Did Novak Get Away with It?

by emptywheel

Well, Bob Novak has his version of his testimony online. I've got some questions for Bob (or anyone else who cares to answer). But first, here's what he claims.

Novak doesn't claim the investigation is over. He claims the investigation related to him is over.

Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has informed my attorneys that, after two and one-half years, his investigation of the CIA leak case concerning matters directly relating to me has been concluded.

This is about as definitive as anything Rove has said on the topic. Which I suspect is intentional.

Nor does Novak say Fitzgerald has given up on the IIPA, choosing instead some parsing.

That Fitzgerald did not indict any of these sources may indicate his conclusion that none of them violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Novak has stated more strongly that his sources didn't break the law. But Novak backs off of that slightly. And note Novak's characterization: "none of these sources" ... "none of them" violated the IIPA.

Novak makes it clear that he reacted immediately when he learned of the DOJ investigation.

The news broke Sept. 26, 2003, that the Justice Department was investigating the CIA leak case. I contacted my longtime attorney, Lester Hyman, who brought his partner at Swidler Berlin, James Hamilton, into the case. Hamilton urged me not to comment publicly on the case, and I have followed that advice for the most part.

It's worth noting that the White House pretended it didn't know anything officially about the investigation at this point. Which of course would give Novak a chance to call Rove and tell him he would take care of him.

The most interesting part of Novak's version is that he describes approaching the pre-Fitzgerald phase differently than he does the Fitzgerald phase of the investigation. His lawyers, it seem, told him he'd have no grounds to refuse an FBI interview. He says he wasn't asked his sources--and suggests he wouldn't have told if he had been asked.

The FBI soon asked to interview me, prompting my first major decision. My attorneys advised me that I had no certain constitutional basis to refuse cooperation if subpoenaed by a grand jury. To do so would make me subject to imprisonment and inevitably result in court decisions that would diminish press freedom, all at heavy personal legal costs.

I was interrogated at the Swidler Berlin offices Oct. 7, 2003, by an FBI inspector and two agents. I had not identified my sources to my attorneys, and I told them I would not reveal them to the FBI. I did disclose how Valerie Wilson's role was reported to me, but the FBI did not press me to disclose my sources.

This raises all sorts of interesting questions and doubts in my mind, largely related to aspects Waas has reported on. But here's the bit I find most fascinating. Novak admitted to his sources immediately when Fitzgerald showed up with waivers from them.

An appointment was made for Fitzgerald to interview me at Swidler Berlin on Jan. 14, 2004. The problem facing me was that the special prosecutor had obtained signed waivers from every official who might have given me information about Wilson's wife.

That created a dilemma. I did not believe blanket waivers in any way relieved me of my journalistic responsibility to protect a source. Hamilton told me that I was sure to lose a case in the courts at great expense. Nevertheless, I still felt I could not reveal their names.

However, on Jan. 12, two days before my meeting with Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor informed Hamilton that he would be bringing to the Swidler Berlin offices only two waivers. One was by my principal source in the Valerie Wilson column, a source whose name has not yet been revealed. The other was by presidential adviser Karl Rove, whom I interpret as confirming my primary source's information. In other words, the special prosecutor knew the names of my sources.

When Fitzgerald arrived, he had a third waiver in hand -- from Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column confirming Mrs. Wilson's identity. I answered questions using the names of Rove, Harlow and my primary source.

In other words, Novak did something that Cooper and Judy and Russert and Kessler seem not to have done--testified without verifying the validity of these waivers (well, at least for Libby, in Cooper's case). That suggests that, for a variety of reasons, Novak felt comfortable with the waivers. He says later in the column that (presumably) Armitage admitted he revealed the name unintentionally.

After the federal investigation was announced, he told me through a third party that the disclosure was inadvertent on his part.

And if Waas' reporting accurately reflects the conversations between Novak and Rove, presumably Novak knew what Rove would be comfortable with.

The timing of Novak's interviews and testimony is fascinating. The FBI first interviewed him on October 7, the day the WH was supposed to turn over its documents on Novak. Then, after Fitzgerald was appointed, Novak was first interviewed on January 14, before anyone else in WH is known to have testified before the grand jury. His second interview came on February 5, after folks like Scottie and Matalin and Adam Levine testified. And he appeared before the grand jury on February 25. We know Rove's first two grand jury appearances were in February. Which suggests (though I'm guessing) that Fitzgerald sandwiched Rove's testimony between Novak's second interview with him and Novak's grand jury appearance. If I'm right, it appears Fitzgerald was checking Novak's story before he checked Rove's.

Note that Novak only admits to four meetings (one in Fall 2003, on in January, and two in February 2004). He makes no mention of an appearance before the grand jury since the Libby indictment, as Anne Kornblut has reported. So here's my first question: Hey Anne!?!? Do you still stand by that reporting? Because if you do, then Novak isn't revealing everything to us.

As to the substance of his testimony, Novak says his testimony differs from both Rove's and Bill Harlow's.

I have revealed Rove's name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection. I have revealed Harlow's name because he has publicly disclosed his version of our conversation, which also differs from my recollection.

We know he has a dispute with Harlow--which is important, since it goes to the core of what Novak says he understood the gravity of the leak to be. Novak doesn't give enough substance to say whether his dispute with Rove is major, or just in the degree to which Rove confirmed the earlier leak.

And here is his story on the (presumably) Armitage conversation.

In my sworn testimony, I said what I have contended in my columns and on television: Joe Wilson's wife's role in instituting her husband's mission was revealed to me in the middle of a long interview with an official who I have previously said was not a political gunslinger.

Again, he may be parsing, but he seems to suggest he had already used the "not a partisan gunslinger" comment to refer to (presumably) Armitage before he used it in October 2003 (note his October 2003 article seems to be moving URLs at a remarkably curious moment, also note, if you go to print his column it says, " Full column to be available here tomorrow..."). Though perhaps he's just reiterating his story from 2003, to try to paper over the fact that Armitage is a long-standing Republican, just as Rove is. Or, also possible, is that he's trying to back off that claim--that is, he doesn't say now that Armitage (presumably) is not a partisan gunslinger, just that he did so in October 2003.

Novak strengthens a statement that he had previously only suggested. He asserts he learned of Plame's identity via Who's Who.

I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America."

Uh huh, Novak. That's no more now convincing than it was in 2003. But Novak doesn't reiterate one claim from that 2003 column. He makes no mention of whether he knew that Plame was a covert operative when he published his column. In fact, he doesn't address Plame's covert status at all in this column.

I'm going to go eat dinner and add some comments. After I eat: What dose this mean for the Rove case, what does it mean for the Libby case, and why did it appear on July 11, 2006?

Updates (also did some general editing):

I just had new (to me) brand of happy chicken: "FreeBird." It's not bad, if you're looking for a humanely raised no additive chicken. But I guess that's not why you're still reading, huh?

So my questions:

Why did Novak publish this now, rather than mid-June after Rove learned he escaped charges?

Two possible answers to that question. First, maybe Novak didn't get the all-clear sign until just now. Maybe there were additional items that Novak had to clear up. Though that's not really likely if Novak didn't testify after Libby's indictment.

One other possibility, a real wildarsed guess. I've read that the statute of limitations on a civil suit, if the Wilsons were to pursue one, is three years. That means, if they were to sue, they'd have a deadline of Friday (which is the 3-year anniversary of Plame's outing, July 14) to file. I don't know if that information is correct or not. But how convenient would it be, if the Wilsons were about to file suit against Karl Rove, to publish a column and do two Fox appearances reiterating Karl's innocence. Add in the real ad hoc nature of this reporting (sudden announcement on Drudge, the funny print bit described above), and it seems like this press binge was a last minute thing.

What does this mean for the Rove case?

For the most part, this seems to reinforce what we all concluded when Luskin made his announcement in June. Rove got away with it. If Novak is out there, peddling some of the same unbelievable stories (and more assertively, no less!) that he peddled back in October 2003 when he was in the midst of his cover-up, then it suggests that the story Novak and Rove told Fitzgerald has by and large worked.

What does this mean for the Libby case?

I'm less sure about what Novak's version means for the Libby case. As I pointed out, either Kornblut's reporting is wrong, or Novak is not being totally truthful. Now, let's assume that Kornblut's reporting was correct. That would suggest that Novak testified to something not included in this column.

Now consider several more points:

• As I've suggested, if Novak had a conversation with Libby (or Dick) in person and Fitzgerald didn't find any record of it, he wouldn't have known of the conversation when Novak testified in early 2004. This would introduce the same problem as existed with Cooper--until you ask who a journalist's source is, you may not know all of the sources.
• Novak uses a curious formulation to describe Armitage (presumably) and Rove: "the identity of the sources I used in my column of July 14, 2003." Not, "my sources for Plame's identity" or "my sources," but a more specific, "sources I used in my column of July 14, 2003." We've been through this game with Judy. Not all sources in question were sources from the week of July 6. Is it possible Novak has other sources, ones he doesn't consider the ones he "used in [his] column of July 14"?
• Novak doesn't describe anything to do with Plame's covert status here. Indeed, he neither claims her identity was well-known, nor says he misused the word "operative," as he did in October 2003. And he says that:

That Fitzgerald did not indict any of these sources may indicate his conclusion that none of them violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

Which again appears only to apply to those sources he used for his column of July 14, not any other sources he might have.

• Novak describes Fitzgerald's acquisition of signed waivers from everyone as a problem. But that problem somehow disappears when he shows up with waivers only from Rove, Armitage (presumably), and Harlow.

The problem facing me was that the special prosecutor had obtained signed waivers from every official who might have given me information about Wilson's wife.

That created a dilemma. I did not believe blanket waivers in any way relieved me of my journalistic responsibility to protect a source. Hamilton told me that I was sure to lose a case in the courts at great expense. Nevertheless, I still felt I could not reveal their names.

However, on Jan. 12, two days before my meeting with Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor informed Hamilton that he would be bringing to the Swidler Berlin offices only two waivers. One was by my principal source in the Valerie Wilson column, a source whose name has not yet been revealed. The other was by presidential adviser Karl Rove, whom I interpret as confirming my primary source's information. In other words, the special prosecutor knew the names of my sources. [my emphasis]

Again, this appears to be the same dilemma Matt Cooper faced. A signed waiver from Libby, whom Cooper knew he couldn't hurt, didn't really bother him. But he reacted completely differently to a signed waiver from Rove, since he knew he could damage Rove. It's as if, when Fitzgerald brings waivers for only Karl, Armitage (presumably), and Harlow, all Novak's problems with testifying melt away.

Obviously, those of you who read me regularly know where I am going with this. There are several reasons I think it possible that Libby or Dick or someone else spoke to Novak. They are:

• Libby's lawyers are very anxious to get Rove's testimony, as well as that of anyone else who discussed conversations with journalists.
• Libby mentions a conversation with Novak when he seemingly means to refer to Novak's article.
• If you believe Libby tried to coach Judy's testimony, then he tried to get her to deny Libby met with Novak.
• Libby (or someone very close to him) had apparently  recently seeded a smear of Frances Fragos Townsend not long before Novak spoke with Rove on July 8 or 9.

Now to read this Novak column and sustain my outtamyarse speculation that Libby may have spoken with Novak before the week of July 6, you'd have to believe that Novak was intentionally parsing in parts of this column (particularly where he refers to "the sources I used in my column of July 14, 2003."

But Novak's nothing if not good at parsing.

Comments

[lemondloulou54]

Have you finished dinner yet?

[John Casper]

Thank you so much emptywheel. With NARAL AND PP endorsing HoJo, this is very welcome news. "Why did it appear on July 11, 2006?" As always, you ask all the right questions.

[Swopa]

Have a long dinner. I gotta post to write.

[emptywheel]

I'm updating the post now--better get going, Swopa!

[Swopa]

Oh, crap.

[emptywheel]

C'mon, you've met me, you really think me and mr. emptywheel have long drawn out romantic dinners? Ha!!

[Jeff]

How do i get the whole column, as I'm not a stealth subscriber to Human Events, as emptywheel evidently is - right now they've only got the first two paragraphs online at the link.

[Frank Probst]

To answer the question posed by the column: No, he didn't get away with it. He's been banished to Fox News. And Novak has a big enough ego to realize what a slap-down that is.

Some points on the parsing: He doesn't say whether or not he testified to the GJ after the Libby indictment. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But absence of proof--especially in the case of Novak--is not proof of absence.

My big question is: Who's the original source? The working theory is that it's the same person who told Woodward. I can believe that someone--especially a Bush appointee--could be dumb enough to accidentally blow a CIA agent's cover once. But twice? It doesn't pass the smell test. I think the original source is in a lot more trouble than anyone's letting on.

[QuickSilver]

Does anyone have a good link to Novak's full column?

Unfortunately, the mere fact of Novak citing "Who's Who" as the source for Valerie Plame's name suggests he's hiding behind an alibi, and giving no credit even to the possibility of a White House smear. Novak isn't telling us how hard Rove pushed the story. Very likely, he didn't tell the grand jury that, either.

[emptywheel]

Frank

Read my updated post. I think that's why he doesn't address the issue of Plame's covert status here. I think he had learned Plame was covert earlier than July 8, when Armitage (presumably) spoke to him. Which means Armitage may have done no more than say, Plame sent Wilson.

[emptypockets]

sorry if this is re-tracking old ground, but can someone fill me in (or let me know if this is genuinely puzzling) -- how did Fitzgerald know who Novak's sources were, in order to get waivers from just them, in January 2004? that's a long time ago, it seems to me, and if my googling is right, 10 months before Miller was held in contempt for not giving up those sources which Fitzgerald apparently already knew.

at any rate, the routine of saying "I'll show up with waivers from everyone" and then showing up with only the two (or three) correct ones, is a magic trick I love. "...and was this your card, Bob?"

[Swopa]

Okay, I've got a starter post up, just in time to be lapped by EW's second draft. But at least it contains some conjecture she hasn't gotten around to yet.

QS, there's a dKos diary with the full article text. It's under feverish attack by the diary police, though.

[emptywheel]

He knew it from phone records. We know his conversation with Rove was via phone (and there were phone messages from the day before their call). Presumably, Armitage outed himself, though there may also be phone records.

That's the trick with a possible additional source--if that source either spoke to Novak directly, or if that source also disappeared Novak from the phone log the way Cooper's name got disappeared, then Fitzgerald wouldn't have known. Just as he didn't know of Cooper's earlier call with Rove.

[Frank Probst]

"I've read that the statute of limitations on a civil suit, if the Wilsons were to pursue one, is three years. That means, if they were to sue, they'd have a deadline of Friday (which is the 3-year anniversary of Plame's outing, July 14) to file. I don't know if that information is correct or not. "

Should be an interesting week. Can Novak's original source be sued as a "John Doe" in this case?

"Read my updated post. I think that's why he doesn't address the issue of Plame's covert status here. I think he had learned Plame was covert earlier than July 8, when Armitage (presumably) spoke to him. Which means Armitage may have done no more than say, Plame sent Wilson."

I don't see how this gets (presumably) Armitage off the hook. No matter how you spin it, he (or she) gave Novak enough information to identify Plame as a CIA employee. Ditto for Woodward. And I seem to recall Novak identifying Plame as something along the lines of an agency operative specializing in weapons of mass destruction. That's a lot more than a slip of the tongue.

[William Ockham]

Did Novak reiterate his claim that his first (known) source was "not in the White House"?

[Jeff]

I'm still dying to see the full column, but it's clear from some of the coverage that Novak is pushing the completely misleading idea that he actually had three sources, with the third source being Harlow. It's true that he talked to Harlow about Plame, but of course Harlow was not one of the two senior administration officials who pushed the idea that Plame had suggested, authorized, whatever, her husband's trip. Plus it's not news that Novak talked to Harlow, as the coverage seems to be suggesting - it's just an effort to muddy the waters in order to obscure Rove's, and the administration's, role here. And he'll get away with it too, most likely.

This continues a strategy he's been pursuing since 2003. I've always been bothered by this sentence from Novak's October 1 2003 column:

The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

This is a classic rhetorical trick much beloved of the Bush administration: deny a distorted form of a claim no one has ever made. But I only now realizes exactly why this bothered me so much. What this bizarre denial of a non-existent accusation does is to appear to deny White House involvement while in strict fact allowing for extensive White House involvement, just as the WaPo 1x2x6 story had claimed.

Also, I cannot believe he is actually asserting that he learned Plame's name from Who's Who. But I guess that's what he told the grand jury, so that's what he has to stick with. The reason I cannot believe it is because Novak would have learned from Who's Who that Wilson was married to Valerie Wilson, whose maiden name had been Valerie Plame. And then there's the intriguing fact that Miller says she had heard the name Valerie Plame - indeed, recollects only having heard that name and not Valerie Wilson, which she wrote a botched version of in her notebooks. I suppose she could be referring to references to Plame post-Novak; but I doubt it.

[QuickSilver]

I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in "Who's Who in America."

Maybe so. But where did he learn Valerie Flame's name?

Novak's tone seems very cautious. (Thanks, Swopa, for the link.)

[Swopa]

The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue.

This is classic "parsing" in action, since the WH tried to "plant this story with the six reporters" after Novak had been leaked to.

And then there's the intriguing fact that Miller says she had heard the name Valerie Plame - indeed, recollects only having heard that name and not Valerie Wilson...

Oh, man, do I have a bank-shot theory about this. In fact, it's so convoluted EW is probably writing it up already. :)

[Swopa]

Maybe so. But where did he learn Valerie Flame's name?

Or maybe I meant QuickSilver. Oh, well, there goes my exclusive.

[Jeff]

Oh, man, do I have a bank-shot theory about this. In fact, it's so convoluted

Swopa, I'll look for it in September, 2015. Unless QuickSilver's got it.

[Swopa]

QuickSilver has indeed got it.

[Swopa]

I just had new (to me) brand of happy chicken: "FreeBird."

So do you have to raise a cigarette lighter in the air if you want seconds?

[emptywheel]

Also, I cannot believe he is actually asserting that he learned Plame's name from Who's Who. But I guess that's what he told the grand jury, so that's what he has to stick with.

Yup, precisely. He has to stick with the Who's Who and the "not a partisan gunslinger," even though both are almost certainly wrong (unless Armitage turned Democratic while I wasn't looking).

That's the thing I'm most curious about, with the appearance of a last-minute media binge here. How much vetting did Hamilton do?

[emptywheel]

Yessiree, Swopa. And wear dingy jeans.

Told you it wasn't a romantic dinner.

[emptywheel]

Oh Swopa, I've been working on the Valerie Flame angle for at least one Friedman (along with others of course)!! That's my explanation for Novak's storming off the set: Mr. Mary Matalin was going to ask Novak why he used "Flame" in his first draft of his October column, when he certainly didn't get that from Who's Who.