Did You Notice What Waas Didn't Say?

by emptywheel

Here's the lede of Murray Waas' latest, in which he reports that Karl and Novak chatted on September 29, 2003, about the Plame investigation.

On September 29, 2003, three days after it became known that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to investigate who leaked the name of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, columnist Robert Novak telephoned White House senior adviser Karl Rove to assure Rove that he would protect him from being harmed by the investigation, according to people with firsthand knowledge of the federal grand jury testimony of both men.

The date. Waas doesn't tell us in which grand jury appearance Karl discussed the Novak meeting. In fact, Waas never mentions in which appearance Karl discussed this meeting with "the" grand jury, nor with which grand jury:

Rove also told the grand jury, according to sources,
Rove told the grand jury
Rove has testified
Asked during his grand jury appearance
Novak and Rove have testified
Rove has testified
Rove has testified

Now, apparently Rove revealed the conversation to the FBI, so it's clear he revealed some of these details back in Fall 2003.

Rove, according to attorneys involved in the case, volunteered the information about the September 29 call during his initial interview with FBI agents in the fall of 2003.

But as to Rove's grand jury testimony, in which Waas describes Rove providing a great deal of detail, Waas provides no clue about timing.

Rove testified to the grand jury that during his telephone call with Novak, the columnist said words to the effect: "You are not going to get burned" and "I don't give up my sources," according to people familiar with his testimony. Rove had been one of the "two senior administration" officials who had been sources for the July 14, 2003, column in which Novak outed Plame as an "agency operative." Rove and Novak had talked about Plame on July 9, five days before Novak's column was published.

Rove also told the grand jury, according to sources, that in the September 29 conversation, Novak referred to a 1992 incident in which Rove had been fired from the Texas arm of President George H.W. Bush's re-election effort; Rove lost his job because the Bush campaign believed that he had been the source for a Novak column that criticized the campaign's internal workings.

This is an important detail with regards to both Rove and Novak, since Rove has testified five times, and Novak reportedly testified again sometime after the Libby indictment. Now, perhaps it doesn't matter. Perhaps they testified about this conversation back in March 2004 and Fitzgerald has just given up on indicting them for corroborating their testimony, as some of Waas' sources suggest.

As of now, it appears unlikely that Fitzgerald will bring charges related to the September 29 conversation, according to Richman and other legal experts. Even if the prosecutor and his investigative team conclude that Rove and Novak did indeed devise a cover story to protect Rove, it is simply too difficult to prove what happened in a private conversation between two people.

A longtime friend of Rove, who doesn't have firsthand knowledge of the CIA leak case but who knows both Rove and Novak well, doubts that Fitzgerald could get a conviction -- "as long as neither [Novak nor Rove] breaks, and there is no reason for them to, no matter how much evidence there is. These are two people who go way back, and they are going to look out for each other."

But there are two more possibilities. It is possible that Fitzgerald just renewed his inquiry regarding this Rove-Novak call again, since November, and therefore Rove has had to testify about it (and, presumably, someone in Rove's camp has revealed that he had to testify about it). Or, it's possible that Rove's relationship to the case has changed and it is now in his best interest to be more forthcoming about this call. Imagine, for example, if Rove had made a plea bargain, testimony on the cover-up for just perjury and false statements charges. Then Rove might feel the need to be forthcoming about issues he had not revealed in the past.

Frankly, I don't know what to make of it--except that it reinforces my long-held belief that Novak's October 1, 2003 column should have shared a byline with Turdblossom. And I'll point out one more detail of timing. The Rove-Novak conversation took place on October 29, 2003, one day after the 1X2X6 article came out. I'd bet a quarter that Rove and Novak talked about more than their own July conversation. I'd bet money they also talked about that article, about how they would respond to it.

Finally, one more potentially important detail. According to Rove, he and Libby talked about the Novak conversation on July 11, 2003.

Rove told the FBI that on July 11, 2003, two days after his conversation with Novak, he spoke privately with Libby at the end of a White House senior staff meeting. According to Rove's account, he told Libby of his conversation with Novak, whereupon Libby told him that he, too, had heard the same information from journalists who were writing about the Niger controversy.

Anyone know what time senior staff meetings take place? Do they take place before or after 11 am? Because if they take place after 11 am, it suggests Libby and Rove spoke after Rove's conversation with Cooper, in which case it would be probable they also spoke about Cooper. Which would make it improbable that both of them forgot that Rove had spoken to Cooper, and both of them would magically testify as if Rove's Cooper conversation never happened.

Comments

[mainsailset]

Curious that despite judge's direction that all witnesses come in the front of the courthouse, Novak was never seen going in and it wasn't known until after the fact that he testified. So, do we really know how many times Novak has tesified? And if he can sneak in, who else, Armitage? The amount we don't know and hopefully Fitz DOES know is mindboggling. Thanks for the post, great work!

[obsessed]

so, are these the only possibilities?

1) rove is guilty as sin but straight-shooter fitz can't see clear to indict him for the reasons outlined in waas's article

2) rove is giving fitz dirt (presumably on cheney), but it's taking forever for fitz to do anything with it - but when he does, rove will plead guilty to some minor charge

2b) same as 2, but rove gets off completely

3) rove is going the way of Lay and DeLay, but his day has has been way delayed, or waylaid by abu gonzález

[jk]

Thanks, EW, I found this post really interesting.

I think that it is more and more likely that Rove is cooperating, which is why we have not heard anything about an indictment.

However, there is a second possible interpretation of Waas's article. It could be similar to when Libby leaked before being indicted that he originally learned about Plame from Cheney. Maybe Rove is trying to pre-emptively blunt the impact of the obstruction of justice charge by putting it out there before the indictment.

Not as likely as Rove cooperating and now trying to come clean, but it is a tactic that has been used before.

[emptywheel]

obsessed

I think the possibilities are:

1) Fitz is very close on the Perjury and False Statement charges related exclusively to Cooper but is deciding whether he has Obstruction and possible Suborning perjury.

2) Fitz got enough new evidence with the missing emails to finalize the obstruction, conspiracy to obstruct, and suborning charges, and he is working now to finish the cases against all the other people involved in the conspiracy to obstruct (think Susan Ralston, the IT guy, Abu Gonzales). This is my best guess of what is happening.

3) Once the emails came forward, Rove knew he was cooked, so started singing.

My biggest question is, who is Waas' source for the Rove side of testimony, and why did that person release this? Waas is usually impeccable at not getting spun, so I assume he was impeccable again this time. But there are some reasons why Team Rove might want it suspected that obstruction was coming down the pike.

[emptywheel]

However, there is a second possible interpretation of Waas's article. It could be similar to when Libby leaked before being indicted that he originally learned about Plame from Cheney. Maybe Rove is trying to pre-emptively blunt the impact of the obstruction of justice charge by putting it out there before the indictment.

Actually, I think that's a really smart interpretation.

I still think the only reason Rove might cooperate is if the Texas Mafia decided it was time to sever their relationship from the Neocon mafia. They can't legally ask Dick to leave. But Rove probably has it in his power to see Dick indicted.

Barring that, I can't see him cooperating, because he no doubt anticipates a pardon, so there's no pay-off to cooperating. So maybe it is pre-emptive expectations setting.

Though where is Isikoff's article on it? And VandeHei's?

[obsessed]

please let it be #2 ...

[obsessed]

Though where is Isikoff's article on it? And VandeHei's?

yeah ... the who and why of murray's sources ...

[jk]

EW, I think that that is a really good point about the typical stenographers not receiving the story. And the mainstream press does not typically follow Waas's lead.

I guess that it is probably relevant to follow the arc of Waas's articles to try and figure out where he gets his information. I am guessing that EW has probably posited a theory about who are Waas's sources.

My sense is that the fact that he often relies upon Grand Jury testimony for his story says to me that he is either getting it from an FBI insider source who is familiar with the investigation or the defense lawyers.

If this story did not come from the defense, then I am a little stumped as to who would want to put it out there.

[tnhblog]

I don't know if this has been addressed here but according to this paragraph. Rove is contending that Novak first informed him of of Plame's role:

Rove has testified that he heard more about Plame from Novak, who had originally called him on July 9 about an entirely different matter. It was only at the end of their conversation that Rove heard that Plame worked for the CIA and had some role in sending her husband on his CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, Rove has testified. Having been told this information by Novak, Rove told the FBI, he simply said he had heard the same thing.

If this is true, then who had already informed Novak of this information? Was it Armitage? How did Novak first come into possesion of this knowledge? Also, if Novak indeed informed Rove 5 days before Novak's column why did not Rove get the facts and warn Novak not to publish? Why, in fact did he pass along the "rumour" to Cooper? This is all criminal negligence and willful blindness. It is as if outing a CIA agent were a peripheral, trivial matter to these people.

[pollyusa]

I've always thought Waas had a source in the FBI and a source in the DOJ.

Well, I guess we know where Novak got the classified Wilson's trip report information.

I [Novak] was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador [Joseph C.] Wilson's report [on his Niger trip]
Waas 5/25/06

[emptywheel]

jk

Waas' best source appears to have been someone connected with the FBI investigation, since he got info on testimony from Fall 2003 but not any really revelatory details from the post-Fitzgerald era. He also seems to have someone privy to Ashcroft's recusal (and it should be said, James Comey is quite likely a source for Risen and Lichtblau on the NSA scandal, so it is possible he leaked the recusal details as well). Since then, according to his profile at US News, he's been working from public filings, just like we are:

It's a difficult story because sources are few and far between and reluctant to go on the record. An advantage has been that a lot of the stories have come right from public court records.

Since the records are public, are other reporters not seeing what you see or looking for what you're looking for?

They're not looking. They're not reading.

Though he had sources that gave him the Frances Fragos Townsend story (which either came from inside the investigation or the White House). And he had someone confirm that Dick authorized the NIE leak and that Dick authorized leaking in Fall 2002 as well. These may still be someone in the investigation, but it may well be someone friendly at the White House.

I raise the date question because almost all of this story could have come from his earlier reporting (in that it involves Rove's lies and Ashcroft's recusal). But this is more detail than we've gotten before on Grand Jury testimony, which I find striking.

[J. Donne]

Might Ashcroft be one of Waas' sources?:

"James Hamilton, an attorney for Novak, said he could not comment on the ongoing CIA leak probe. Ashcroft, now in private practice, did not respond through a spokesperson to inquiries for this article. A spokesman for Fitzgerald said that the special prosecutor's office would not comment on the matter."

Waas explicitly states that Novak's Lawyer and Fitzgerald's spokesman would not comment. He says that Ashcroft did not respond through a spokesman. This could be interpreted to mean he did, in fact respond. Or perhaps Waas is being sloppy.

[tnhblog]

I have to say that this goes beyond criminal negligence. This is a clear cut conspiracy between Novak and Rove to out a CIA agent. A child could see through all these obfuscations and lies. Novak and Rove should be indicted, convicted and sent to jail on conspiracy to reveal the identity of a CIA officer charges.

[pollyusa]

There are conflicting accounts of Rove's early testimony.

Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column.

snip

Rove added that when he steered others in the direction of the now-disproved charges, he believed them to be true, in part because he regarded Novak as a credible news source
Waas 3/8/04

Also of interest to investigators have been a series of telephone contacts between Novak and Rove, and other White House officials, in the days just after press reports first disclosed the existence of a federal criminal investigation as to who leaked Plame's identity. I
Waas 7/12/05

[pollyusa]

Here are the striking similarities

Rove and Libby both heard about Plame from reporters.

Rove "I heard that, too,"

Libby “Yeah, I’ve heard that too.”

Offhand

Clifford May "I learned it from someone who formerly worked in the government and he mentioned it in an offhanded manner
Clifford May 9/29/03"

Novak "It was an offhand revelation"

Woodward "told him about Plame "in an offhand, casual manner"

[emptywheel]

Here's a thought.

Think about the significance of the call itself. Why would Novak have called Turdblossom to tell him he would protect him unless he needed to be protected?

[along]

"according to people with firsthand knowledge of the federal grand jury testimony of both men."

I agree that Waas is almost always scrupulous about his sources. I think he's used this particular source description before. And I believe that 'firsthand' should specifically mean one who heard the testimony in real time, or at least is part of the GJ process and read the relevant transcripts contemporaneously. Otherwise, why use the term 'firsthand'?
So this says to me that the information comes from either Fitz' office, which it doesn't; Team Rove, which possibility you have already addressed; or—directly from members of the Grand Jury.

Given that these details are particularly testimony-specific, couldn't his sources here be 2 or more members from either of the Grand Juries? Of course it seems they've all been reluctant to speak at all, much less on the record, but I bet it's possible that a few are really interested in getting the truth out in this way, and Waas may be bringing them along slowly.

[pollyusa]

The Mike Allen 9/29/03 WaPo (link now dead) entitled "Bush Aides Say They'll Cooperate With Probe Into Intelligence Leak" is where EW found this quote

She is a case officer in the CIA's clandestine service and works as an analyst on weapons of mass destruction.
WaPo 9/29/03

This article appeared in the Monday Washington Post and may be a factor in why Novak called Rove as well.

[emptywheel]

Interesting quote in retrospective, polly, seeing as how it seems increasingly likely that Armitage is Mr. X and is also the source for the 1X2X6 article, whose primary leakee appears to be Mike Allen. That is, did Armitage explain exactly what Plame's status was when he was explaining the 1X2X6 defense?

Btw, I'm increasingly convinced that 1X2X6 included two journalists first leaked to after Novak's column, Tweety and Mitchell, and that when BushCo was seeding the leak with them (Mitchell at Ford's birthday party, Tweety on the phone with Karl), they were told to ask Armitage for more dirt. Which is why Armitage started refusing Mitchell's calls, and where he got the 6 number from: the number of people who were either sent his way (Novak, Tweety, Mitchell, possibly Cooper, possibly Miller), and those who said they had a source (Pincus).

[viget]

Polly

You know, I've been wondering if Fitz's team has a "forensic talking-point analyst." It's become increasingly clear to me that their message discipline may indeed be the linchpin in any potential conspiracy indictment. Much like mutations and polymorphisms in mitochondrial DNA tells us the ancestral geography of a particular racial/ethnic group, the same words and phrasing can help us track back a talking point to its author, and potentially help illuminate a disinformation conspiracy. Having access to emails and speech drafts may also be helpful in this regard.

I wonder if this type of analysis would hold up to scrutiny during a trial.

[MK]

Waas' new article helps me understand the ending to his previous article (at the end of April) -- which I never understood:

"If Rove's and Libby's accounts to the grand jury are correct, journalists wrote about Plame's CIA employment even though both White House aides said the information was unsubstantiated gossip. Both reporters have said that the information was not qualified in any way, and that they believed it authoritative enough to publish.

"Some journalism professors say that, in Washington, there is often a rush to print information.

" 'Much of what passes for news in Washington is very hurried leaks from officials in power, whether in a corridor conversation or a thirty second phone call,' said Mark Feldstein, a former investigative correspondent for CNN, who is currently a professor of journalism at George Washington University. "And the media is far too credulous of accepting the word of Washington officialdom when it comes to self-serving leaks or publishing self-serving information."

"Geneva Overholser, a journalism professor at the University of Missouri, former chair of the Pulitzer Prize board, and former editor of the Des Moines Register, went even further, questioning whether columnist Novak should have used Karl Rove as a source that Plame worked for the CIA based on brief comments that Rove made that he simply heard the same information that Novak did"

I thought at the time it sounded like a taunt at Novak -- hey, hotshot columnist/journalist, you must have had more to go on than THAT. And I'm betting Waas isn't the only one who's been sniping at Novak about this (like the famous exit from the CNN interview with Carville).

[tnhblog]

"Rove insisted, he had only circulated information about Plame after it had appeared in Novak's column. "

If this really was Rove's testimony, then he is caught in another lie:

On July 11, 2003, the same day Rove says he spoke to Libby, Rove told Time magazine's Cooper that Plame worked for the CIA. Although Rove has said he has little recollection of his conversation with Cooper, he has testified that similar to his conversation with Novak, he passed along to Cooper the same rumors about Plame he had originally heard from journalists.

[Swopa]

Anyone know what time senior staff meetings take place?

I believe they're first thing in the morning -- say, 7:30 or 8:00 AM (for "message of the day" purposes and probably to avoid conflicts with other meetings/appointments).

[Jeff]

I think I see why Fitzgerald would believe that Rove would have a motive to hide the Cooper conversation in particular. We know from Cooper's own reporting that Rove brought up Plame with him and told him the key info about her; and it does not appear that he passed it on as gossip from reporters or even as unsubstantiated rumor. If that is so, it is pretty implausible that Rove would do that simply on the basis of unsubstantiated rumors he'd been hearing from reporters. Hence, the Cooper conversation is a problem for Rove not simply because it happened - because Rove passed information about Plame's CIA affiliation and purported role in her husband's trip - but because it raises the likelihood that Rove did not learn this information from reporters, and that his entire story is bs. Maybe that's been obvious for a while.

On a related note, that Rove-Libby conversation is also key. Since Fitzgerald does not believe that Russert told Libby about Plame, if Rove testified that Libby told him on July 11 (or 10) that he was hearing gossip from reporters about Plame, Fitzgerald is bound to see this as evidence of a cover-up featuring those two. (In light of what we've seen now of Libby's questioning in the grand jury, and the way Fitzgerald goes back over the key events in rounds of questioning, I bet Rove was questioned about the conversation with Libby this time around again.)

While Swopa's ingenious hypothesis on 1x2x6 is dead, his theory of the immaculate dissemination is alive and thriving.

Two quick things on some of polly's cites. I don't think there are necessarily conflicts in Rove's early testimony; it's just rather bizarre, especially the idea that Rove passed information to journalists after Novak's story in part because he considered Novak a reliable news source - while at the same time he was one of the major sources for that very story, even though he maybe sorta didn't realize that he had been a source for Novak, since it would be hard to imagine that Novak had taken his minimal agreement with Novak about Plame as confirmation.

Also, if Cooper has told us everything relevant that LIbby said about Plame, then that actually helps Rove and Novak, since it means another journalist (Cooper) took the very same words Rove uttered to Novak as the same kind of confirmation. Or so it seems.

[emptywheel]

Also, if Cooper has told us everything relevant that LIbby said about Plame, then that actually helps Rove and Novak, since it means another journalist (Cooper) took the very same words Rove uttered to Novak as the same kind of confirmation. Or so it seems.

True. But aren't you the one arguing Cooper has another source? Plus there's the Dickerson corroboration, which Rove presumably didn't have.