How Libby Wanted Judy to Testify

by emptywheel

Happy Arraignment Day, everyone! Scooter Libby has officially pleaded not guilty and hired Ted Wells and Bush family consigliere James Baker colleague William Jeffress to manage his defense.

In recognition of arraignment day, I thought I'd lay out what appears to be the lie Libby wanted Judy to testify to. As I suggested here and here, it appears that Libby may have tried to coach Judy's testimony. Murray Waas' story, which counts three papers as receiving the Libby-friendly leak Steno Sue Schmidt printed, adds to the evidence that Scooter Libby tried to coach Judy's testimony.

Finally, on September 29, the night before Miller was scheduled to testify before the grand jury, a source sympathetic to Libby spoke to journalists for at least three news organizations to leak word as to what Libby himself had said during his own testimony.

Journalists at two news organizations declined to publish stories. Among their concerns was that they had only a single source for the story and that that source had such a strong bias on behalf of Libby that the account of his grand jury testimony might possibly be incomplete or misleading in some way.

By comparing the Libby lie that was operative in September with the lies we know he told in March 2004 and September 2003, we can get a better sense of his understanding of his case (and in particular, whether he has learned to lie better since he first started lying in this case). And, as you'll see below, I've got a pretty damned interesting speculation based on Libby's coaching. I plan to do a follow-up post to take a really close look at what Judy actually said she said, since I never really did that when her story first came out.

Libby had up to four chances to coach Judy's testimony.

• Apparently, Fitzgerald is suspicious that Rove and Libby coached Novak's testimony between September 28, 2003 and October 1, 2003, just when it became clear there would be an investigation into this (however whitewashed under the direction of John Ashcroft). So presumably, Libby may have talked to Judy at that time as well.
• Libby sent Judy his famous love letter on September 15.
• Libby and Judy spoke by phone for 10 minutes on September 19.
• Libby's friend leaked the aforementioned story to three news outlets the night before Judy testified, on September 29.

We've got no evidence from the first or third of those chances, except the detail that when Philip Taubman asked Judy whether she had received this leak at about the time it appears Rove and Libby may have been coaching Novak, she responded in almost the same way that Novak did.

''The answer was generally no,'' Mr. Taubman said. Ms. Miller said the subject of Mr. Wilson and his wife had come up in casual conversation with government officials, Mr. Taubman said, but Ms. Miller said ''she had not been at the receiving end of a concerted effort, a deliberate organized effort to put out information.''

But thanks to a guerrilla leaker (PDF) and the cooperative nature of Steno Sue, we know exactly what Libby said in his two other opportunities to coach Judy.

Libby's Letter
Keep in mind that, at the time Libby wrote his love letter to Judy, Fitzgerald had been pressuring Libby's lawyer, Tate, to get Libby to give a specific waiver. If I read it right, Fitzgerald was suggesting strongly that Libby's unwillingness to give the same kind of specific waiver as he had for Cooper was beginning to look like obstruction. Which explains why Libby spends most of his letter to Judy rehashing the negotiations between their lawyers, trying to spin them into a portrait of perfect cooperation on his part. Then Libby gets into the part that is likely coaching.

...I had voluntarily waived the confidentiality of discussions, if any, we may have had related to the Wilson-Plame matter. As you know, in January 2004 I waived the privilege for purposes of allowing certain reporters identified by the Special Counsel to testify before the Grand Jury about any discussions I may have had related to the Wilson-Plame matter. The Special Counsel identified every reporter with whom I had spoken about anything in July 2003, including you.

Note that Libby refers to "certain reporters identified by the Special Counsel." I'm not really sure what the content of the waiver really was--my impression is it was more general, a waiver to all reporters who had anything to do with this. But Libby stresses the "certain reporters," which may suggest there are others out there that Fitzgerald didn't identify. Particularly when Libby said, "with whom I had spoken about anything in July 2003," it raises the possibility that there are other reporters with whom Libby spoke in June, reporters Judy may know about (I asked about the June 23 meeting, for example, whether just Judy and Libby were present at that meeting; imagine if it were a covey of conservative friendly reporters, all getting the first leak at the same time, in which case Libby might want to specify that these reporters hadn't received waivers).

Then Libby goes on to suggest that he believes (falsely, at least according to the indictment PDF) that all the reporters who have testified have helped Libby's story.

Because, as I am sure will not be news to you, the public report of every other reporter's testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me, or knew about her before our call. I waived the privilege voluntarily to cooperate with the Grand Jury, but also because the reporters' testimony served my best interests. I believed a year ago, as now, that testimony by all will be helpful.

I admire your principled fight with the Government. But for my part, this is the rare case where this "source" would be better off if you testified.

[snip]

If you can find a way to testify about discussions we had, if any, that relate to the Wilson-Plame matter, I remain today just as interested as I was a year ago.

You could interpret this passage as Libby just trying to say that the obstruction charge is much more of a threat at this time than Judy's testimony would be. But it really seems to be Libby saying he believes those who testified had corroborated his story.

Now, at this point, here is what Russert had said publicly about his testimony, from a press release in August 2004.

During the interview, Mr. Russert was asked limited questions by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald about a telephone conversation initiated by Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff, in early July of last year. Mr. Russert told the Special Prosecutor that, at the time of that conversation, he did not know Ms. Plame's name or that she was a CIA operative and that he did not provide that information to Mr. Libby. Mr. Russert said that he first learned Ms. Plame's name and her role at the CIA when he read a column written by Robert Novak later that month.

Libby had said in his March 5, 2004 testimony of his conversation with Russert:

And then he said, you know, did you know that this--excuse me, did you know that Ambassador Wilson's wife works at the CIA? And I was a little taken aback by that. I remember being taken aback by it. And I said--he may have said a little more but that was--he said that. (18)

So at this point, Libby had to have been parsing Russert's speech in the same way many in the blogosphere have--that Russert never denied being Libby's source for Plame's CIA employment, he just denied being Libby's source for her name and her NOC status.

Turns out, though, Fitzgerald believes that Russert didn't say that. (And note, this comparison has given me whole new reason to doubt Russert's veracity; but as I'll explain in a later post, it appears Fitzgerald's case doesn't depend on Russert's veracity.) Russert's version of the conversation indicates that:

On or about July 10, 2003, LIBBY spoke to NBC Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert to complain about press coverage of LIBBY by an MSNBC reporter. LIBBY did not discuss Wilson's wife with Russert.

So thus far, it appears that Libby had reason to believe his story had held up--that he had learned of Plame's CIA employ on July 10 from Tim Russert.

And then we get Libby's piece de resistance, which looks more and more like a plea for her to continue to parrot the party line, to protect the little cluster of leakers.

You went into jail in the summer. It is fall now. You will have stories to cover--Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats and the Iranian nuclear program. Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them. Come back to work--and life.

I'll try yet again to decipher the aspen comment in my later post where I look at what Judy said. But for now, let's look at how Libby may have coached Judy in his subsequent attempt.

Steno Sue's Secret Message
The morning Judy testified the first time to the Grand Jury, one of Libby's allies managed to get the following passage inserted into the newspaper that will replace the NYT as the nation's newspaper of record.

According to a source familiar with Libby's account of his conversations with Miller in July 2003, the subject of Wilson's wife came up on two occasions. In the first, on July 8, Miller met with Libby to interview him about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the source said.

At that time, she asked him why Wilson had been chosen to investigate questions Cheney had posed about whether Iraq tried to buy uranium in the African nation of Niger. Libby, the source familiar with his account said, told her that the White House was working with the CIA to find out more about Wilson's trip and how he was selected.

Libby told Miller he heard that Wilson's wife had something to do with sending him but he did not know who she was or where she worked, the source said.

Libby, through his friend, seems to have sent several important messages with this passage. First, he told Judy not to mention their earlier conversation on June 23. Her story should pretend that her first conversation about the Plame came on July 8, at the two-hour breakfast meeting at the St. Regis.

Also, Judy should say that they met to discuss WMDs, not Joe Wilson. Judy should say Joe Wilson came up in conversation--but Judy brought him up, not Libby. Judy can admit that Libby was looking for more information. But she should pretend Libby didn't say--and hadn't yet said--anything about Plame's CIA employ.

Then, Libby has his friend instruct Judy how to testify about their second meeting.

Libby had a second conversation with Miller on July 12 or July 13, the source said, in which he said he had learned that Wilson's wife had a role in sending him on the trip and that she worked for the CIA. Libby never knew Plame's name or that she was a covert operative, the source said.

Libby, though his friend, leaves the second testimony somewhat ambiguous. Judy can say that Libby "had learned" of Plame's CIA employ. But she is supposed to testify that Libby didn't know (note--not just didn't say, but didn't know) of Plame's covert name or covert status.

I say this is ambiguous, though, because it doesn't say that Judy should testify she learned of Plame's CIA employ from Libby. I suppose the point wasn't really important one way or another for Libby's story. In his grand jury testimony he didn't claim that he hadn't mentioned Plame's status to anyone. He said simply that he had forgotten he originally learned of it from Cheney, and therefore thought he had learned of it from Russert, and that all the times he leaked shared the rumor with journalists, he presented it as unverified rumor. (Updated per Grampa's corrections below)

Update:

Although it's interesting Libby's friend didn't specify that Judy should say Libby had heard from journalists--if she did, after all, it would strengthen his core story. Does this mean Judy already knew the "heard it from a journalist" line and Libby's friend didn't need to repeat it?

The Novak Surprise
Now we come to far and away the most curious part of this coaching session:

Libby did not talk to Novak about the case, the source said.

Is this still a message for Judy? Why would Libby's friend need to remind Judy that Libby hadn't spoken to Novak in the case? Unless she knew that he had spoken to Novak? I think it highly possible that Libby's friend is telling Judy not to mention the fact that she knew Libby spoke to Novak about this case.

Wow. Couple that with a few more pieces of intelligence:

• Fitzgerald has reason to believe Rove and Libby coached Novak on his testimony
• Judy appears to have gotten the same kind of coaching as Novak received
• In his love letter, Libby told Judy he had only given waivers to "certain reporters" which include "every reporter with whom I had spoken about anything in July 2003"

I'm going to make a wild-arsed guess and say that Judy has knowledge of a pre-July conversation between Novak and Libby in which Libby revealed that Plame worked for the CIA.

Here's one more thing to consider. I've said a number of times that I wonder whether Judy and Libby met alone at the Old Executive Office Building on June 23 (partly because there are rumors that a bunch of conservative journalists knew of Plame much earlier than they've let on, and partly because the Old Executive Office Building just strikes me as a lot less intimate than breakfast at the St. Regis). I imagined it might have been a meeting with a number of conservative reporters to seed the leak about Plame.

Now consider this. There has to be another witness who knows about Judy's June 23 conversation with Scooter Libby. The story has it that Fitzgerald caught Judy lying that July 8 was the first conversation by showing her evidence of the sign-in log. But that wouldn't have been enough for Fitzgerald to know that Libby and Judy had talked about Plame. Judy could have lied (probably did, in fact) and said they didn't talk about Plame at all. But Fitzgerald knew enough to be willing to continue to hold her in contempt for not saying more about the June 23 meeting.

I've always suggested Fitzgerald learned about this meeting through someone at the NYT--that Judy tried to write a story, but Joseph Lelyveld wouldn't let her, and as a result there are records about the story (and this meeting) in the possession of the NYT.

But I've also speculated that Novak originally testified just as he was coached to testify. But then Fitzgerald presented him with solid evidence that he was helping Rove and Libby obstruct justice. At which point Novak flipped like a burger and start ratting out his buddies Rove and Libby.

Now, if Novak attended the June 23 meeting with Judy and Libby, and subsequently testified about it, it would explain a lot of things. Not only why the reference to Libby's conversation with Rove about Novak's story is presented with no context. But why Libby's friend felt the need to tell Judy Libby hadn't spoken with Novak. And how Fitzgerald not only knew that Judy had met with Libby in June, but that they had discussed Valerie Plame.

Update: What Libby Expected on October 6
I'm not sure, but I think that until the news broke that Judy had turned over her June 23 notes and been asked to testify a second time, Libby believed he had gotten away with this. Until Judy was called back to testify a second time, he likely believed he had successfully hidden his June leaking on this matter. And he did not know whether Judy had told the truth--or followed his coaching--when she testified until her October 16 article.  Libby had no reason to know that Russert refuted his lie about learning this from Russert. While I've got reason to believe he may have known that Ari was cooperating, I think that--as stupid as his lies were--he believed he had gotten away with them.

Comments

[emptywheel]

My Novak theory raises another reason why Fitz may have held off on the Rove indictment.

Novak's testimony, if he has in fact flipped, is going to be central to any indictment of Rove. But right now, Rove doesn't know whether and to what degree Novak has testified. Fitz may be seeing what Rove will give up before he reveals how much he learned from Novak.

Also, it might explain why Judy's testimony not central to any of the indictments against Libby. I've assumed it's because Fitz still thinks she may be lying. But it's just as possible if he indicted based on Judy's testimony, it would reveal some of the Novak goodies. So you hold off. In which case, superceding indictments might be a reality.

[depressed (formerly obsessed)]

superceding indictments might be a reality

Let it be so!

So in this scenario, Fitzgerald's press conference was a carefully calculated step in an ongoing process and the depressing sense that nothing more is likely to come would be misdirection on his part. Do you see anything in the press conference that would shoot down this hopeful interpretation?

[depressed (formerly obsessed)]

from: WaPo (VandeHei & Leonnig)

While Rove faces doubts about his White House status, there are new indications that he remains in legal jeopardy from Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's criminal investigation of the Plame leak. The prosecutor spoke this week with an attorney for Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper about his client's conversations with Rove before and after Plame's identity became publicly known because of anonymous disclosures by White House officials, according to two sources familiar with the conversation.

Fitzgerald is considering charging Rove with making false statements in the course of the 22-month probe, and sources close to Rove -- who holds the titles of senior adviser and White House deputy chief of staff -- said they expect to know within weeks whether the most powerful aide in the White House will be accused of a crime.

[emptywheel]

You know, if Andy Card wants Rove out as much as he appears to, he could be one of those leakers. Anonymous leaking--aside from the irony of it--would be the way to help along the Karl indictments but work to preserve a White House Administration to be employed at.

[depressed (formerly obsessed)]

Is Card thought to have reasons for wanting Rove out other than the idea that Rove's presence is damaging the public perception of Bush?

[emptywheel]

Well, if Rove's gone than Card can rule the world.

I don't know--but I think that's how these people think.

[rasmus]

Am I right to think the following? ...

The beauty of this case is that the 1st Amendment issue is not as complicated as it has been made out to be. If you tell a reporter something and then you lie under oath about what you told the reporter, whatever confidentiality you had (about the lie) is lost. The reporter must be free to confirm or deny what you say under oath.

[jane hamsher]

Hey but WaPo says Rove doesn't have any enemies in the White House (snark alert).

Boy I sure like your Novak theory. I too have long felt Novak had some memory prodding from Mr. Fitzgerald, around the time of his CNN meltdown. He new the bs train was over, he was either going to have to rat out his buddies or swing, and there goes his premium access to precious White House "leaks." (guffaw)

The sign-in log thing has always been unsatisfactory for me, too. Would Judy budge off her lie just because Fitz could prove she met with Libby? That always seemed a stretch.

Good work, EW.

[emptywheel]

Thanks Jane,

I think the Novak thing answers a lot. I now wonder whether it is apparent to Libby (and therefore Rove) that Novak flipped. Fitz hid most of that. But maybe he wanted to make that apparent to Rove--to put a little fear of god into him.

And if you think that Andy Card might be one of the leakers to WaPo, then prospects of some real fun get really good.

[Grampa]

Emptywheel,

Nice post. However, I wonder about the accuracy of this statement:

"In his grand jury testimony he didn't claim that he hadn't mentioned Plame's status to anyone. He said simply that he had learned of Plame's status from journalists."

I believe that Libby told the grand jury that he first learned of Plame's status from Cheney and other government sources. He simply claimed to have forgotten that fact when he talked to Russert and other reporters. Thus, Libby's lies relate to what he said to and heard from reporters, not to the original source of his information about Plame.

[emptywheel]

Grampa

Yes, you're right. I should have specified. In his interviews with the FBI, he said he learned of this from Russert. Then in his grand jury testimony, after Fitz had gotten his notes, he said he had learned of it from Cheney, but then forgot.

[antiaristo]

emptywheel,
How did Fitz learn about the Official A/Libby conversation unless Novak told him about it?
That conversation is key.
Fitz knows the substance, but does not know the exact date.
That would make sense if Libby called Novak on 12 July with the lead in "Karl told me you were writing a story about Joe Wilson's wife".
But (and correct me if I'm wrong) that makes it hearsay. Not good enough.
If Fitz can prove that conversation took place he has his concert party and his conspiracy.

There is NO DOUBT Novak flipped because he is looking at serious penalties. Not only did he leak Plame's name and CIA affiliation on 14 July, but he compounded the offence when he outed Brewster-Jennings on October 3. That's a pattern which burns him under the IIPA.

[mamayaga]

OK, so if there was a whole gaggle of rightwing reporters at the June meeting, wouldn't their names also show up on the sign-in log? And if so, wouldn't that mean there's more than one extra witness to this meeting, in addition to Novak? If that's true, why would it have been so essential for Judy to testify?

[emptywheel]

antiaristo

I'm still trying to figure out that bit. It's possible that Karl told him about it, in his bid to avoid indictment. It's also possible someone else knows about it, and it is vague to hide that person's identity or because the person really doesn't know better. But I doubt that Libby called Novak on the 12th, because if he had, Libby wouldn't have said what he said to Judy. In other words, I think he has shielded this conversation from reporters at least (but presumably not Fitz) because it was outside the range of time when Fitz subpoenaed conversations. Then again, if Novak testified right away and admitted to this conversation, I guess we wouldn't have heard of it either.

mamayaga

Well, I'm assuming Novak flipped this past summer, well after the time Fitz subpoenaed Judy. So for starters, Fitz may not have learned about it until well after he had already been to the Supreme Court and back with her. Also, these people are probably the people Tom Maguire lists here, bloodthirsty partisans who would lie to save Libby's ass. With Judy (unlike with these others) Fitz had a way to perjury trap her into corroborating Novak's story of the meeting.

[viget]

Thanks EW, this is *so* great.

This clears up a lot regarding the importance of Judy's testimony, if you're right about the VRWC meeting at the OEB (well at least the Libby/Novak/Miller meeting). Does this not now open up the possibility of conspiracy charges vis a vis IIPA (at least for Novak/Libby/Judy?).

And it also clears up to me the importance of reporters generally testifying in this case. This [the testimony of reporters like Russert and Cooper] was never generally about leaking Plame's covert status to reporters as an offense under IIPA, because the general leaks in July had nothing to do with that, rather they were part of the "Get Wilson" campaign. Even if the leakers mentioned the CIA bit, it was still possible to claim "but we thought she was an analyst" or "the reporters told us that," as a defense to get away from IIPA.

Instead, there were two layers of leaks, one to the concerted cadre they could trust (the "Aspens" if you will) in June (shortly after learning about Plame's true identity), and the general Washington beltway boyz in July. Meanwhile, the Aspens themselves may have been leaking to the beltway boyz, at least the "Wilson's wife is CIA" bit, which may explain Woodward's assertion that the whole case is a big game of telephone. (heh, maybe he's just pissed cause he wasn't in the loop). And the "Reporters leaking to reporters" meme gave Rove and Libby plausible deniability to their cover story (we heard it from reporters) because it is likely that some of the journalists (I've opined that Matthews might have been one of them) actually did blab back to Libby and/or Rove that they heard Plame was at CIA.

In fact, if it's all about the "A" gang leaking to the "B" gang, I think this gives us great insight into why Fitzie subpoenaed the guest lists of various DC-area soirees in late June-early July. Might he be threatening various reporters with obstruction charges unless they testify as to who told them what when? Cause if that's true, oh boy is the WH screwed.

1) We know that Fitz has the timeline down (it's in the indictment)
2) He may have evidence of this gang "A" meeting at the OEB, and testimony from at least Novak
3) He may be using the other reporters to flip on the "A" gang and then use the "A" gang to flip on Libby and Rove and find out what was said.
4) If enough reporters from the "A" gang flip, he will have multiple corroborating stories enough to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that...

Rove and Libby definitively knew of Plame's CIA status before the July leaks (a slam dunk for the false statments charges), were lying to the grand jury (well at least Libby was, since Rove may have "corrected" himself) and thus are guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice. And if Rove flips on Libby, conspiracy to obstruct justice.

Then the ball's really in Scooter's court. He can take the fall and likely go to jail for a long, long time (there may be superceding indictments for more obstruction charges coming from Judy's testimony, or maybe even IIPA, and possibly conspiracy to obstruct justice if Rove flips).

I mean, at some point, the number of obstruction counts are going to be ridiculous (each of which I think is max 10 years, no?). Short of getting a pardon, he'd be looking at lots of jail time.

[Grampa]

"In his interviews with the FBI, he said he learned of this from Russert. Then in his grand jury testimony, after Fitz had gotten his notes, he said he had learned of it from Cheney, but then forgot."

Emptywheel, I'm afraid that's still not quite right. According to the indictment paragraph 26, Libby told the FBI that his information about Plame came from the VP:

"During these interviews, LIBBY stated to FBI Special Agents that:
a.
During a conversation with Tim Russert of NBC News on July 10 or 11, 2003, Russert asked LIBBY if LIBBY was aware that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA. LIBBY responded to Russert that he did not know that, and Russert replied that all the reporters knew it. LIBBY was surprised by this statement because, while speaking with Russert, LIBBY did not recall that he previously had learned about Wilson’s wife’s employment from the Vice President."

He's still lying about what Russert told him, but not about where he originally got the information. My theory is that he's just confusing Russert with Cooper. I set this theory out in a comment at TalkLeft, http://talkleft.com/new_archives/012960.html
(Nov.1, 2:45 p.m. -- sorry, I haven't figured out how to post a link). In essence, what Libby said about his conversation with Russert is pretty close to his actual conversation with Cooper.

[Swopa]

Well, this is another fine mess you've gotten us into, emptywheel. :-)

You have a great point about Libby apparently believing Russert's cover story ... but it seems like there are simpler answers to the questions you raise than your Novak-in-June scenario.

Couldn't Fitzgerald have surmised Judy's pre-July 8 knowledge of Plame by being tipped off by an NYT coworker who either knew of her Libby meeting or heard Miller gossiping about Wilson's wife?

In general, I'm inclined to distrust scenarios where all the evildoers get together in a group and plan their malicious actions...

[antiaristo]

Then again, if Novak testified right away and admitted to this conversation, I guess we wouldn't have heard of it either.

emptywheel,
Here's the thing. I believe Novak turned VERY early.
To understand the legal jeapordy he found himself in you have to look at the entirity of his offences.
Very little attention has been paid to what happened in late September/early October.

On September 26 the DoJ began its investigation.
On October 3 Novak broadcast the name Brewster-Jennings on CNN.
On October 4 Novak did the same thing in his townhall colunn.

The name was classified.

The man is a serial offendor. He is a slam dunk under the IIPA.
Fitzgerald is not interested in putting journalists, however odious, into the slammer. But he's had Novak by the short and curlies from the start.

[Grampa]

antiaristo, I believe that, to be guilty under the IIPA, the leaker must have had authorized access to classified information. I don't think Novak could be charged under the Act (conspiracy, perhaps).

On the other hand, when subpoenaed he must testify, and when he testifies, he must tell the truth. I think that's the leverage Fitzgerald has over these reporters.

[antiaristo]

Grampa,
I'd appreciate clarification on this. My analysis was based on this excerpt from the David Corn article of July 16 2003

This is not only a possible breach of national security; it is a potential violation of law. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent. The punishment for such an offense is a fine of up to $50,000 and/or up to ten years in prison. Journalists are protected from prosecution, unless they engage in a "pattern of activities" to name agents in order to impair US intelligence activities. So Novak need not worry.

[emptywheel]

viget

I don't think this says there's a whole mess of people involved. I'm not even sure I believe Judy and Novak were at a meeting together.

antiaristo

Honestly, I think the earliest Novak would have flipped would have been in January, when Fitz came on. It's possible that Ari talked to him the week of July 8 and Novak learned that Ari had flipped and so did himself before then, but I'm not sure I buy it.

Swopa

I'm making a couple of arguments here--you're collapsing them into one, which I'm not positive I'm ready to do.

First, if you believe Libby was coaching Judy (and I think there's a LOT of evidence to suggest he was), then why did he appear to be coaching her about Novak, as well? And why did he seem to specify journalists in July? The most logical answer is that Judy knew of an earlier Novak meeting. You can argue he wasn't coaching her about Novak, but frankly, the most telling way to figure out these guys' actions is to note how they're trying to cheat, so I'm not sure I'd buy that.

Which brings you to the quesiton of how Fitz knew of the June 23 meeting, and I agree, there are several explanations for that. My first--and still favorite--guess is that there is evidence at NYT because Judy tried to write a story in June. I think the Novak and Judy story is a possibility because it would explain two things that need to be explained ... but I agree there are other possibilities.

Grampa

Yeah, I guess you're right again. I've always thought the Libby notes appeared later (that is, that the forgot about the VP was a later lie to coverup for the notes). But it appears to have been operative from the start. Geez, what a bad liar.

[Ardant]

Bravo! EW

[Grampa]

antiaristo,

Subsections (a) and (b) of the Act are slightly different in describing the way the leaker learns the covert identity, but both require that the leaker have "authorized access to classified information," which I think would exclude Novak.

Subsection (c) does not require authorized access, but it does require a "pattern of activities intended to identify and expose covert agents and with reason to believe that such activities would impair or impede the foreign intelligence activities of the United States," which again would appear to let Novak off the hook. Note that while subsections (a) and (b) refer to a single agent, subsection (c) refers to agents (plural).

[michael72]

great analysis, emptywheel, explains a lot to me.
and I for one am looking forward to a good number of future indictments.

you must/should/could be a murder mystery/espionage novelist at heart!

[Tom Maguire]

I think Novak learning in June is very interesting, but...

it may be worth remembering that Novak was a paleocon, not a neocon - he did not initially support the war.

There is the odd incident of Novak meeting Wilson's friend on July 8 and talking about Wilson's wife. Why do that, if he had known since June? Because Wilson was suddenly in the news?

And if Fitzgerald knew of a June 23 meeting, when did he learn about it, and why did he not ask Libby about it?

Libby's last go with the grand jury was in March 2004. What evidence did Fitzgerald get after that, other than the reporters he subpoenaed?

Well, I mainly want to see the Russert post - if you have more dirt than I do, you have a mountain.