Viveca Novak recounts her involvement and testimony:
A reporter for Time magazine said Sunday that a lawyer for Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, was surprised when she suggested to him in the first half of 2004 that Mr. Rove had probably been a source for the magazine’s July 2003 article that discussed the C.I.A. officer at the heart of the leak case.
The reporter, Viveca Novak, wrote in a first-person article published on the magazine’s Web site that she met with Robert D. Luskin, a lawyer for Mr. Rove, on three occasions in early 2004. She said it was likely in one of these meetings that she hinted to Mr. Luskin that Mr. Rove had discussed the C.I.A. officer with a Time colleague, Matthew Cooper.
Ms. Novak’s conversation with Mr. Luskin has been under scrutiny by the special counsel in the leak case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald. In her article, Ms. Novak wrote that Mr. Fitzgerald sought to question her about the matter after Mr. Luskin told him of their conversation about Mr. Rove, in the belief that the information would help his client.
Ms. Novak said that before she spoke with Mr. Fitzgerald on Nov. 10, a discussion in which she was not under oath, she hired a lawyer, Hank Schuelke. “I didn’t tell anyone at Time,” she wrote. “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.”
I was already confused before a second Novak got introduced into this case (and I still don’t know what the role of the first Novak was). This seems to just muddy things.
Jeralynn weighs in.
From my interpretation, Novak’s testimony throws some of Rove’s earlier testimony about when he talked about Plame with other reporters like Cooper into doubt. It might also explain why Rove’s lawyer was called to testify (which I think is a rarity) to clarify the timeline of events that Rove had been sticking to.
Are Viv and Rob related in some way?
ViVak and RoVak are not related to each other.
It all comes down to whether Rove perjured himself or not. And that determination isn’t going to be made by anyone but Patrick J. Fitzgerald. But one thing is certain, he is examining the issues of Rove’s involvement and ensuing candor very carefully.
You have to like a guy that gives important matters such as this the time they deserve.
So he leaked some undercover CIA operatives status to the press. It’s no big deal. It’s no worse than a fraternity prank.
It’s not like he had sex with an intern or something critical to national security like that.
Looks like Fitzy is getting set up to go after his real target — Joe Wilson.
I think this is a wash. V. Novak told Luskin months before Rove’s testimony about Cooper. On one hand, Fitz could use this as evidence that Rove must have “remembered” Cooper at his testimony because Luskin was aware of it and so Rove must have lied because he thought Cooper would protect him. On the other hand, Rove can say that it proved he didn’t remember Cooper, since he knew Cooper was involved in some way before, and only an idiot would not testify about Cooper since Rove knew Cooper would probably testify about Rove.
So in the end, it doesn’t amount to much.
You forgot to mention that this isn’t nearly as important as a blue dress.
Or that Hillary murdered Vince Foster (or was that Bill or Tom Daschle or … ).
Who’s Valerie Plame?
Bob In Pacifica
Stormy, she runs the gift shop at the Laphroig distillery on the Isle of Islay.
Looks like we still may get that Merry Fitzmas many of us have longed for.
Fitz is following an old tradition that CIA operations officers count on if he is going after Joe Wilson. That is why Wilson was used, sent to Niger, and rolled up in Spain.
DOJ reports directly to CIA Dircetor now. At least a conflict of intersest. At most criminal conspiracy prosecution if Fitz goes after Joe Wilson; CIA contractor and husband to CIA employee.
OOps. More than four lines………………….
In the news today:
Novak said she told Luskin “something like, ‘Are you sure about that? That’s not what I hear around Time.’ He looked surprised and very serious” and at the end of their discussion that day said, “Thank you. This is important.”
So, why do we have to join before commenting.