut of the Times.  Was that only a year ago?  Wizbang has the relevant Who's Who entry for 2002.

And broadly - if Fitzgerald has freed Novak to speak, doesn't that strongly support the notion (as noted in Times and Wapo coverage) that this investigation is over, over, over?  No Fitzmas, no mas.

ERRATA: Richard Armitage recently told Charlie Rose that, per the WaPo, "I'm not worried about my situation".

BACK-CHECK:  Murray Waas told us in July 2005 that Novak had cooperated; I would say his work has held up well.

His old post also notes Novak's controversial use of the word "operative" in his famous July 14, 2003 column:

Novak had claimed to the investigators that the Bush administration officials with whom he spoke did not identify Plame as a covert operative, and that use of the word "operative" was his formulation and not theirs, according to those familiar with Novak's accounts to the investigators.

...Federal investigators have been skeptical of Novak's assertions that he referred to Plame as a CIA "operative" due to his own error, instead of having been explicitly told that was the case by his sources, according to attorneys familiar with the criminal probe.

Well, Federal investigators may have been skeptics, but... left unexplained is this use of the word "operative" by Andrea Mitchell on July 8, in a report on the handling of the Wilson report which she sourced to the CIA:

MITCHELL: Well, people at the CIA say that [the fall guy for the 16 Words debacle is] not going to be George Tenet; and, in fact, that high-level people at the CIA did not really know that it was false, never even looked at Joe Wilson's verbal report or notes from that report, didn't even know that it was he who had made this report, because he was sent over by some of the covert operatives in the CIA at a very low level, not, in fact, tasked by the vice president.

Hmm - high level CIA officials blaming low-level "covert operatives" in the CIA.  Sounds like a job-protection exercise by Tenet and McLaughlin.

In any case, Novak echoed that very Mitchell report in the lead to his July 14 column:

The CIA's decision to send retired diplomat Joseph C. Wilson to Africa in February 2002 to investigate possible Iraqi purchases of uranium was made routinely at a low level without Director George Tenet's knowledge. Remarkably, this produced a political firestorm that has not yet subsided.

Did Novak get the same tip Ms. Mitchell did, from the same high level CIA sources, complete with the use of the word "operative"?  Or does he use Lexis as well as Who's Who, and was he simply echoing Ms. Mitchell? 

Comments

[PeterUK]

The grave political error in this strategy is events in the Middles East are likely to overshodow and render trivial the celebrity victims.
This has the stench of John Kerry's Dr Frankensteins resurection of Vietnam,in which he was able to play both parts.

[Lesley]

It will be Valerie Wilson who will bear the brunt of this lawsuit with her entire life splashed before the eyes of the public. They (per Vanity Fair magazine) have already admitted she outed herself to Joe on a hote date. My, my, are all Valerie's hot dates going to be deposed to discover just exactly how "forthcoming" she was with them? Her post-partum depression? The endless permutations and combinations of these possible lines of questioning are chilling. Even if these lines of questioning are thrown out, speaking as a woman, I'd be in a perpetual state of nausea just wondering what the opposition was going to throw at me next.

What kind of primrose path are their lawyers leading them down?

Apparently, Joe and Valerie Wilson have decided that Valerie is, indeed, fair game.

[larwyn]

Hume showed pix again for longer
time. Now think it is "Virginal
White Jacketed Dress".
Note the carefree tied belt - Gold buckle dangles.
Not Armani - don't the devils
wear PRAVDA now??

(too tired for tags- sorry to dissapoint)

[PeterUK]

Lesley,
That is my view,Joe is a wily old hack,Val for all the covert pallaver, is a bureaucrat,the dog eat dog world of the courts are going to leave her terribly exposed.

[Kate]

The suit is triffling and Tom and Daisy are annoying, grandstanding fools.

But the real problem is how the media reports this. Yesterday's AP report on Novak's column was so bad I thought it was a DNC press release.

We can laugh about it, but it really is unfortunate that the media is so willing to spin the story to fit Wilson's narrative. A little objectivity would be nice.

[Barney Frank]

lurker,

It is SOP to include a list of John Does at the head of a lawsuit in case there are others you might want to name later.
Don't think I've ever seen a suit without it.

[lurker]

Novak will blow them away.

[GnuCarSmell]

One of the more surreal moments occurred this week when Robert Novak's "journalistic integrity" was questioned by MSNBC's Chris Matthews and David Shuster -- arguably, two of the least credible hucksters within broadcast media.

[Sara (The Squiggler)]

Fitz is not running for office. He doesn't have to be popular, and he never will be at this point.

I posted this link the other day as an OT link in the Hoekstra thread but think it is more applicable here.

Save Patrick Fitzgerald

[Kate]

Will the media now refer to Mr. and Mrs. Plame and Democratic operatives Mr. and Mrs. Plame.

You know, how they say the indicted Tom Delay; the disgraced President Nixon, and the impeached former President Clinton.

[Sue]

In any civil lawsuit, you have to have mitigated your damages. In other words, you can't be in a car wreck, refuse medical treatment immediately that would have saved your leg and then claim extra damages. The Wilsons have done nothing to mitigate their damages. In fact, the VF spread will be exhibit A for the defense. Exhibit B will be Wilson's book. And so on and so forth. They have done nothing to mitigate their perceived damages. In fact, they have sought the limelight.

Something that has bothered me forever about Plame. All of these covert operatives that are no longer covert appear all over the media telling us they were covert operatives. Why can't Valerie just put it to bed by telling us she was covert, not classified, as the petition claimed?

[Sue]

Another defense tactic. Bury the plaintiff in paperwork. ::grin:: We are very good at that. I won't say it runs up the billing, but I won't say it doesn't either. Every plaintiff has to be concerned about the costs of a lengthy trial. This isn't the unlimited pockets of Patrick Fitzgerald that will be fighting the unlimited pockets of Cheney, Rove, Libby and their dedicated defense attorneys.

[Sue]

If I were the defense, I would set out immediately to ask for summary judgment and failing that I would start the discovery process. Plaintiffs have to go first, you know, in depositions. ::grin::

[Sue]

Ewwweeee...and depositions are not grand jury testimony. Won't be anything secret about them.

[Jane]

I have a lot of comments on the lawsuit, the first being it seems to be completely devoid of facts. Nothing in it is first hand. That was very odd.

The second thing I wondered as I read it was in several places I didn't know how they could know what they alleged. A lot of it seemed to come from grand jury testimony which most likely they are not privy to.

Thirdly the suit was brought against the 3 defendants as individuals not as members of the administration. There must be some prohibition in suing them for doing something in the context of their jobs.

The preliminary statement was nothing but gratuitous. I'd file a motion to strike that just for the heck of it, but it certainly shows that they are in this for impact rather than reward.

I also think it is quite amazing that Novak is not a party, since they are alleging that his actions created the cause of action.

They also identify the Under Secretary of state in several paragraphs - which is Armitage right? But they never identify him by name.

Wilson is also fighting the war in this complaint which is exactly what the Judge said Fitzy couldn't do.

Has anyone read Bivens? I don't know that case.

[Jane]

****Wilson is also fighting the war in this complaint which is exactly what the Judge said Fitzy couldn't do.*****

Actually I think the Judge said Libby couldn't do that.

[Jane]

Bivens

http://www.constitution.org/grossack/bivens.htm

(sorry for the multiple posts)

[Rick Ballard]

I understand the countersuit but isn't there room for some cross-complaints? I've been hauled in on a few of those in busines and it didn't seem that the standard for being named was very high at all. Anybody breathing in the vicinity with insurance seemed to be enough.

[Jane]

Well the defendants could implead a bunch of other people - the most notable being Novak but they could follow it all the way back to Kristoff. Probably not a smart move tho.