Why Fire Vivnovka?

by emptywheel

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.

Comments

[William Ockham]

I think the she got fired because her role in the case pierces the veil of Washington journalism. Journalists, staffers, lawyers, and politicos all hang out and gossip about stuff like the Plame case while they all pretend that they're truthtellers. Think about how much stuff that Time published that they knew was false. Miller and Woodward are in trouble for exactly the same thing. Neither the media nor the government wants the general public to understand what an insular (some would say inbred) community exists in our nation's capitol.

[emptywheel]

I agree with the reason (though I also think Vivnovka's error may be more specific--did she just repeat newsroom gossip, or did she learn of Rove's role by reading someone's printer printout, for example). But you haven't explained the timing. She exposed how gossip=news in December, but she didn't get terminated until March.

[lemondloulou54]

Having once worked for Time Warner, I'd say it was the glacial pace of corporate firing. Plus we have Christmas in there and New Year's and not much gets done during times like that. There's no doubt she didn't do any reporting between December and March, but she, being a lawyer herself, was able to take her time working out the details of her severance package and all in a nice office on the floor where all out-to-pasture employees have offices. Time Warner is a very genteel corporate culture, going back to the old Henry Luce Time-Life days. When I was there in the early 90s it was still customary for shoeshine men to walk through the halls to find their regular customers and bring out the old spit and polish. I kid you not.

[William Ockham]

I think the length of the negotiations and the fact that she got a buy-out point towards Time being worried about what she could say. If they found the slightest reason, they would have fired her. If, on the other hand, her story (beyond what she will have to testify to) implicates others at Time in legal but embarrassing activity, they would be more inclined to buy her off.

[orionATL]

it was indeed one of the all time greats.

human parallel processing in the web log world.

as i (tried to) followed it,

i keep wondering if fitzgerald has a lawyer reading this stuff.

my thanks to the initiator and commenters.

[Jeff]

It seemed obvious to me at the time that Viveca Novak took a leave from TIME that she was not coming back, and I think the delay is simply explained by letting the episode pass from public view and prominence, so that her departure could be handled with as little embarrassment as possible for all parties involved. And it obviously worked - not only was it not news when she left, but when her name popped up again this week, most people were like, "Viveca Novak? Who in the world . . .?" "What on earth does she have to do with the case?" and so on. I'm sure TIME conducted an internal review of the episide, but the sheer fact of Novak passing newsroom buzz about such an important matter to Luskin is a serious violation of reportorial norms (however often such things in fact happen), and is more than enough grounds for getting rid of her.

[JohnLopresti]

I thought Time had announced its relinquishment of a substantial quantity of, but somewhat less than total archive of, new internal work product documents early in the discovery when Libby's people were still configuring their multiprong strategies for that phase. I had the impression last year Vinovka's divulgation, which controverted some of the fictitious best-recollection testimony, was based on her inartfulness, but genuineness. Maybe Time is being less than final with her severance now, or she actually has other new horizons, given the likely intensity of jockeying if both Rove and Libby are under indictment, or even if simply that supplementary batch of Time documents shows a lot more of the sources and methods at Time in this matter and helps to connect dots solely with respect to Libby and other as yet unnamed persons of interest.

[obsessed]

Neither the media nor the government wants the general public to understand what an insular (some would say inbred) community exists in our nation's capitol.

I wonder what percentage of the general public has in fact begun to understand this.

I'm one member of the general public who has. Before being remanded to the Betty Ford Plame Rehab Facility, I was a normal citizen, fully trusting of the NYT, Time, the WaPo and CNN. I read and believed all of Judy's articles in the run-up to the war. I didn't read the byline -- the masthead was all I needed to trust the content -- in spite of reading all of her articles, I didn't recognize the name "Judith Miller" until I started reading this blog. I thought them as "New York Times articles". I never even considered that the NYT, which I trusted more than any other media source, would be not only unreliable, but intentionally unreliable. I supported the war. I thought Hussein was a potential Hitler. I was absolutely positive that vast stores of WMD's would be found. I hated George Bush -- not because he wanted to attack Hussein, but because he sounded so stupid on the rare occasions I could stand to listen to him speak, and because he had stopped the entry visas for touring Cuban musicians.

Fastforward three years. Following the Plame Saga on the internet, and especially on this blog, and especially the "What Judy Did" series, gave me horrible insights into the way the corporate media and access journalism work -- insights which shook my faith in this country to the bone.

To me, the most significant thing about this whole sordid affair is that dozens of journalists and media sources had information which would have almost certainly prevented George Bush from being reelected, and for a wide range of unforgivable reasons, they sat on that information -- past the election and they would have sat on it indefinitely if the combined actions of Tenet, Ashcroft, Comey and others hadn't set this bizarre slow-motion investigation into motion and squeezed the truth out them, drop by painful drop.

Before Plame and Iraq, I had a very high level of trust in media sources such as the NYT, WaPo, CNN, and in the people who worked for them. Now I see them as a complete fraud and the biggest current threat to democracy. I hope there are other members of the general public who have had similar transformations. (I have to stop typing now ... the nurse says it's time for my next shock treatment).

[SteveNS]

Has anyone asked David Corn about her severance? I don't know whether he'd part with any information he might have, but I bet he knows what's up.

[professor rat]

TIME sounds very stodgy and conservative.
I hope Viv get's a nice job somewhere else. Navel intelligence perhap's?

[Jeff]

JohnLopresti - You make me feel like a plain-spoken man.

I'm sitting here rereading Waas' article and trying to puzzle out a little what exactly Rove testified to, and when. This is tricky business, since a lot turns on minute details of turns of phrase and timing, and his team may well have an interest in fudging a bunch of this with reporters (to say nothing of reporters not necessarily picking up on the relevant minute distinctions and their significance). Now, we know (we think) that Rove testified that he heard about Plame from journalists, including but not limited to Robert Novak (though Rove may have initially limited it to Novak, until it became clear that Novak himself was going to testify), though Rove can't remember what other journalists he heard it from. One possibility is that Rove may be claiming that while he confirmed for Novak that he'd heard that Wilson's wife was involved in the trip, he did not know - and only learned from Novak during that conversation - that Plame was CIA. Two things about this: first, it actually jibes with the careful way that Novak sources (and doesn't source) his knowledge in his infamous July 14, 2003 column; second, this tracks with what we were hearing at one point about Libby's version of his series of interviews with Miller. That is, a report about Libby's version was that on July 8 he told Miller that Wilson's wife had something to do with his trip, but he wasn't sure what, and he definitely did not associate her with the CIA at that point. However - and this is where things get interesting - according to Fitzgerald (see, e.g. his 8-27-04 affidavit), Libby testified that he did not discuss Wilson's wife at all on July 8. If I remember correctly, the only place the report that Libby testified that he told Miller on July 8 that Wilson's wife - not identified or known by Libby to be CIA at that point - was involved in his trip was in the reports on the day that Miller got out of jail to testify. I've been troubled by the discrepancy between those published messages to Miller about what to testify to and Libby's actual testimony. Is it possible that the source of those messages to Miller - conveyed principally, almost certainly, by Susan Schmidt at the WaPo - was Team Rove, not Team Libby? The head spins.

Another possibility is that Rove is claiming that while he had heard from some forgotten journalist before talking with Novak that Plame was CIA, he just considered it unsubstantiated gossip, but after hearing from Novak that he had it on good authority (maybe even naming Armitage as his source, as Team Libby appears to imply might have been the case in the 2-24-06 hearing) that Plame was CIA, Rove really believed it to be the case.

In any case, all of that was meant to be just a lead-up to the following from Waas:

Rove also testified to the grand jury that he had heard from Libby that Plame worked for the CIA. But Rove testified that Libby told him that he only heard the information as rumors being passed on to him by journalists.

Now, that's very interesting, largely because if you believe, as I do, that Libby lied in his testimony to the grand jury, then this information looks like slam-dunk evidence both that Rove lied in his own testimony and that Rove and Libby coordinated their stories in a cover-up - unless Libby lied to Rove in July 2003 and sourced his knowledge of Plame to reporters. I presume that this is a reference to the conversation Rove and Libby had in which Rove told Libby that he'd talked to Novak and that Novak was going to be publishing on the Wilsons. But barring the idea that Libby was lying to Rove, and assuming that Libby did not in fact hear about Plame from Tim Russert, the idea that Libby also told Rove that he'd heard the information as rumors being passed on to him by journalists is just bs. And of course it's the same bs that Libby testified he carefully couched his assertions about Plame in when he spoke on July 12 with several reporters, including Miller and Cooper.

If Rove's claim is that there was another conversation with Libby earlier, then Libby again was either lying to Rove - which remains a problem for Libby, since he says that he learned about PLame as though for the first time from Russert - or this is bs.

In other words, it looks to me like there's a pretty good probability, if this is really what Rove testified to, that he and Libby coordinated their stories and Rove piggy-backed on, and backed up, Libby's bs story about hearing about Plame from reporters and not knowing whether it was true. Of course, for years it seems, Swopa has been pushing the immaculate dissemination theory, in which Rove and Libby try to source everything about Plame ultimately back to misty, half-forgotten journalists.

[obsessed]

Jeff - So if Rove & Libby did coordinate their stories, at what point can conspiracy charges begin to enter into the equation? Or would this just add some sort of obstruction charge to Rove's indictment?

[SaltinWound]

Off topic, but, while this country is going through a constitutional crisis, Arianna is writing about fearlessness and soul mates (when she's not going on about late night phone conversations with John Cusack). I originally found this site (and firedoglake) through the HuffPost, back when Arianna was writing about Judy Miller. Get back on the ball, Arianna!

[p.lukasiak]

I've always been intrigued by the "I didn't take the bait" comment in the Rove-Hadley email.

.....and thus this speculation for the reason Vivak was fired.

Perhaps Vivak told people in the White House that Matt Cooper was working on a piece about how the administration was smearing Joe Wilson because of his column. This information gets to Rove via Hadley, so when Cooper calls up Rove, he keeps the "smear" tactics to a minimum. That is, he "doesn't take the bait" --- doesn't take the opportunity Cooper gives him to smear Wilson....

And when Time found out that Vivak was talking to people in the White House even before her conversation with Luskin, it was bye-bye Viveca.

again --- pure speculation. But I can't wait to hear how Karl (and Hadley) explain the "didn't take the bait" comment....

[obsessed]

PLuk: That's an interesting thought. I always assumed that "take the bait" meant that he didn't want to make any comment that would give the story more traction in the press, but if he suspected Cooper was specifically trying to lure him into some first-hand Wilson-smearing, that puts things in a different light. I'm also puzzled that Rove would be reporting this info to Hadley in the first place. And I'm also deeply puzzled by Hadley's role in this whole thing: he apparently expressed to friends that he thought we was going to be indicted along with Libby; he wasn't; he hasn't been called back to testify; he got promoted; he made those cocky tongue-in-cheek comments around the time of the indictment. Is he helping Fitz? Did he somehow weasel out of jeopardy?

[windansea]

the immaculate dissemination theory, in which Rove and Libby try to source everything about Plame ultimately back to misty, half-forgotten journalists.

Meanwhile Jeff cannot remember whether it was a blog or news article where he found out Carollo used to work for Ashcroft....mist and hal-forgotten perhaps?

[anon]

Jaysus, I just dipped into the comments at justoneminute. Did you know that Wilson was double agent for the French, Plame wanted to be outed so she could stay at home and get a book deal, and the Wilson's are going to be thrown in jail after Goss finishes with the CIA?

It's not kool-aid, it's unfettered fascism. I had a sinking feeling when I saw the big W used everywhere during the last election. Right out of 1984.

[Jim E.]

p. lusasiak wrote: "Perhaps Vivak told people in the White House that Matt Cooper was working on a piece about how the administration was smearing Joe Wilson because of his column."

But Rove did try to discredit Wilson in the phone call. I think the mention of Wilson's wife can be considered part of the so-called "war on Wilson." And since Cooper knew nothing of Wilson's wife (a key admin talking point against Wilson) until ROve told him, I fail to see how Viv Novak could have warned Rove ahead of time. (And some warning--he went after Wilson anyway.) Besides, however unprofessional and incompetant one might consider Viv Novak, the idea she would be in cahoots with the Bush White House is pretty fantastic, particularly since she's supposedly not even a conservative.

p. lukasiak also wrote: "But I can't wait to hear how Karl (and Hadley) explain the 'didn't take the bait' comment...."

I've always been partial to Jeff's speculation on this point. Jeff has guessed that Hadley was delegated the responsibility to take care of the whole Niger-uranium controversy. But it turns out, as we learned from Cooper, that Rove took it upon himself to blab about Wilson's wife and warn Time mag to stay away from Wilson. So Rove was doing push-back rather than Hadley, the guy who should have been involved in such press contacts. In this scenario, Rove is lying to Hadley when he wrote "I didn't take the bait" -- for Rove did take the bait and did go after Wilson in the phone call. Rove didn't want Hadley to know that he (Rove) had in fact jumped into the NIger-uranium-Wilson stuff with Cooper.

Anyways, that's Jeff's theory (although I'm not sure if he still stands by it), and it makes sense to me. I'm sure Jeff can explain it more artfully than I just did.

[lemondloulou54]

Do you suppose someone on the GJ or Fitz himself asked Karl what he meant by "I didn't take the bait?"

[colorado]

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)

FWIW, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent the Department of Commerce a FOIA request about Ralston on March 13, 2006. A pdf is here. CREW requested

[R]ecords of any and all contacts, including but not limited to in-person contacts, Susan Ralston has had, from December 1, 2005, to the present with the White House, any Member of Congress, and the U.S. Department of the Interior.

CREW also requests all calendars and any other daily logs for Susan Ralston from December 1, 2005, to the present. CREW further requests all documents that reflect Ms. Ralston’s duties and responsibilities at the U.S. Department of Commerce.

[Pollyusa]

A couple of quick comments. I agree entirely with Jeff on Viveca.

EW don't forget Ashcroft and Tenet.

obsessed, great comment upthread.

Now I've got to read Jeff's analysis of the lastest Waas.

[Jeff]

Windansea - I have a pretty good record of trying to respond to rejoinders which are either thoughtful or provocative, or both, so I thought you would take the hint when I didn't respond to your trivial sniping the first time around. Evidently not. So here goes:

If three to four months had passed since the event, instead of six; if I had had numerous conversations at the time about the matter instead of none; if it potentially made a crucial difference where I had learned the information, from government sources or from reporters, instead of from reporters or bloggers, where in either case it makes no difference with regard to criminal liability whatsoever; and if, instead of a discrete issue of little significance, I had an entire, internally coherent narrative of which my uncertainty was one, crucial part of keeping me off the hook legally as well as politically; if the matter had within days of the relevant event blown up into a big public controversy, and I had continued talking about it at some length with numerous people - then maybe, yeah, your analogy would have some hold. As it is, though, it's just silly sniping.

[tryggth]

Is it possible for Fitz to charge Rove with conspiracy but not also add that charge to Libby?

It seems that if you can do that, its the way Fitz will go.

[William Ockham]

Perhaps it's time to revisit one of my more speculative theories of the case. I've presented it here before, but slightly refined, it goes like this:

Wilson really was on the Administration radar as early as March 2003 (like he claims in his book). When the Kristof column comes out it early May, Libby and Cheney flip out. Facts on the ground in Iraq are showing that everything they believed about WMD was total BS. Here's this loud-mouthed washed up pinko Arabist CIA/State Dept hack claiming that Cheney sent him to Niger and then ignored his report. There is a meeting of the White House Iraq Group to decide how to handle this gadfly who's obviously working for those traitors at State and the Agency. All the relevant facts are brought to the table (Wilson, Plame, the fact that she's covert, the whole nine yards), and Cheney wants suggestions. Rove comes up with the following plan:

Here's the narrative we have to spin. Wilson was a freeloading partisan Democrat hack who couldn't get a job without his wife's help. [At this point, somebody timidly mentions that they can't talk about Plame, she's a NOC. Cheney glares and Rove continues.]

First, we're going to ask State what's up with this "unnamed ambassador". Of course, we can't go through Armitage, he's too smart. We'll ask Grossman. If he causes trouble, we can always smear him with being Wilson's buddy from college. While all those State department pussies are scrambling to figure what happened and getting people to talk about Plame and Wilson, we're going to put together every piece of information that the CIA has on Wilson and Plame. Bolton's boys will keep things under control so that Tenet can't stab us in the back.

Next, we're going to get the Washington gossip mill going. I'll get Alberto to casually mention that Plame works at the CIA to Woodward when he comes around for that interview for "Plan of Attack". Whatever you do, don't tell Al that she's undercover. Libby, you'll work Judy Miller, like usual. I'll put together the talking points for our friends for the final push.

Here's the deal folks, when Dick gives the word, we start leaking to everybody in sight, but remember, always source it back to something you heard from reporters. Make sure that anybody who actually uses her name doesn't know she's NOC. That way, nobody's on the hook for IIPA violations.

No matter what happens, as long as everybody sticks to the cover story Ashcroft will make sure nobody gets any real trouble. I've cleared this whole thing with Addington and he says we're all in the clear.

[pollyusa]

Ok read Jeff's analysis and have to go back and read it again, but thought this 10/19/05 AP report regarding Rove's testimony is on point. Note that Rove is shown Libby's testimony.

Rove testified he told Libby about his contact with Novak about two days after it happened.

In testimony shown to Rove, Libby stated that numerous journalists appeared to have learned about Plame's identity in the period before her name was published and that he and Rove talked to each other about their contacts with reporters.

Libby's testimony stated that Rove had told him about his contact with Novak and that Libby had told Rove about information he had gotten about Wilson's wife from NBC's Tim Russert, according to a person familiar with the information shown to Rove.

I think it's possible Libby may have claimed Novak was one of the reporters that told him.