I hate to move away from one of the most amazing comment threads ever (really, we're not obsessed, except for the commenter obsessed, who is). But I've got a new question.
I've long believed the hirings and firings of the White House provide one of the keys to reading its scandals. Rove, Hadley, Condi, Bolton, Abu Gonzales, all promoted. Powell, Armitage, Grossman, gone. Just as he was supposed to be flipping on Dick, John Hannah promoted, along with David "I like torture" Addington. Susan Ralston, disappearing into thin air after her Fall 2005 testimony in the Plame Affair (though she may be in hiding because of her associations with Abramoff, too). Card and McClellan gone, Rove demoted. They did the fire or promote to silence during Watergate and I'm sure they're doing it here.
It works similarly with journalists--though with journalists, I think the issue is the shame a journalist might bring to the media outlet brand. Judy Miller? Not doing anything for the credibility of the Grey Lady (or Pinch Sulzberger). Matt Cooper? A recent promotion, or at least a move away from the no-doubt Cooper-hating White House. Woodward? Who knows, but maybe he, too, will go the way of Judy. And frankly, I'm really intrigued by the Novak Fox hire. Not that it doesn't make perfect sense, in the wingnut way of the world. But it suggests Roger Ailes believes that Novak did nothing associated with the Plame Affair that will embarrass Fox. It suggests they may know how he'll testify, and they don't think it'll alienate their wingnut viewers.
So I wonder if inquiring about Vivnovka's recent departure from Time answers any of the questions about her testimony.
Here's how Anne Kornblut describes the departure:
In a telephone interview on Wednesday, Ms. Novak, who no longer works for Time, said she had not had any contact with Mr. Fitzgerald since her deposition in December. She left the magazine after a dispute over her role in the case, taking a buyout package last month.
Now, it's no surprise that Time got a little miffed that Vivnovka had revealed Matt Cooper's sources, even before they dumped hundreds of thousands into defending Cooper's right to keep his sources confidential. Vivnovka took a leave of absence when this blew up last December.
But I'm curious what it was that finalized the deal? Why did it take three months, December to March, for Time and Vivnovka to negotiate a buy-out deal? Why did Vivnovka go in March?
It may just be that the negotiations took that long (though even the epic Judy buy-out took less time). But I also wonder whether Time hasn't conducted its own investigation in the interim, which is what determined that Vivnovka's leave would need to be permanent. Or whether they didn't learn something else about her role. Or whether someone else from Time got dragged into it (perhaps whoever told Vivnovka that Rove was Cooper's source, since that would pinpoint when the Vivnovka conversation with Luskin could have taken place. Or whether it became clear that Vivnovka told Luskin more about Time's reaction.
Obviously, I'm just guessing at what might have caused the delay, even that the delay might be significant. But it might just provide some insight into the remaining questions about how Vivnovka's testimony affects Turdblossom's case.