What Vivnovka Tells Us

by emptywheel

I don't know whether Rove and Libby will ever go to jail for outing Valerie Plame. But the investigation has already done one important thing--it has demonstrated in stark terms the pathetic state of political journalism. Judy Miller has been exposed as a sycophantic liar. Bob Woodward as an addict for access. And now, with her tell-all, Vivnovka has revealed that journalism hasn't yet moved beyond its gossipy roots.

In her story, Vivnovka offers little details that help us understand the story. She doesn't even know when her conversation with Luskin occurred, be it January, March, or May. But there are some details we can squeeze out of this story.

First, Vivnovka offers validation of something that had previously been nothing more than a Luskin leak. The Vivnovka strategy was one of the things that Luskin threw at Fitzgerald to forestall a Rove indictment.

Sometime during [indictment] week, Luskin, who was talking at length with Fitzgerald, phoned me and said he had disclosed to Fitzgerald the content of a conversation he and I had had at Cafe Deluxe more than a year earlier and that Fitzgerald might want to talk to me.

Geez, she can't even get this date correct? She does offer a few more details about the timing of Fitzgerald's investigation of the Vivnovka story.

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. Fitzgerald and I met in my lawyer's office on Nov. 10 for about two hours.

So it took about a week and a half to first get Vivnovka in for an interview. And that interview appeared before Woodward's bombshell (Woodward testified on November 14). Then, it took another week before Fitzgerald figured it made sense to have Vivnovka (and presumably Luskin) testify under oath. This timing is important. Fitzgerald isn't going to have Luskin testify to help Rove's case. Either the testimony will help him prove an indictable offense or it won't. He must have believed before he spoke to Vivnovka a second time that Luskin would do Rove more harm than good. In other words, something didn't check out.

Perhaps it is the discrepancy of dates. Fitzgerald obviously learned somehow that there had been a third conversation between Luskin and Novak, in addition to the January and the May ones Novak admitted to.

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.

I'm not sure what to make of this. Did Novak save records of her first searches? And did Fitzgerald cue her to look at the March date the first time around, only to have her curiously mis-enter the time? It certainly sounds like she tried, but failed, to find the search the first time around. Certainly enough reason to be suspicious if you're Fitzgerald.

There a few more details on timing. Novak tells us that Luskin is, in fact, claiming that her comment caused him to do a search for records of the Cooper-Rove conversation. In which case, either reports that Luskin turned over the email in Fall 2004 are incorrect, or this revelation still isn't going to help Karl out too much. Why would it take six months (from the possible March meeting) or four months (from the possible May meeting) to do a search of email? Further, the question raises the stakes on when Rove's mysterious second appearance before the grand jury appeared (his first was in February 2004 and what is thought to be his third was in October 2004); was there a time after the possible March conversation when Karl should have 'fessed up that he had talked to Cooper?

Vivnovka suggests some timing in her account of her conversation with Luskin.

Toward the end of one of our meetings, I remember Luskin looking at me and saying something to the effect of "Karl doesn't have a Cooper problem. He was not a source for Matt." I responded instinctively, thinking he was trying to spin me, and said something like, "Are you sure about that? That's not what I hear around TIME." He looked surprised and very serious. "There's nothing in the phone logs," he said. In the course of the investigation, the logs of all Rove's calls around the July 2003 time period--when two stories, including Matt's, were published mentioning that Plame was Wilson's wife--had been combed, and Luskin was telling me there were no references to Matt.

Note what Luskin said closely. "Karl doesn't have a Cooper problem." He didn't say, "Karl's safe on this" or "Karl didn't talk to anyone;" he mentioned Cooper directly. Well, how did he know to raise the issue of Cooper? When records of conversations with Cooper were subpoenaed in January 2004, he was named along with several other Time reporters. So there'd be no way for Luskin to know, independently, that Cooper was the one who had received the WH leak. It wouldn't be until May 2004, when Cooper was subpoenaed, that Luskin could independently say, "Karl doesn't have a Cooper problem" as a way to spin Karl's innocence.

Which means one of two things happened. Either the conversation occurred in May and Luskin was responding to the Cooper subpoena. Or Vivnovka revealed to Luskin that Cooper had received all of the WH leaks on Wilson. I'm not putting anything past her on this one. (Note, the date of her conversation in January is probably still critical here; if Vivnovka told Luskin who had received the leaks at Time, she is much more likely to have done so after that January subpoena, perhaps in response to a question about which of the several journalists subpoenaed had received the leak. So if their conversation preceded that subpoena, it might still provide clear evidence she didn't mention Cooper in January.)

That's what I'm seeing right away. But I suspect there's more. Because Luskin didn't want Vivnovka to reveal even this much.

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.

Maybe Luskin was happier giving conflicting leaks to journalists about when this conversation took place. Or maybe Luskin just doesn't want to admit that, at the latest, it occurred in May. But Luskin, who knows what he was trying to pull here, didn't want even these sparse details revealed.

Comments

[orionATL]

thanks for such timely effort in finding a way thru this particular thicket.

i still can't make even a little sense of this novak matter.

your comments on luskin's specifying cooper's name in a comment to navak does raise questions about the accuracy of navak's recollections.

in general, the only thing that occurs to me is that luskin's comment to fitzgerald in oct had little to do with keeping rove from getting indicted and everything to do with creating "beyond a reasonable doubt" in the minds of jurors if there was a trial.

having heard this from luskin, fitsgeralz did not indict until he had checked it out because he is an extremely scrupulous prosecutor, not the "indict them and let the jury sort them out" type of prosecutor.

but this is a thoroughly uninformed guess.

[van]

What do you make of V. Novak's leave of absence from TIME?

[kim]

I'm still intrigued with Woodward's choice of VNovak to get his story out, protecting himself, the Post, Novak, all three, 2 out of 3?

[p.lukasiak]

I find it odd that Luskin said flat out that Rove "doesn't have a Cooper problem". This implies that Roves emails had already been searched for the word "Cooper" and nothing relevant was found. But then another search turn up an email that includes the words "Matt Cooper" in it?

not bloody likely, if you ask me.

[Houston]

I wonder, if Viveca didn't think she was giving up any pertinent information, then why does she feel Luskin violated their confidentiality? Who was being confidential to whom? It sounds like this a tit for tat situation? Did she say "Luskin, you give me something, and I'll tell you what I know about the inside of Time?"

[Roosevelt Democrat]

Is it possible that Luskin is the one who gave Fitzgerald the March 1, 2004, date, and that he wants his conversation with Novak about Cooper to have taken place before May, 2004? Remember, one of the news reports originally said that Fitzgerald was interested in the May, 2004, Luskin-Novak conversation. Why would Novak spilling the beans to Luskin incriminate Rove if it took place in May, 2004, but not be damaging if before May, 2004?

[emptywheel]

van

I think my supposition that Vivnovka not only told who Cooper's source was, but that Cooper was the leakee, would make Time want to give her some time to think about journalistic ethics.

kim

I'm still trying to figure that out myself. Maybe Fitz SHOULD have asked Vivnovka who her other "sources" are.

p luk

The implication is that Luskin relied on phone logs, without looking at email. Which says that, if Rove tampered with evidence, he gave it to Luskin selectively as well.

[jane hamsher]

Oooh, good spot, emptywheel. If Cooper wasn't subpoenaed until May, why would Luskin say that in March?

[Jeff]

Fitzgerald isn't going to have Luskin testify to help Rove's case.

Isn't it possible that Fitzgerald would want to get even exculpatory testimony on the record, not least because the added weight of being under oath will weigh on those testifying, especially when it is Rove's lawyer?

My guess would be that Fitzgerald got the March 1 date from Luskin.

And my suspicion is that that bit about Luskin not wanting her to talk is just Novak covering her ass; the only thing I can imagine is that, as you suggest, some journalists out there will realize fairly precisely where Luskin has been lying to them. If he has been, that makes it somehwat more difficult to read back from Novak's account to figure out who are the various sources the journalists have been using for this small story within the story. But it might be possible.

[John Casper]

emptywheel--thanks so much for the timely and as always riveting analysis.
Ditto what Jane said about May March contradiction, great catch.
Does it make sense for Fitz to audit Luskin's billing records in order to learn when they say Booby was reading Rover's emails at $900/hr? It seems to me that when Booby received copies of the emails and the total number of emails are both known or at least knowable facts. Whatever date upon which Booby claims he found the Hadley email ought to be immediately followed by a lot of very billable and therefore well documented conversations with Rover.
IMO Luskin and his ilk are much more radioactive now with respect to any casual leaking to journalists. I think this is progress.
John Casper

[sandy]

how did "am" or "pm" stop novak from finding an entry for "Luskin" in her calendar?
is it a PDA? it's not paper, I'm sure.
that excuse is just stupid

[orionATL]

just in terms of the way some of the sentences sound in my head, there is something about the way that novak writes that is eerily similar to the way miller wrote her ex post facto explantion in the nytimes.

[mamayaga]

Why would it take six months (from the possible March meeting) or four months (from the possible May meeting) to do a search of email?

It might take that long if Luskin only had hard copy, with no access to do an electronic search, and if he did it personally. The story is that he did do it personally, so that going through thousands of printed emails in the course of a busy lawyer's life might take months.

It seems to me that the full set of WH emails from the time period in question is likely to be huge, and include a lot of secret and sensitive stuff Luskin would not be allowed to see for national security or political reasons. That means that the set of emails that were given Luskin was probably a subset of all WH emails, filtered via those "faulty" searches. If it's true that Luskin was given boxes of email printouts produced by a faulty search, how is it that he "found" one that had been missed by the faulty search? Either he was given a complete set of WH emails with no filtering out of sensitive or top secret material, or he was given a set in which the "missed" email couldn't possibly be included.

Is it possible that the emails provided to Fitz were all hard copy as well, with no electronic versions? Wasn't there a story about boxes of emails delivered to Fitz? Is it possible that Fitz has not been allowed access to WH servers and archives to check for alterations? If an electronic search has not been available to anyone outside the WH circle, the likelihood of alterations of the emails, as you have suggested earlier, is that much higher.

[William Ockham]

To interpret Luskin's comment that "Karl doesn't have a Cooper problem" we would need to know the topic of conversation. Was it about Rove having a [some other reporter] problem or it was about [some other conspirator] having a Cooper problem? I would guess that the comment came in response to a discussion of Libby and his "Cooper problem". V. Novak, knowing that Libby and Rove both have a "Cooper problem", might have initiated a discussion about Libby and Cooper to get Luskin to say something about Rove and Cooper. That would explain her response and why she didn't describe the prelude to Luskin's comment.

[James E. Powell]

I do not grant any credibility to statements made by V Novak, or any other reporters involved in this affair. The reasons are:

1) The reporters are not just witnesses, they are willing participants in the game of exposing Valerie Plame;

2) They have had two years to go over the documents, to develop alibis and alternate explanations and to get their collective stories straight; and

3) The reporters and the government employees both knew, at the time they were doing it, that what they were doing was immoral and possibly illegal. Thus they did not create or maintain any documents that would implicate them. On the contrary, they took steps to make sure that they all had 'deniability' for every significant event or conversation.

No reporters involved in this affair have, at any time in the last two years, done anything that would convince me that they were interested in telling the truth to the public. Instead, they have stalled, dissembled and 'forgotten' enough to drown the story in muddy waters.

Bush, Cheney, Rove & Co. are going to get away with this because no one with the facts is the least bit interested in having those facts revealed to the public.

[emptywheel]

William

Why would Vivnovka know that Libby had a Cooper problem, before the May Cooper subpoena (or, for that matter, why would Luskin know)? Here's how much information was publicly available when:

July 17, 2003-January subpoena: between Calabresi, Dickerson, and Cooper, received at least two leaks about Plame's identity.

January subpoena-May subpoena: Those three, plus a few other Time reporters may have received the leak

May subpoena: Cooper received at least one leak

Unless Libby's testimony specifying Cooper was public (or unless Rove told Luskin about the cover up he planned), there'd be no legal way for LUskin to know about Libby and Cooper.

[Vivwheels]

Fits is a Porter Unionist and does'nt mind his reporting to theirs.

[kitty]

please help me - what does "I clung to Rove's word might." mean? I can't decipher this sentence. Is it a typo? is Time that sloppy? Help me, please. Thanks...

[vivwheels]

"Viveca Novak, who covered the investigation into the leak of Plame's identity by 'government officials for Time'"

Government officials for time might remind us of:

moveon.org

[emptywheel]

kitty:

"Luskin's" word "might," not Rove's.

[kitty]

Yes, you are right - sorry. And there is a comma, not a period (time to see an eye doctor for real), but I still think there is an error there. "I cling to Luskin's word might, but the next week..." What is Luskin's "word might"? Sloppy editing. In fact, that whole paragraph is truly awful - but that sentence stands out.

[kitty]

I clung, not I cling...

I think I need an editor for my posts. ha.

[emptywheel]

kitty

The whole thing is poorly written. But maybe Time didn't feell all that obliged to clean up her prose, seeing as how she had stiffed them on this story.

[kitty]

hmm...hadn't considered that! :-)

I love your blog, by the way. I have been reading it awhile but never noted your posting name -just the name of the blog itself. Thank you for the sharp perspectives.

[Pollyusa]

I've floated this comment over at needlenose and firedoglake as well.

What if Luskin told Fitz he heard in the fall of 2004?

I'm thinking there may be something to a comment by p.lukasiak over at firedoglake.

1. Let's say that Luskin told Fitz, in the week of October 24, 2005, that the Viveca conversation (where she told about Cooper) may have occured in the fall of 2004.

Remember the NYT had the version that the important conversation occured in the summer or early fall. Sure reads to me that Luskin is the one putting that out.

Mr. Rove's lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, spoke in the summer or early fall of 2004 with Viveca Novak
NYT 12/02/05

2. Fitz brings Viveca in for an interview on 11/10/05 and she arrives knowing from Luskin that Fitz wants to know about the Luskin/Viveca meeting where she told about Cooper. Viveca has 2 dates when she thinks the conversation occured, 1/04 or 5/04.

3. We know Fitz asked her about meetings with Luskin through the fall of 2004 in her first interview.

He asked how often Luskin and I met during the period from fall 2003 to fall 2004
TIME 12/11/05

4. We know Fitz asked Viveca to look for other specific dates (pural) before her second interview, he had to have these dates from Luskin.

Fitzgerald had asked that I check a couple of dates in my calendar for meetings with Luskin
12/11/05 TIME

5. Viveca says only one of the dates Fitz asked for checked out, 3/04.

One of them, March 1, 2004, checked out.
12/11/05 Time

This may explain why Fitz "paused" if Luskin convinced him that he looked right away after he heard from Viveca. It also may explain why Fitz decided he needed Luskin's testimony and Viveca under oath a week after her 1st interview.