One Novak Gets You into Trouble, the Other Bails You Out
I've received a number of emails over the last few days asking for my take on the recent report that TIME Magazine's Viveca Novak (no relation to Bob) has been called to testify in Fitzgerald's leak investigation. According to various reports, Fitzgerald plans to ask Novak about conversations she had with Karl Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin beginning in May 2004. There's been a lot of speculation in the blogosphere regarding the potential significance of this development, with most bloggers suggesting that it doesn't bode well for Karl Rove. But two questions stood out for me:
1) How did Fitzgerald learn about these conversations?
2) Why did TIME Magazine not put up any fight? (Tom Maguire was similarly puzzled)
As Jeralyn Merritt and others have pointed out, Novak does not appear to have published any relevant articles during the time period at issue, and her later articles make no mention of any May 2004 conversations. The only obvious answer to the first question, therefore, is that either Novak or Luskin brought the conversation(s) to Fitzgerald's attention. Because reporters don't typically volunteer to testify about their conversations with sources (as this investigation has made abundantly clear), the most likely explanation was that Luskin himself brought these conversations to Fitzgerald's attention, perhaps during his last minute efforts to convince Fitzgerald not to indict his client. This theory had the added benefit of explaining question number two.
Well, sure enough, the Washington Post now confirms this version of events. The Post reports:
So what exactly could Novak and Luskin have talked about way back in May 2004 that would have caused Fitzgerald to question his case against Rove at the last minute? It's hard to know, but I suspect it bears on Luskin's knowledge (or lack thereof) of the July 11, 2003 conversation between Novak's colleague, Matthew Cooper and Luskin's client, Karl Rove. In May 2004 (at the time the conversations at issue took place), Cooper was subpoenaed to testify about conversations he had in 2003 with government officials regarding Valerie Plame. At that time, as I've described in detail previously, Rove had not yet testified about his conversation with Cooper, and Fitzgerald was apparently unaware that such a conversation had ever taken place. And, importantly, at this point, the Rove-Hadley email had not yet been "discovered." According to Rove, it was the discovery of that email in Fall 2004 that triggered his memory of the Cooper conversation and prompted him to correct his previous testimony.
So where am I going with this? Well, suppose Luskin said something to Novak in May 2004 which suggested that he had no idea that his client had ever spoken with Matt Cooper. Logically, if a lawyer knows that his client has had a critical conversation with a magazine reporter (particularly one that his client had failed to come clean about), he would be somewhat careful about what he said to another reporter from the same magazine, particularly if that magazine had just been subpoenaed by the Special Prosecutor. Luskin may have told Novak something that wouldn't have made sense (or would have been very ill-advised) if he knew about the connection between his client and Matt Cooper. Indeed, Luskin may have had a series of conversations with Novak starting in May 2004 and extending through the period when the Rove-Hadley email was supposedly discovered. If Luskin's tune suddenly changed right about the time he claims that the email was discovered, this would lend some circumstantial support to the assertion that he first learned about the Rove-Cooper conversation in late 2004.
Of course, for such conversations to exculpate Rove, one also has to assume that Rove was being truthful with Luskin. Luskin's state of knowledge was not necessarily the same as his client's. That said, there is certainly no obvious reason for Rove to have lied to his own lawyer about such a crucial detail. Therefore, a conversation or series of conversations like the ones described above might well have been enough to "give Fitzgerald pause."
Given that a reporter named Novak drew Rove into this mess, it would certainly be bizarre if another reporter named Novak got him out of it.
For more on this issue, see the other Plamaniacs, as Maguire calls them:
Tom Maguire at JustOneMinute
Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft
Jane Hamsher and ReddHedd at FireDogLake
Swopa at Needlenose
Empty Wheel at The Next Hurrah
Eriposte at The Left Coaster
1) How did Fitzgerald learn about these conversations?
2) Why did TIME Magazine not put up any fight? (Tom Maguire was similarly puzzled)
As Jeralyn Merritt and others have pointed out, Novak does not appear to have published any relevant articles during the time period at issue, and her later articles make no mention of any May 2004 conversations. The only obvious answer to the first question, therefore, is that either Novak or Luskin brought the conversation(s) to Fitzgerald's attention. Because reporters don't typically volunteer to testify about their conversations with sources (as this investigation has made abundantly clear), the most likely explanation was that Luskin himself brought these conversations to Fitzgerald's attention, perhaps during his last minute efforts to convince Fitzgerald not to indict his client. This theory had the added benefit of explaining question number two.
Well, sure enough, the Washington Post now confirms this version of events. The Post reports:
Viveca Novak, who has written intermittentlyI know what you're thinking. It's easy for me to lay out this theory now, AFTER it's already been confirmed. Fair enough. I've learned my lesson: if you want credit for an idea, write about it BEFORE the Washington Post does. Oh well.
about the leak case for Time, has been asked
to provide sworn testimony to Special Counsel
Patrick J. Fitzgerald in the next few weeks
after Rove attorney Robert Luskin told
Fitzgerald about a conversation he had with
her, the two sources said.
It's not clear why Luskin believes Novak's
deposition could help Rove, President Bush's
deputy chief of staff, who remains under
investigation into whether he provided false
statements in the case. But a person familiar
with the matter said Luskin cited his
conversations with Novak in persuading
Fitzgerald not to indict Rove in late October,
when the prosecutor brought perjury and
obstruction-of-justice charges against Vice
President Cheney's former chief of staff,
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
So what exactly could Novak and Luskin have talked about way back in May 2004 that would have caused Fitzgerald to question his case against Rove at the last minute? It's hard to know, but I suspect it bears on Luskin's knowledge (or lack thereof) of the July 11, 2003 conversation between Novak's colleague, Matthew Cooper and Luskin's client, Karl Rove. In May 2004 (at the time the conversations at issue took place), Cooper was subpoenaed to testify about conversations he had in 2003 with government officials regarding Valerie Plame. At that time, as I've described in detail previously, Rove had not yet testified about his conversation with Cooper, and Fitzgerald was apparently unaware that such a conversation had ever taken place. And, importantly, at this point, the Rove-Hadley email had not yet been "discovered." According to Rove, it was the discovery of that email in Fall 2004 that triggered his memory of the Cooper conversation and prompted him to correct his previous testimony.
So where am I going with this? Well, suppose Luskin said something to Novak in May 2004 which suggested that he had no idea that his client had ever spoken with Matt Cooper. Logically, if a lawyer knows that his client has had a critical conversation with a magazine reporter (particularly one that his client had failed to come clean about), he would be somewhat careful about what he said to another reporter from the same magazine, particularly if that magazine had just been subpoenaed by the Special Prosecutor. Luskin may have told Novak something that wouldn't have made sense (or would have been very ill-advised) if he knew about the connection between his client and Matt Cooper. Indeed, Luskin may have had a series of conversations with Novak starting in May 2004 and extending through the period when the Rove-Hadley email was supposedly discovered. If Luskin's tune suddenly changed right about the time he claims that the email was discovered, this would lend some circumstantial support to the assertion that he first learned about the Rove-Cooper conversation in late 2004.
Of course, for such conversations to exculpate Rove, one also has to assume that Rove was being truthful with Luskin. Luskin's state of knowledge was not necessarily the same as his client's. That said, there is certainly no obvious reason for Rove to have lied to his own lawyer about such a crucial detail. Therefore, a conversation or series of conversations like the ones described above might well have been enough to "give Fitzgerald pause."
Given that a reporter named Novak drew Rove into this mess, it would certainly be bizarre if another reporter named Novak got him out of it.
For more on this issue, see the other Plamaniacs, as Maguire calls them:
Tom Maguire at JustOneMinute
Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft
Jane Hamsher and ReddHedd at FireDogLake
Swopa at Needlenose
Empty Wheel at The Next Hurrah
Eriposte at The Left Coaster
posted by A.L. at 11:34 PM
2 Comments:
From Jane Hamsher:
Viveca Novak is indeed being called to testify before Fitzgerald at Luskin's request. Rumor has it that in May of 2004 when Cooper and Russert were first subpoenaed, "inveterate gossip" Viveca knew that Matt Cooper's source was Karl Rove and she just happened to mention it to her buddy Luskin. Luskin is now claiming that this surprise revelation to his memory-challenged client is what prompted them to go hunting through his emails and call up the one he had written to Hadley.
If thst is true, which is similar to the theory you've got, I am still not sure why Fitzgerald was all that impressed. Set aside Rove lying to his attorney - why can't Luskin lie to a reporter? If Luskin did know that Rove had "misplaced" am email, would he blurt that out to a reporter, or say "Gosh, Matt Cooper is protecting Rove? I have NO IDEA what you are going on about"?
Well, someone else in the WaPo story says that Viveca does not really add much, which may be the case.
Tom Maguire
The timeline doesn't make much sense either. Assuming the New York Times was right about the Hadley email being "discovered" in Fall 2004, and Hamsher is right about the content of the May 2004 Novak-Luskin conversation, why would it have taken Rove 3-4 months to find the email? And even if it did, why would they have waited so long to come forward?
I think if Hamsher is right, the conversation she is describing probably took place later in 2004, and Luskin must have some sort of corroborating evidence (e.g. his notes of the conversation) that support the inference that he wasn't just pretending to be surprised by Novak's revelation. If that's the case, it could conceivably have given Fitzgerald "pause." If not, I agree, I don't see how it helps Rove.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home