"You Could Write a Book on the Bad Journalism"

by emptywheel

"You could write a book on the bad journalism involved [in the Plame Affair]." That was one of the most interesting things Bob Novak said this morning on CSPAN's Washington Journal. Something I actually agree with Novak on.

Unfortunately, they hung up on me when they heard my question:

Why did you originally use the name Valerie Flame in your October 1, 2003 column?

You see, I called in on the Republican line. When they asked if I supported the Democrats, the President, or another party, and I responded, "I support the security of the country," the call-screener said I had to call back on the "Support Others" line, and she hung up. I guess that tells you who supports the security of the country. By my count, btw, they took about 5 self-identified Republicans for each other call (there were only about 3 confrontational calls at all, and I had originally called on the Support Others line, but it was never answered). So it seems a lot of people who don't care about the security of the country were calling in to boost Novak's ego. Perhaps Novak made Washington Journal agree to leave the Democratic line off the hook for the course of the hour?

Novak stuck to all his new talking points from his most recent column. He asked the question why Wilson was sent since he was "lacking intelligence experience, nuclear policy or recent contact with Niger." Armitage told him that Plame worked in "CIA's Counter-Proliferation Division."

He refused to answer the question why he thought he should use Plame's name, why he thought it was so important, and he reverted back to his explanation for why he published Plame's CIA affiliation. He got really pissed when someone asked who called him. "No one called me!" And he got really pissed when someone raised David Corn (Corn had pointed out that Novak's story has changed), calling Corn a "nasty piece of work." Takes one to know one, I guess. And, at one point, Novak stumbled and insisted, "my account is close to the truth."

Close to the truth, indeed.

The nice thing about Novak is that he occasionally can't avoid revealing a truth. Novak revealed that a good source told him George Bush had been informed that Richard Armitage was Novak's "primary" source. Well, that's curious. I wonder who told him that, given that George Bush has been named--as the person who authorized Libby's leak--as someone connected with the leak. Did Turdblossom tell Bush that Armitage was Novak's source? Did Turdblossom also tell Isikoff about Armitage? Is that why Rove's mouthpiece, Mikey Isikoff, nudged Woodward about his bombshell during indictment week?

Novak also revealed that someone--a private citizen--had to testify to the Grand Jury twice because of an email he sent to Karl Rove. Novak claimed that this private citizen spent more on legal defense that Novak himself had. I'd bet money by "private citizen" Novak actually meant "GOP operative"--we know that GOP party operatives were involved in the early pushback on the investigation in Fall 2003.

And Novak changed his story again (no!!!)--this time on whether he had help paying his legal fees. When he first started blabbing in July, he explained that he rolled over like a baby immediately when Fitzgerald requested Grand Jury testimony because doing otherwise would mean heavy legal fees.

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.

[snip]

On Dec. 30, 2003, the Justice Department named Fitzgerald as special prosecutor. 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.

Bob Novak put up less of a fight than every other journalist in this case, he explains, because he had to shoulder the legal fees himself.

Only apparently, that's not what happened. Today he revealed the Chicago Sun-Times paid his legal fees. Which of course raises the question, then why did you roll over so quickly, Bob?

Update:

My broadband was crapping out when Novak got asked the important question, so here's Jeff's version of it.

Novak got all outraged when the guy called in and suggested that Novak himself had been (and, incorrectly, still was) a subject of the investigation himself. But amidst the outrage, Novak all but admitted it, because all he actually denied - and twice - was that he had ever been a target of the investigation. The caller rightly and with precision had suggested - as both Waas and Hubris have now reported - that Novak was a subject of the investigation, and Novak simply remained silent on that, issuing a denial to a different, and easier, claim. As we know, Libby himself only became a target of the investigation when it was a dead certainty he was about to be indicted; up to that point, he too was a subject of the investigation. Likewise, Rove, as far as we know, was never a target, technically speaking, of the investigation, but remained a subject.

So in other words, Novak failed to deny what the caller suggested - that he had been a subject of the investigation - and that is almost certainly because he was one, for suspected cover-up with both Rove and with Team Powell.

Update:

Typo corrected per pollyusa. I guess sometimes I just can't tell the difference between Rove and Novak.

Comments

[Jeff]

I missed most of the interview, but one other thing I think I caught is Novak explaining (as he has in the past) that he doesn't know much about the Scooter Libby case and so on. If that is the case, how on earth can he also say that it's nonsense, as he did, that there was another track to this - a claim he attributed derisively to David Corn, but which we know has also been asserted, on the record, by Dan French, who was Adam Levine's attorney in the case. Here's French in a recent LAT article:

"We now know that almost from the beginning of the case the prosecutor was confronted with two different investigative tracks," said Dan French, who served as a U.S. attorney during the Clinton administration. One track was Armitage, the other Rove and his top-level colleagues at the White House, he said.

"Objectively, this represents two separate lines of inquiry and a prosecutor in this situation would feel compelled to pursue both," said French, who represented a witness in the case.

Well, seeing as Novak has protested his own ignorance, and French was the lawyer for one of the guys inside the White House, I'll go with French.

Furthermore, I gather from Tom Maguire's report that Novak thinks Libby should be pardoned. How on earth can he have an informed view of that if he's unfamiliar with the case?

Oh, you mean it's not an informed view?

[eCAHNomics]

1. C-SPAN is scrupulously neutral--they alternate between Ds & Rs. Your experience stems from callers who lie about affiliation to screener; that they didn't answer "other" line stems from too few screeners & an underspophisticated phone system. Do not read conspriacies into Washington Journal. They just don't do it.
2. Waddaya think of this (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/091406.html) from Robert Perry:
Armitage Myth

Beyond the specific evidence of a White House campaign to out covert CIA officer Valerie Plame and the broader Republican hostility toward anyone who gets in Bush’s way, there is also the notion that Armitage, long considered a tough team player, was an independent soul who would never help the administration discredit a troublesome critic.

Though Armitage may not have been one of Bush’s intimates nor a leading enthusiast for invading Iraq in 2003, the Washington press corps is exaggerating both Armitage’s independence and his anti-war credentials.

Virtually forgotten in all the news coverage was the fact that in 1998, Armitage was one of the 18 signatories to a seminal letter from the neoconservative Project for the New American Century urging President Bill Clinton to oust Saddam Hussein by military force if necessary.

Armitage joined a host of neoconservative icons, such as Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, William Kristol, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. Many of the signers, including Donald Rumsfeld, would become architects of Bush’s Iraq War policy five years later.

A well-placed conservative source, who knows both Armitage and Rove, told me that the two operatives are much closer than many in official Washington understand. Armitage and Rove grew to be friends when they were negotiating plans for bringing Colin Powell into the Bush administration in 2000, when Armitage represented Powell and Rove stood in for Bush.

After the administration took office, Rove and Armitage remained in frequent communication, becoming a back channel for sharing sensitive information between the White House and the State Department, the source said.

Beyond these relationships, there is also evidence that Armitage was part of a classic Washington scheme to slip Plame’s identity into the newspapers, albeit with plenty of deniability for all involved.

The evidence about Armitage’s role in leaking Plame’s identity – and thus destroying her CIA career as an undercover counter-proliferation operative – now includes Novak’s account of their July 8, 2003, interview as Novak described it in his Sept. 14, 2006, column, entitled “Armitage’s Leak.”

Toward the end of the hour-long meeting, Novak wrote, he asked Armitage, the then-Deputy Secretary of State, why former Ambassador Wilson, had been sent on the trip to Africa. (Novak doesn’t say whether he was one of the journalists who had been urged by the White House to pursue that line of questioning.)

Novak wrote that Armitage “told me unequivocally that Mrs. Wilson worked in the CIA’s Counter-proliferation Division and that she had suggested her husband’s mission. As for his current implication that he [Armitage] never expected this to be published, he noted that the story of Mrs. Wilson’s role fit the style of the old Evans-Novak column – implying to me that it continued reporting Washington inside information.”

In other words, Novak acknowledges two significant points: that he asked why Ambassador Wilson was chosen and that Armitage knew that Plame held a sensitive CIA position, yet still wanted her exposed.

[pow wow]

ew, get out... I was thinking those calls had to be rigged somehow. So the questions are being screened aggressively to avoid informed (and neutral) questioners. What is it - The Washington Rush Limbaugh Journal? [And what's the choice? The Democrats, The Monarch, or nothing?] No wonder Novak agreed to be on for an hour. Cable company collusion. Despicable. [I know the callers on that show that get through are notoriously bad, but this seals it for me.]

I did note one other detail: Novak now says that when he ran into the friend of Wilson's on the street July 8th, he [Novak] was on his way back to his office from his interview with Armitage (I'll believe that when I see the state department calendars).

It sounds like you came as close as anybody to getting a real, pointed question asked, ew. Well done. And now we know that Washington Journal don't wanna know.

[pow wow]

Why in the world does C-SPAN need to know what "side" a caller is on? Where's the 'If you're an American call here,' line? Of course their segregated system is only going to lead to callers trying to judge which line is more likely to be picked up, depending on the guest. Meaning that they are desperately trying to screen for friendly calls, and even though the system they've rigged up is going to result in people doing what ew did, they must figure it still helps them a little, especially because they mostly answer the Monarch line, and by now can tell a 'faker' from a true blue uninformed American by tone of voice...

It's all a crock. This program was about as pointless as they could make it - and that took some doing.

[Kagro X]

C-SPAN has a growing problem in the "scrupulously neutral" category. I can't recall exactly why I was watching and when, but I remember a time recently when they had designated their lines: "Support the President," "Democrats," and "Others."

WTF was up with that?

[William Ockham]

I'm fascinated by the fact that Novak claims that there was no agreement with Armitage that the interview was off-the-record, deep background, or anything else. Novak's story is that Armitage volunteered all this information, put himself at risk for an IIPA violation (based on Armitage's background with the DIA he had to know about that risk) and encouraged Novak to print it without ever saying anything like, "but you can't quote me on this". No wonder Fitzgerald doesn't believe Novak's story.

[pollyusa]

Novak stated that his source in the 7/14/03 column for wanting to get Wilson's report declassified was a (I think I heard very senior, but definitely senior WH official) senior WH official. Libby? Rove?

I also heard Brian Lamb say Corn will be on Washington Journal next Monday morning.

EW

I think you meant Novak here not Rove. Rove stuck to all his new talking points from his most recent column.

[emptywheel]

WO

That's a good point.

Kagro

And when first asked, I said that I support the candidate based on the issue and that the security of the country was my primary concern. I kind of regret, now, not just saying "Oh yeah, I support me my stupid president," but I just couldn't blurt out those words. Where's Mike Stark when you need him?

eCAHN

Yeah, I know they're fairly scrupulous about the lines, or are supposed to be. But if so, the Wingnuts were out in force today sitting on the Dem line. I tried that first, about 20 times. Then tried the neutral line, and actually got it ringing--but it rang so many times, I got cut off. So finally I tried the Republican line, and got through immediately. At this point, with so many people gaming the system, they should just do away with it. Because the net effect, today, was that there were 3 tough questions (two of which came, IIRC, from self-described Republicans), maybe 2 softball Dem questions, and a whole lotta Novak fellatio.

[emptywheel]

polly

Corrected. Thank you.

[emptywheel]

polly

He attributes that to the White HOuse in his original article. Which is the reason I've long maintained that, if Rove was his only other source, then they talked a lot more substantively about Wilson than Novak lets on.

Now, if they hadn't hung up on me, maybe I could have asked him about that...

He did say, pointedly, that he didn't talk to Libby about this.

[pollyusa]

He did say, pointedly, that he didn't talk to Libby about this

That is interesting. I didn't see rhe entire program.

[eCAHNomics]

EW--write them an email (journal@c-span.org) with your data included. I doubt that you'll get anywhere unless you can think of an alternative.

pow wow--they want to know what side you're on so they can give both sides equal billing.

EW--so game the system yourself. If you got thru on the R line, say you're a R, have a relatively neutral question prepared for the screener (since yours was factual in any event, you could have used it per se), then ask what you really want to know when you get on air. As long as your question is relatively short, you'll get it all in, no matter what line you call on.

I used to call in frequently (while never violating their 1/month rule) a couple of years ago. One trick is to start dialing before the guest appears.

You can always send a question by email (journal@c-span.org), but they rarely ask them unless it's terribly germane or cleverly worded. I always try to get my entire question in the subject line so the screener knows exactly what it is without needing to open the email (same trick I use when I email op-ed columnists).

[Jeff]

Then tried the neutral line, and actually got it ringing--but it rang so many times, I got cut off.

I had the same experience roughly five times. Very frustrating.

He did say, pointedly, that he didn't talk to Libby about this.

I'm curious to know what exactly he said. Is the show going to be rebroadcast?

[managedchaos]

EW- As I watched this morning, I was desperately hoping to hear someone with your amount of knowledge to get to ask Novak a question. Maybe next time....

Why is Novak still spouting this bullshit that Ambassador Wilson would not have been the right man for the job? For him to believe this, doesn't that have to mean that he also believes that Valerie not only had the authority to suggest him but also the authority to send him on the mission?

Is it true that Ambassador Wilson was a college roommate of Marc Grossman? How do you think this supposed relationship effected this case?

About Novak talking about when he bumped into a friend of Wilson's on the street; on cspan he admits to "casting aspersions on Wilson" if I remember correctly? Didn't he actually tell that stranger that his wife worked for the CIA?

If someone is in the counter-proliferation division of the CIA, is it assumed that they are covert agents? Is counter-proliferation only found in the Directorate of Operations, which is where the spies work...as opposed to the Directorate of Intelligence, where the analysts work? Wasn't Libby told via someone in the CIA or by Cheney that she worked in the Dir. of Ops? Shouldn't Libby have known at that point that she was not merely an analyst, but a spy? Can Libby possibly claim ignorance to not knowing that the spies work out of the Dir. of Ops?

[emptywheel]

I should clarify--the "about this" referred to Plame in general, not just Wilson's CIA report.

[emptywheel]

managed

Wilson and Grossman graduated from UCSB together. I have never heard that they were roommates. Though Wilson emailed Grossman twice during theleak period, and it very likely that Grossman was the Bush official who told Wilson he would have to tell his own story.

The Directorate of Operations (DO) is the clandestine side of the CIA, and CPD is in that. So it is very likely, though by no means guaranteed, that a CPD employee is clandestine. There is an anti-proliferation department in the Directorate of Intelligence (the analytical, non-covert side of the CIA), called WINPAC.

So telling someone Plame worked in WMDs doesn't necessarily mean she was covert. But telling someone she was in CPD means it was very very likely she was covert.

[pontificator]

Does anyone know what's going on with Murray Waas? I don't think he's published anything on this case in months. Is he working on something big? Or has he turned to other things?

Anyone know?

[pollyusa]

The story, actually, is whether the administration deliberately ignored Wilson's advice, and that requires scrutinizing the CIA summary of what their envoy reported. The Agency never before has declassified that kind of information, but the White House would like it to do just that now -- in its and in the public's interest.
Novak 7/14/03

Novak was generic in his 7/14/03 column regarding the declassifcation Wilson's report, saying that the WH would like to declassify. He didn't say where he obtained that information he had in his 7/14/03 column. It was unsourced.

He was more specific on the Washington Journal this morning saying that he was told that the WH wanted to decalssify by a senior WH official.. If he didn't talk to Libby, it's likely the senior WH official who told him the WH wanted to declassify is Rove.

[pollyusa]

I have never heard that they were roommates.
I think I have seen this speculation on JOM.

Novak did talk about Plame's status. He said she was not covert ,but that she was a covered CIA employee. (Not exact quote here, but close)

[Steve]

Just playing devil's advocate, it's entirely plausible for the Sun-Times to tell Novak they'll pay for a lawyer to prepare him for his testimony, etc., but that if he wants to fight a quixotic legal battle to get out of testifying then he's on his own. I don't know that this happened, but it's possible Novak's stories can be reconciled.

[emptywheel]

polly

Yes, but I assumed when I analyzed his column that anything attributed specifically to the White House would be Rove, since Armitage is unlikely to be privvy to that information (particularly since the declassification was so funky), and since Rove was the only WH official he admitted speaking to.

Steve

Yes, it's possible. I think the WaPo adopted that kind of strategy with Pincus and Kessler, a bend but don't break strategy. I'd need to go back to the Hume interview transcript, but I think Novak made a stronger claim there that he had to pay for everything and that's why he folded.

[Sally]

ew, was hoping you were watching Novak on C-Spin. I don't remember the question when oh-so-disgusted Novak decided the caller was a Democrat posing as a Republican. Was on my way out to mow the lawn and vent about all things Republican so saw only a wee bit. As I posted on FDL, Novak looks like a big fat toad on a leaf croaking about the capital gains tax. Do toads croak, or is it frogs?

[Jeff]

Novak did talk about Plame's status. He said she was not covert ,but that she was a covered CIA employee. (Not exact quote here, but close)

I do want to see exactly what he said, but this strikes me as deeply suspect, in the following sense: if, as I suspect, Novak is saying she was categorized as covered by the CIA, but was not covert under the terms of the IIPA, then his comment is worthless. Novak is in no position to make any kind of definitive statement about whether Plame was covert under the IIPA; he's just voicing his view, and his view is not surprising and self-serving, since it would be even more deeply humiliating for him if the IIPA did apply to Plame.

[Sally]

Oh, yes, Novak said he's not a politician but a journalist. Could have fooled me about the latter.

[Jim E.]

Novak said she was "covered," not "covert," although he specifically allowed that there was a debate over this point.

[Sally]

Brian Lamb has never seemed to me to be the least bit neutral; about as neutral as Novak but not as in-your-face as Novak about his (Lamb's) political leaning.

[Tom Maguire]

I'm fascinated by the fact that Novak claims that there was no agreement with Armitage that the interview was off-the-record, deep background, or anything else.

From Novak's recent column:

I sat down with Armitage in his State Department office the afternoon of July 8 with tacit rather than explicit ground rules: deep background with nothing said attributed to Armitage or even an anonymous State Department official.

"Tacit rather than explicit"? One presumes that Novak and Duberstein hashed this out, or that Novak made it clear in the original interview request, but still.

[emptywheel]

Here's a (not very well supported) thought:

Perhaps Novak is so wishy-washy about what Arm said because what Rove said was very explicit. (IIRC, Novak said in his Hume interview that "you just knew" these were the kind of interviews that were deep backgroun.) That is, if Rove said don't tell, but Arm didn't, and Novak revealed everything Arm said, would it expose the contents of Rove's conversation?

Also note, in one of Fitz' affy's, he goes into some detail abotu the different categories of background sourcing, so it was fairly central to the case (though this may have just been Cooper's doing).

[irene]

Novak did talk about Plame's status. He said she was not covert, but that she was a covered CIA employee. (Not exact quote here, but close)

before publishing his first column that named Plame, CIA spokesman Bill Harlow told Novak not to use her name as "it would cause difficulties." perhaps that's what Novak means by 'covered.' of course, Novak paid no attention to Harlow and published her name anyway.

Harlow also told him the Plame did not send her husband to Niger and Novak paid no attention to that either. not sure but I think Novak has accused Harlow of lying about this exchange. I believe Harlow has testified about it before a grand jury.

[William Ockham]

Tom,

Your presumption goes against the common meaning of the tacit/explicit dichotomy. You describe what is commonly referred to as explicit, which in this context would mean an articulated agreement (whether between the principals themselves or their proxies). Tacit agreements are normally defined as unspoken, but understood by both parties.

I recognize that we're talking about Robert Novak, but surely he meant to imply that there were no ground rules established. I interpreted what he wrote to mean, in effect, "I, Robert Novak, based on my decades of experience in Washington circles, knew that the stuff he was telling me wasn't for attribution and I knew better than to ask."

[Jeff]

Amidst the dreck that Victoria Toensing is allowed to publish in the Wall Street Journal today is what might be an interesting little tidbit:

During the investigation Mr. Fitzgerald learned that a former New York Times reporter, Cliff May, twice told the FBI that, prior to Mr. Novak's column, he had heard in an offhand way from a nongovernment employee that Mr. Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, a clear indication that her employment was known on the street.

May confirmed to David Corn that he had talked to the FBI, but it's interesting to know that he talked to them twice, and that he did indeed repeat to the FBI the story he'd told publicly just as the investigation was announced in the fall of 2003. I believe May identified his source as a former government official. I do so wish that Clifford May would come forward and explain his role in the case, tell us who his source was - and there's no reason to think this was confidential or whatever - and tell us what he told the FBI. Maybe he knows why he was interviewed twice.

It's nice to know, in any case, that Patrick Fitzgerald does not consider Cliff May to be a journalist, since he did not include Cliff May among the journalists aware of Plame's CIA employment before Novak published his column.

[freepatriot]

hey ew, your typo correction makes the case for my position that pollyusa should be included as one of the cedited members of you book project

pollyusa, don't discuss Plame without her

polly, emptywheel and reddhead are the most knowledgeable triumvirate of Plameologists on the planet

they could probably surprise Patrick Fitzgerald too

and a note to novakula, dig up, stupid

[MayBee]

Did Novak really use the name "Flame"? Do you have a link to that?

[emptywheel]

Flame

More Flame

Still burning Flame

[MayBee]

Hmmm...there seems to be little evidence he "originally" used Flame in his October 1 column (at least according to your links), but it does appear in some reprints by October 6.

That link was interesting though. Eriposte noted that David Corn also referred to her as "Flame".

[DCgaffer]

On the prior thread (which seemingly has died because of ew latest post) addressed obliquely the very curious matter of Novak’s definition of “deep background.”

In the old days, “deep background” meant that you could not reference the source at all. So for example in this case if that definition was his definition, Novak could not reference Armitage as 1 of his two SAOs.

To illustrate, lets say, hypothetically, I learned from a SAO (Source 1) on “deep background “ that the US had been invaded by Martians. Well first I’m got the two source rule so I’ve got to get another. Provided that the second source (lets call it a Senior Defense Official - Source 2) is on “background”, I can make some attribution, but cannot attribute to Source 1. So, the story would be written, “…A Senior Defense Official has told xyz news that the US has been invaded by Martians.“

If Novak was complying with the classic definition of “deep background”, Armitage is not one of the two SAOs in the original July 2003 column.

I can’t imagine he wanted to leave that impression with last week’s column (it would have been a monstrous blunder) and certainly the definition of "off the record", "background", and "deep background" are not set in stone…

See, for example :

http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=1621
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo_(journalism)
or
http://www.answers.com/topic/background

but as a general rule, “deep background” means you cannot reference or attribute the source. However, contra-indicating he blundered, is that typically, in a first interview with a source one wishes to cultivate, if the grounds rules are not explicit, one uses the highest level of confidentiality unless one is later told otherwise.

Perhaps just another red flag of bad jouranlism. Though this story has more red flags than a May Day parade.

[Swopa]

Novak said she was "covered," not "covert," although he specifically allowed that there was a debate over this point.

What, Novakula thinks this all some kind of a debate about her health insurance?!?

[emptywheel]

DC

Thanks for pointing that out--I've been meaning to go back and look at the slide in Novak's journalistic terms. Glad you did it.

[emptywheel]

MayBee

True--though that WAS going to be my question--I'd be interested to see how he responded. We don't know whether it was in the original or not. But what we do know is, in one of the outlets for this column, in which he claimed to find the name Plame in Who's Who, he used the name Flame. Which is not in Who's Who. Maybe it was just a weird coincidence, what with Judy's Flame leak. Maybe not.

[MayBee]

Yeah, it's hard to know, especially because he definitely used Plame in his July column.
Could be something. Could be just some earnest editor thinking the correct name would be Flame.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm sure Novak would have responded to you with bluster and told you he didn't know what you were talking about.

[selise]

emptywheel,
i just caught the c-span repeat.... and have a recording (audio) of most of the interview. email me if you want the mp3.

[Tom Maguire]

In the old days, “deep background” meant that you could not reference the source at all.

That is my understanding as well, but times change - Rove was on "double super secret background" with Cooper, yet emerged as one of "some government officials".

But what we do know is, in one of the outlets for this column, in which he claimed to find the name Plame in Who's Who, he used the name Flame.

I can't wait until you kiddies get a bit older and can't read anything...

[libby]

How does this Parry article square with what you know? New Clues in the Plame Mystery:

These new clues in the Plame mystery suggest that - contrary to Washington's "conventional wisdom" which holds that Armitage's confession clears Rove and the White House of wrongdoing - Armitage may have simply been another participant in the ugly scheme.

[dlake]

Washington Journal has been getting really slammed with people calling on the wrong line to get in. Or to flood the lines with thier points of view. A lady who accidentally called on democrat line and was republican was told to call back on the right line.
They have been getting put through hell the last few months. When Doug Brinkley was on to discuss his book the republicans called all the lines and accused him of sabotaging bush. They were really nasty. They are nasty to the hosts and accuse them of bias. Actually, Brian Lamb handles the wingnuts best but, he was really disturbed by the first half hour today. Asking only republicans to call and say whether they supported the 3 senators or bush on the torture thing it went 90% for the president. this disturbed Lamb who is very into history and politcal things. The constitution. You could see he was very troubled.

[libby]

Nix my link: I now notice that this reference was made "earlier on".

[Paul Lyon]

``C-SPAN is scrupulously neutral--they alternate between Ds & Rs.''

Why does this remind me of the Gilbert & Sullivan song about how everyone is born a little Conservative or a little Liberal? (The song was written in the days before there was a Labour Party.)

IIRC, something like 30% of us, me included, identify as independents. So why don't they have anyone on the ``Other'' line?

[Jeff]

In the old days, “deep background” meant that you could not reference the source at all.

In fact, that's precisely how Fitzgerald describes it at p.5n4 in his 8-27-04 affidavit, which is what I think emptywheel was thinking of and which is based on the understanding of various officials interviewed. It says, in part,

"Background" comments are comments that are attributed to a generic description of the government official. "Deep background" comments can be reported as part of the story but not specifically attributed to a government official.

As usual, however you slice it, it doesn't make Novak look good. But it might be telling, especially since the footnote is probably attached to the paragraph where Novak's encounters with his sources is described.

I thought of something else i wish Novak had been asked. Did he in fact testify again after Rove's October 2005 testimony, as the New York Times reported? What was the subject matter of his testimony?

[tryggth]

Tom, I think you are on to something... nobody born after January 2, 1948 believed the name was "Flame". And those born before - well, those teetering on senility - sometimes forget to put on their reading glasses when looking at the fine print.

[tryggth]

I sometimes sit back and wonder where the truth is - thinking its between my darker suspicions and the administration line. Then I read something like this:

Powell & Interrogation [Jonah Goldberg]

I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that Powell is saying what he believes in that letter to McCain. But that doesn't disprove the theory that he's getting involved because he wants to sanctify himself amidst the Armitage-Plame controversy.

Where are those guy's minders?

[SharonW]

On the prior thread (which seemingly has died because of ew latest post) addressed obliquely the very curious matter of Novak’s definition of “deep background.”

In the old days, “deep background” meant that you could not reference the source at all.

I was thinking the same exact thing and I'd have to say that Novak seemed to define this himself when he said "deep background with nothing said attributed to Armitage or even an anonymous State Department official."

No attribution allowed, not even a vague attribution like State Dept. official. Does Novak think he covered his ass about this by making an entirely incorrect attribution or did he just give something away and Armitage WAS a third party rather than one of two he attributed?

I'm certainly not surprised that definitions of deep background versus background should wind up in a Fitz affidavit. He apparently knows enough to parse the parser.

[emptywheel]

Jeff

Yes, precisely the reference I was thinking of.

SharonW

I think this might be another area (like CPD/Covert/Operative) where Novak is changing his goals. Now, he wants to invent a reason why he would have included Armitage as an SAO--or, alterately, why he can say some of what he says now. But his goals are different from what they were before, so his story is dodgy.

Remember, too, Tom Maguire and I agreed (!) that someone giving something on deep background couldn't be held liable for IIPA, because he wasn't trying to leak something. WHich would exonerate ROve and Arm.

[SharonW]

Oh, I wholly agree with you that Novak appears to be changing his goals. In fact, he seems to shift the goal posts all over the playing field depending on the threat of the day and which master he feels like serving, including himself.

I've never seen more story changing. It's no wonder everybody wants to read or see what he has to say next because it's never the same.

Regarding not being held liable for IIPA, however, if you are deliberately outing a CIA NOC to someone who does not have clearance for that information regardless of whether or not they print it, how could you not be held liable? This may sound absurd, but purely for argument's sake, what if Novak were a spy from another country and his guise was as U.S. journalist?

I'm clearly missing something here. I don't care what anyone says about "background." That is giving classified information of the highest sort to someone without the credentials to receive it. What is it in IIPA that would exclude that? [Tapping into the poetry of Rumsfeld] Regardless of what the receiver does with the information, isn't the mere fact that you know it to be unknowable to anyone outside of those "in the know" an offense?

As far as I understand it, only the "holy crap, I didn't mean to tell you that" defense works on IIPA even though I do understand that it is tightly constructed. I just don't see where "intent to leak" fits in this case. They did intend to leak, just not to have the leak attributed to them.

[Jeff]

someone giving something on deep background couldn't be held liable for IIPA, because he wasn't trying to leak something.

I think that's not correct, according to Fitzgerald's definition of the concept, based on what officials understood. Possibly on the contrary, the material given on deep background can be used, but cannot be attributed.

For instance, if you are skeptical of Novak's explanations for where he got the incendiary stuff ("Valerie Plame," "agency operative" or whatever) in the sentence of his original column preceding the one that used the claims of his two senior administration officials, you might offer as an alternative explanation that that stuff came from a source on deep background.

Guess who's going to be on cspan Washington Journal tomorrow morning at 8:30? Victoria Toensing.

[SharonW]

I think that's not correct, according to Fitzgerald's definition of the concept, based on what officials understood. Possibly on the contrary, the material given on deep background can be used, but cannot be attributed.

Yes, that goes back to my initial post about Novak's contradition in his own article. Even HE says "deep background" means no attribution to Armitage not even one as vague as State Dept. official.

Nonetheless, I still contend that violation of IIPA would be knowing the agent was an agent and telling anyone for any reason who wasn't allowed to know as much, regardless of "deep background" or anything else.

[mickey]

see New Clues in the Plame Mystery
A well-placed conservative source ... who knows both White House political adviser Karl Rove and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, told me that the two men are much closer than many Washington insiders understand, that they developed a friendship and a working relationship when Bush was recruiting Colin Powell to be Secretary of State.
...
In the Sept. 14, 2006, column, Novak wrote that Armitage divulged Plame’s identity toward the end of an hour-long interview on July 8, 2003. According to Novak, he asked Armitage, who was then deputy Secretary of State, why former Ambassador Wilson had been sent on the trip to Africa.

Novak wrote that Armitage “told me unequivocally that Mrs. Wilson worked in the CIA’s Counter-proliferation Division and that she had suggested her husband’s mission. As for his [Armitage’s] current implication that he [Armitage] never expected this to be published, he [Armitage] noted that the story of Mrs. Wilson’s role fit the style of the old Evans-Novak column – implying to me that it continued reporting Washington inside information.”

In other words, Novak is challenging the version spun out in the last two weeks by Armitage and his supporters who have claimed that Armitage let Plame’s name slip out “inadvertently,” almost as gossip, and never intended for it to be published. When I asked my well-placed conservative source about that scenario, he laughed and said, “Armitage isn’t a gossip, but he is a leaker. There’s a difference.”
...
Novak also contradicted the Armitage scenario on another key point, that Novak supposedly had arranged the interview with the help of longtime Republican operative Kenneth Duberstein. Instead, Novak reported that Armitage’s granting of the interview came out of the blue.

“During his quarter of a century in Washington, I had had no contact with Armitage before our fateful interview,” Novak wrote in his Sept. 14, 2006, column. “I tried to see him in the first 2 ½ years of the Bush administration, but he rebuffed me – summarily and with disdain, I thought.

“Then, without explanation, in June 2003, Armitage’s office said the deputy secretary would see me.”

Novak dated that call from Armitage’s office at about two weeks before Wilson published his July 6, 2003, Op-Ed in the New York Times, entitled, “What I Didn’t Find in Africa.” The time frame of the call fits with when the White House was initiating a preemptive strike against Wilson’s anticipated criticism of Bush’s bogus claims about Iraq seeking uranium ore from Niger.

This report by Robert Parry in the Consortium News has interesting implications for the C.I.A. leak melodrama:

* Rove and Armitage are on the same team.
* Armitage called Novak after rebuffing him repeatedly.
* Armitage was actively leaking to Novak, not gossiping.

If these things are true, the notion that there were two threads involved in outing Plame is unnecessary. Armitage was just part of the plot and is lying right now. It might also explain why Novak is suddenly so verbal - he's figured out that he was a patsy from the get-go...

[emptywheel]

The logic behind the IIPA v. Deep Background that I was alluding to is the intent part. If you leak something on background, you intend to get the news out. Purportedly, if you leak on Deep Background, you want the information taken into account, but not reported.

Though I agree absolutely that Novak's version of the events doesn't accord with the attribution he made in his column.

mickey

Yes, those are possible scenarios. Equally possible, especially when you consider Duberstein apparently validates Armitage's version of events, is that Rove knew Armi well enough to set him up, and to learn of his involvement after the fact.

Also, that story ignores a few key details--this campaign came out of OVP. Rove and Armi may be chummy as hell. But Cheney and Armi are not. OVP and State were in the middle of one hell of a bureaucratic fight when this happened.

And finally, if Armi was the designated patsy, don't you think he would have come forward vocally in 2003, which would have prevented Libby and Rove from being exposed to perjury? I mean, if he was designated to take the fall, he was damned incompetent at doing so.

[mickey]

Also, that story ignores a few key details--this campaign came out of OVP. Rove and Armi may be chummy as hell. But Cheney and Armi are not. OVP and State were in the middle of one hell of a bureaucratic fight when this happened.

All the more reason to sacrafice State. They'd already thrown Powell to the wolves at the U.N.

And finally, if Armi was the designated patsy, don't you think he would have come forward vocally in 2003, which would have prevented Libby and Rove from being exposed to perjury?

If Karl had set him up right, Armitage would think he was leaking to protect Powell from being shamed for his U.N. debacle by Wilson's revelation. If Rove set him up, how would vocalizing help Rove? Armitage did come forward in 2003, to the F.B.I. and Fitzgerald, but he may have left out a piece, a big piece. There's a lot of that 'leave out a piece' going around.

I mean, if he was designated to take the fall, he was damned incompetent at doing so.

I assume Armitage and Novak are both damned incompetent, bumbling fools and that Rove's a snake. There's a snake in this story.

But I'm not arguing with you because I don't have your command of the details. It's just that as I've read your point that Novak's story is all over the board and he's blustering around after years of silence, I thought Parry's point that Armitage and Rove were palsy and that Armitage called Novak might explain some of the fuzz. I can just hear Mr. OVP saying, "Is there any way to have this coming from State? Then we could just 'confirm'."

[Jeff]

Purportedly, if you leak on Deep Background, you want the information taken into account, but not reported.

Again, not on the understanding Fitzgerald has derived from officials in the case. Here's the full footnote:

As understood by various officials interviewed, "on the record" comments are statements maade for attribution to a government official by name. "Background" comments are comments that are attributed to a generic description of the government official. "Deep background" comments can be reported as part oft he story but not specifically attributed to a government official. "Off the record" comments cannot be reported in the story but can be used to inform the reporter's understanding of the facts.

So I think what you are talking about are off the record comments, not comments made on deep background. There is a separate issue about the fact that Novak says he had a tacit agreement with Armitage that they were on deep background and that this ruled out describing Armitage as a State Department official, yet somehow Novak was able to describe him as a senior administration official. At some level, this makes no sense whatsoever, and certainly could be used as ammunition for those doubting Novak's story. It's completely unclear, especially given that the agreement was tacit, why Novak couldn't just say, "Lemme say this: my initial source was not in the White House."

There's the further question of whether Novak did in fact get his information regarding Plame's name and the fact that she was an agency operative on WMD from a source on deep background.

And then there is the case of Matt Cooper, who seems likewise inconsistent: his conversation with Rove was on deep background, yet he attributed the comments about Wilson's wife that he and Libby made to "government officials." Very very vague, of course, but still an attribution.

[DCgaffer]

Cooper’s case is a little different. He may, arguably, be using a different definition of deep background. Or, he may be sloppy. However, he may, by the time he published, had more confirmations. He had Libby on background, and he got confirmation from Dickerson in Africa that SAOs (Ari & Bartlett we think) were pushing hard “who sent Wilson” was the story. By the time he wrote, Novak’s story was out and he may have gotten confirmation from someone else to justify the plural “some government officials.” But this ambiguity is probably one of the Team Libby’s tools to impeach at trial.

As for Parry’s article, it’s built mostly on the premise that Armitage was in on it. I think in part this is from Parry’s reporting on Iran-Contra. In that case, Lawrence Walsh suspected that Armitage lied to protect Weinberger. I think Parry’s presumption is a carryover from that case, because the other facts about the Armitage of today don’t sync. That is, State was increasingly at war with the neocons. Armitage had just slapped down Bolton hard in June on Syria and kept a leash on him for the remainder of his tenure. (Remember, in June the neocons had made a frontal PR assault: Syria is a terrorist state! Syria is next! Attack Syria now!). Armitage was an old Far East hand guy and there is scuttlebutt that Armitage really, really didn’t like how Bolton was pissing in the NK and China policy pool. State was at war with Defense as to who was to run reconstruction. The whole purpose of the INR memo was to say to the bureaucracy, “nah, nah, nah, we were right.” Heck, some reports say Armitage disliked Rumsfeld – a lot. Based on his career and personal background, for Armitage to deliberately and with forethought out a covert operative would be as surprising as Rove becoming a Democrat.

I find it unusual to be in a position of strongly supporting Armitage, but perhaps the most telling point is that the conservative noise machine is making such an effort to make him the idiot, the fall guy, the fool. That alone is enough to make me not believe it.

[Charles]

Good morning readers of The Next Hurrah
This is my first time commenting here. I feel it necessary to do so today. There will be a new wrinkle in this investigation soon, however, I cannot say whether it will help or hurt. I can tell all of you unequivocally that Jason Leopold, the reporter, has obtained raw copies of Grand Jury testimony that will likely see him having reported accurately on Karl Rove's truly being indicted and the after-the-indictment deal hammered out between the prosecution and Mr. Rove's attorney. I believe the letter to Mr. Luskin Mr. Leopold obtained will confirm that. But more importantly, in my opinion, the grand jury testimony that Mr. Leopold has--and may I add that whoever provided it to him did so illegally--has some very, very interesting information about VP Cheney and a certain individual at the CIA who used to work for John Bolton. If Leopold prints this story and provides copies of the testimony it will add yet another layer to this drama.

I speak about this based on second hand information. I know Mr. Leopold has been in Washington the past two weeks authenticating documents. Perhaps Mr. Leopold does not realize that the Beltway rivals Los Angeles as the gossip mecca of the US. Some of the attorneys and US Congressman he has been speaking with have thus shared his information with others.

I have not seen any of the materials first hand, but if what one of my Democratic aides to a particular Midwest congressman says is true all hell is about to break loose.

[Jim E.]

Without independently authenticated pdf files made available on the web, I'm not inclined to believe anything from Leopold, much less from someone else hinting what Leopold may (or may not) be reporting on in the future.

[emptywheel]

Jeff

You're right.

Though as to Cooper--remember he also worked with Dickerson. So that reflects Dickerson (IIRC) Ari conversation, which was on background.

CD

Yup, I agree. The Iran-Contra connection is something I was thinking of too.

[pontificator]

Charles -- will this story be breaking sometime over the next 24 business hours?

[mickey]

DCGaffer,

Good point. It hadn't occurred to me that Parry was carrying baggage from the Iran-Contra scene...

Charles,

I still wonder if Leopold is onto something. He got trashed, and is suspect as determined to vindicate himself. But frankly, in spite of all the ad hominems pointed at him, he's acting like someone whose compass is pointing north.

I look forward to sealed vs sealed - revealed!

[anon]

Someone is trying hard to yank some chains around here. I wonder why? Perhaps someone doesn't like the idea of another well-researched book on Plame?

Shouldn't of worried, though. JimE was here to provide the block.

[Charles]

Sir, I am not asking you to believe me. I thought I would just pass along the same raw information I received last night. You may interpret however you choose. I made it a point to say I have received this second hand and had not seen any hard documents to substantiate what I was told. However, I know very well the way DC works and there's always some truth in Beltway gossip.

[Charles]

I will state it again. I have had zero communication with Mr. Leopold and I have never met or spoken with him before. But if anyone here lives in DC or works in DC they would know it's an open secret that Leopold has some sort of documents.

[emptywheel]

Btw Charles,

Aside from your decision to come report this her (which I find amusing), I find it equally curious that you refer to someone I presume to be Fred Fleitz (I know well the allegation that Fred Fleitz was involved in the INR memo and read it to Libby over the phone) as "a certain individual at the CIA who used to work for John Bolton."

Fleitz is not at CIA. He's in the House, working as a staffer for the House Intelligence Committee. As anyone following recent developments in the warmongering on Iran would know.

[charles]

Your presumption would be wrong. Mr. Bolton employed many CIA officials. A number of them wrote books. But it would not be Mr. Fleitz. Arriving here to share the information was requested by someone who asked that I do so specifically.

[Jim E.]

"Arriving here to share the information was requested by someone who asked that I do so specifically."

wtf?

[emptywheel]

Fine, I apologize if I was wrong--a similar error has been made wrt Fleitz in the past.

[Jim E.]

Cliff May writes: "Corn and I nearly came to blows in the Green Room at Fox this week."

May also writes, for perhaps the 91st time: "And it was indeed Corn who exposed Plame."

[Jim E.]

Oh, and another laugher. Here's Cliff May on Robert Novak: "His integrity is beyond question."

[emptywheel]

Does whoever is running this PR campaign really think Cliff May is a help?

[Jeff]

Charles

My very strong advice to Leopold is to leave it alone. Because of the nature of the initial report on Rove, it is literally impossible to vindicate that reporting. It is definitively and forever disconfirmed.

I strongly suspect he's been played as a patsy by some folks in DC doing bureaucratic and political warfare, and should beware of that happening again. Remember what happened with Rather and the whole controversy over the TANG documents. Color me deeply deeply skeptical about the idea that there are genuine grand jury transcripts floating around; and when fake documents are exposed as such, it undermines even what reality there may be to various claims they were meant to support.

In my view, Leopold should move on and do some good reporting on other matters.

[tnhblog]

Cahrles, thank you for the information. It is much appreciated. However, you should not be surprised at the skepticism expressed here. Many people are rightly wary of Leopold after getting burned once. Is there any other information you can post whereby we can confirm your credibility? If you can not post publicly, perhaps you can communicate privately with EW. After all you did chose her blog to post this information. It is not unreasonable that people would require some evidence of your credibilty.

[pow wow]

Charles - FYI, see the comments at the end of the emptywheel thread a few days back that discusses the latest change in Novak's account of events. You will see similar information from 'robbie c' toward the end of the 100 or so comments with regard to this pending reporting from Leopold.

My main concern is that Leoppold's potential revelations of secret grand jury testimony, etc., don't inadvertently end up scuttling the bringing to justice of guilty parties in this case/investigation.

[Kewalo]

Victoria Toensing was on Washington Journal today and she lied her butt off. If cspan is so neutral why in the world did they have her on with no one that could rebut her.

I did tons on research on her last year and I think I can prove that she had nothing to do with writing the covert agent act.

Marcy, I tried to send you all the info and the email came back.

[pow wow]

With regard to the "scrupulously neutral" assertion about Washington Journal and the alleged integrity of Robert Novak, I've analyzed his WJ interview (it's available streaming from the C-SPAN site for at least a few more days), in an attempt to push back against the C-SPAN propaganda. The astonishing fact is that of 18 phone calls and 2 e-mails broadcast, allegedly from the public at large, not one single negative opinion was expressed about the role this man played in outing one of our CIA Agents, while multiple opinions were expressed praising him effusively for one reason or another. WJ, from all appearances, is about one thing above all: insulating politicians and other guests from any sort of criticism or probing questions from the public. If this doesn't hold true for guests like David Corn on Monday, then political and partisan bias also enters into the equation, but that isn't provable from this one interview. A 3:1 male-caller bias (remember, they hung up after hearing emptywheel's question), and an allergy to getting at facts and the truth looks like this on national "public service" television:

One hour live broadcast of Washington Journal, 9/15/06. Brian Lamb was "interviewing" Robert Novak, and took screened questions for Novak from callers as follows.

Call #1 From Clinton, CT (Male) @ 9:36: A skeptical question regarding Armitage and his signing of the PNAC letter vs. Armitage's supposed alliance with Powell's views. "How does that square?" Novak claims Armitage was a "skeptic" about going into Iraq... {in some parallel universe -ed.}

Call #2 From Nashville, TN (Male) @ 10:45: "What do you say about that?" Skeptical about Armitage not talking for three months in 2003. Novak refers him to his column where he made the same point.

Call #3 From Richmond, VA (Male) @ 15:03: Caller labels himself a "Nixon Republican" - mutters something about Nixon, the rich, and Bob Woodward. Novak declines to get involved.

Call #4 From Springfield, VA (Male) @ 15:56: Caller labels himself a Republican "barely hanging on in the current environment." Says people are politicizing the issue and accusing the Wilsons of things. "Like what?" interrupts Brian Lamb. Caller answers (re claims Plame wasn't covert/covered) and goes on to assert that Novak is doing a PR tour because he wants to avoid legal liability. Novak replies by saying he "despises...these people...these bloggers...and calls to C-SPAN" who "say things they know nothing about with no responsibility," while accusing the caller of being a Democrat pretending to be a Republican ("he's about as Republican as my foot is"). Novak's never been a target, etc. Then Novak goes on to slander Corn and praise Isikoff.

Call #5 From 'Swananoah,' NC (Male) @ 21:10: Caller announced by Lamb as a "George Bush supporter" starts ranting against Chris Matthews and Hardball and its "conjecture" (this grudge against Hardball develops into a mini-theme of the rest of the program...). All Matthews's conjecture is now proven to be "much ado about nothing." Novak replies that he hasn't watched Hardball's "shouting and blabber and interrupting people" for years, so can't really engage the opinion. Novak goes on to point out that the press has developed a "First Amendment right to be wrong."

Call #6 From San Diego, CA (Male) @ 25:04: Asks about Libby's role in this, and his perjury charges vs. the leak from State. Novak states that he is "very fond of the Vice President" and "admired Mr. Libby" but that he "didn't have any contact with him [Libby] on this" and "doesn't know the facts" or the details of the case against Libby.

Call #7 From Westfield, MA (Male) @ 27:50: A "George Bush supporter" says Lamb. Caller says he's a "Novak fan since high school in 1960." Asks four questions, ending with shouldn't Wilson/Plame be indicted for conspiracy. Novak only answers the first one re the Wilson friend on the street; forgets/skips the questions about Grossman as "roommate" and 16 words at CIA.

Email #1 From Williamsville, NY (Male?) @ 29:35: Asks for some details of the Armitage conversation. Lamb reads it quickly. Novak says "Give me a break." Says he didn't ask Armitage who his source(s) for the information were, and says he doesn't know Armitage's motive - uses the getting State "off the hook" regarding the Wilson mission excuse (same excuse for the INR Memo writing) to suppose what the motive was for Armitage. Discusses when he thinks Bush knew his source (by 2005). Points out that when he made that statement about asking Bush last December, he "thought there were no reporters present."

Call #8 From Franklin, TN (Male) @ 32:20: Why did you put Valerie Plame's name/status in your article? Novak explains that he and Armitage were discussing the Wilson mission to Niger in some detail - and not at the very end of their interview, but near the end of it -- and then Novak asked Armitage why Wilson was sent (since he's not 'an expert'). Novak says he was "not hostile" to Joe Wilson "at that time." Emphasizes that Armitage told him the "Counter-Proliferation Division" @ CIA, which he put in Paragraph 8 of 13 of his 7/14/03 article.

Call #9 From McPherson, KS (Male) @ 34:10: "I commend you, Mr. Novak...you are a speaker of the truth." Something about if not for 'the way the liberals wanted it' you would probably be up for the Nobel Peace Prize. Asks re the "lawsuit." Novak now remembers the question from Caller #7 and says the "Wilsons have not broken a law." And that there are "too damn many lawyers" in this country.

Call #10 From Dedham Springs, LA (Male) @ 36:20: Question seems to be asking for information already discussed in the program, namely after his "primary" source, who were Novak's other secondary sources (apparently thinking Novak is hiding this information, rather than that Armitage isn't his primary contact) - "who else called him up and tipped him off" - and this seems to set off Novak - he quickly gets exercised and touchy about this - it seems to have hit a sore spot... "I really hate these distortions, you know - you make things up that you don't know anything about. Nobody called me...I didn't say that Mr. Armitage called me - I was in an interview with him..." Chastises caller for trying to create a false impression, repeats information from earlier in program about Rove and Harlow. [Rove] "did not call me."

"Mr. Corn is a nasty piece of work" etc., etc., etc. says Novak. [After blog excerpt is read by Lamb.]

Call #11 From Bellevista, AR (Female) @ 41:13: Wants to know if Bush should pardon Libby? Novak can't imagine why not -- such a nice guy, that Scooter.

Call #12 From Dayton, OH (Male) @ 41:53: Back to Hardball: there's no information on that program. Just yelling. But isn't it a mimic of Crossfire? Partisan bickering. Did Jon Stewart cancel Crossfire? New management didn't like it, Novak says. "Surprisingly civil" until Carville & Begala ruined it, he says. Novak agreeably points out that the last time he did watch Hardball it was "terrible."

Call #13 From Lexington, KY (Male) @ 45:15: Didn't Wilson out his wife?

Call #14 From Charlestown, RI (Female) @ 46:15: "I enjoy Mr. Novak and all his programs" - we're the same generation. Something she said highly amused Novak - couldn't catch it. She threw in a Janet Reno slur, and ended without asking a question. Novak said "I agree with you."

Call #15 From Kitty Hawk, NC (Female) @ 49:50: "Why go through this whole exercise" since the leaker was known up front. Novak explained about conspiracies and the DOJ wondering why "poor, old Armitage" was giving them this information, etc.

Email #2 From Athens, OH (Female) @ 50:52: Re the fact that Libby leaked before Armitage leaked to Novak. Nice line about the firing squad.

Call #16 From Houston, TX (Male) @ 52:35: Matthews/Hardball vs. Crossfire again. Hardball has no information. Need another Crossfire. No question.

Call #17 From Gaston, AL (Male) @ 55:12: Sneering at Fox and Sean Hannity's interviewing style. Says Novak should like it there, since he doesn't like Hardball. No question. Novak concedes that he "has problems with Chris Matthews" but decides not to further discuss it here, and then proceeds to, literally, sneer at Jon Stewart.

Call #18 From Lake City, TN (Female) @ 55:19 [She didn't speak up when announced for Call #17, so they helpfully went back to her for the last call]: "Mr. Novak, I admire you so much." Tells Novak he's right about Democrats calling in on the Republican C-SPAN line - she can spot them a mile away. Why didn't Mrs. Wilson stay home with her children before they went to school, like all real mothers do, etc.

Calls got through from Alabama, Arkansas, California (opinion-neutral), Connecticut (opinion-neutral), Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts (Bush/Novak partisan), North Carolina (2), Ohio, Rhode Island (Novak partisan), Tennessee (3), Texas, Virginia (2).

Emails got through from New York (opinion-neutral) and Ohio.

Calls and emails got through from 5 females and 15 males.

Apparent "President/Novak Supporters & Republican" questioners who got through: 8
Apparent "Democratic" questioners who got through: None
Apparently opinion-neutral (but mostly poorly informed) questioners who got through: 7
Editorial comment calls unrelated to the topic at hand asking no questions of Novak: 5

Conclusion: Democrats don't self-identify, and don't indulge in empty pontificating rhetoric on national C-SPAN television, by choice or by active censorship.

To quote Bob Novak's 9/15/06 WJ opinions: "No crime committed." "Much ado about nothing." Or NOT.

[Jeff]

Hey pow wow - How do you find those streams of recent broadcasts on cspan?

[pow wow]

Jeff -

From the main page at http://c-span.org/

look in the left margin's column for "Washington Journal" under "C-Span Series." Click that and then you'll see "Recent Programs" in red in the main body of the next page. Underneath that heading are all the recent WJ broadcasts.

I used Firefox to get the stream to work - it has to launch an external program to function, and so won't work in every browser without a little more manipulating - but Firefox just requires a yes/no click on launching the extra program before playing the video (it allows you to select the program by guest as well, so you don't need to wade through the first two hours of WJ).

[emptywheel]

Wow, superb summary, pow wow. Yep, that's my impression too. Though I imagine the Nixon Republican and the barely holding on Republican were Democrats (which of course begs the question why they had to come in through the Republican line). I must have either been on with the call screener during the Williamsville call or the Richmond call.

[pow wow]

Amendment: Never mind my comment about selecting only the Novak segment. I think that was only applicable during the first day or so after airing. [Note the header square of the main WJ page gives a round-down of Sunday's guests - I think that was how I selected just the Novak section, before the information there was changed.]

Anyway, it's easy enough to select for the beginning of the third hour in the three-hour "Entire Program" video that is available, to get quickly to the section you're interested in.

[pow wow]

Thanks, emptywheel. My pleasure. Your experience in trying to get through on all three lines with a simple fact-based question really helped to reveal what's going on behind the scenes there.

[charles]

To the commenter Jeff, I believe you are mistaken in your premise. That report, at least the way I have been briefed, can very well be confirmed. Having worked in Washington for many years there have been instances when a story or even a rumor is later confirmed. That is not uncommon. Additionally, it is not uncommon for a reporter to obtain legal documents. And to the commenter pow wow, I agree with you. I have warned my legislative associate that reporting the information, while it will be seen as a vindication for Leopold in the personal sense, would hurt the integrity of the ongoing investigation.

I completely understand the skepticism regarding my credibility. I would rather withhold from providing additional information about myself. As I said earlier, I was asked to post a comment here by a well-known person in order for a dialogue to be entered into about these developments. I have now commented more than I had expected and certainly in more detail than was asked of me. I bid you all a good evening and the best of luck in your pursuit for justice.

[Jim E.]

I can see it now. An insider gets a hold of juicy documents that can blow the cover off the Plame story. It will change Washington. In the words of Charles, all will break loose!! What to do, what to do.

Let's see, the trusty insider could go to, say, Brian Williams or Katie Couric. Or maybe 60 Minutes. Hmmm, maybe this mysterious person would settle for Chris Hanson of Dateline, if only to give him a break on the pedofiles. Naah, not enough gravitas. This is a big deal, after all.

So our insider starts to ponder real reporters, you know, folks who write for a living. Investigative reporters. Yeah, that's it. Let's see: Lowell Bergman? Loser. Award-winning Dana Priest? Idiot. Walter Pincus, another expert of national security, someone who, like Priest, risks jail everytime he promises confidentiality to a source? Pussy.

That leaves just one person. The only person. This story screams out for ... Jason Leopold! Yes, Jason Leopold has exactly the type of integrity this story demands.

It all makes so much sense now. Thanks, Charles, for stopping by. Your "well-known" friend accomplished a lot by sending you hear to tell us all those details. Hope you don't get in trouble for telling us soooo much.

[mickey]

It's a bit dangerous to get too into Leopold's credibility, motives for vindication, impact on the [now silent] investigation, etc. What matters here is the truth of the information Charles advertises. If sealed vs sealed is a case that indicts Rove, how can our knowing that hurt anything? The whole point of this investigation is to find out who outed a C.I.A. Agent and if it was an Administration operation. So if that's known or heavily suspected, let's hear about it. of the people, by the people, for the people!

[pow wow]

mickey -

Because Fitzgerald is trying to close the pincers on someone very high up and very insulated, if in fact Rove has had an indictment suspended pending a cooperation deal. Presumably, as of right now that higher-up doesn't know that Rove is cooperating, or necessarily that this person is in the target hairs of the investigation. The target also doesn't know exactly what Fitzgerald knows about him, and leaks of sealed testimony might tip his hand. If Fitzgerald already had the evidence he needs to indict, he would have gone public with it by now.

Hopefully the lawyers consulting with Leopold can analyze this situation in the interests of safeguarding Fitzgerald's investigation. In many cases, more public knowledge does assist, not endanger, investigations, but this sounds like major-league stuff, based on Charles's description, that could hurt the cause of justice if not handled properly by Leopold. I assume that there is a way for Leopold to get a huge scoop, and try to reclaim his reputation, without necessarily publishing everything he knows. Holding something back now may even benefit Leopold's own investigative reporting efforts down the line.

[tnhblog]

We certainly can't get into any dialogue about your information unless we know the credibility of its source. Discussing such issues prematurely would hurt the credibility of those posting here. We got burned the same way previously with the Rove indictment issue. No one is aking for your identity. Perhaps you could communicate with EW about your sources, the identity of the "Democratic aid", the identity of the "midwest congressman" and the identities of the attonrneys you speak of. EW could then do some confirming.

[pollyusa]

EW

but I assumed when I analyzed his column that anything attributed specifically to the White House would be Rove, since Armitage is unlikely to be privvy to that information (particularly since the declassification was so funky), and since Rove was the only WH official he admitted speaking to

I didn't explain myself clearly. I always thought the fact the Novak didn't attribute the information, that the WH would like to declassify the Wilson report, could indicate that Novak got that information from a source on deep background. Which could be someone other than the known WH source, Rove.

It was new information from Novak on the Washington Journal when he attributed the declassification claim to a senior WH source.

I thought it likely that Novak had talked to Libby about Plame/Wilson and that the information about declassifing the Wilson report may have come from Libby on deep background.

The reason I thought Novak talked to others (in addition to Rove) in the WH is because Waas has Novak talking to at least one person in the OVP during leak week and the phone records show Novak talked to multiple people in the WH.

The logs indicate that several White House officials talked to Novak shortly before the appearance of his July 14 column
Newsday 2/11/04

[pollyusa]

pow pow

Thanks for the summary of the calls.

Charles has an interesting email address, spy4hire@...

[truthwithlogic]

Richard Armitage's "confession" that he was Robert Novak's source in Novak's outing of Valerie Plame as a covert CIA agent is supposed to close the case and end conspiracy conversation. It has even been written that those of us with wider suspicions apologize for our ramblings. I think not.

Who cares what Novak has to say about his conversations with Armitage? Novak wasn't the only journalist to get the information. What about Judith Miller and Matt Stevens, and probably others? The entire scheme of the Bush administration was to plant the info with as many journalists as necessary to get it published. Novak was reliable, and so was Miller, but her editors at the New York Times didn't let her put the informqation out.

When George Bush said he would find the source of the Plame leak and dismiss the source from his administration, why didn't Armitage tell his boss what he had done, and seek forgiveness, or resign? I think it is because Bush and much of his administration knew the game all along.

God, I am weary of being bullshitted!

[hauksdottir]

From Parry's article:

"“Then, without explanation, in June 2003, Armitage’s office said the deputy secretary would see me.” [Emphasis added]

Novak dated that call from Armitage’s office at about two weeks before Wilson published his July 6, 2003, Op-Ed in the New York Times, entitled, “What I Didn’t Find in Africa.” The time frame of the call fits with when the White House was initiating a preemptive strike against Wilson’s anticipated criticism of Bush’s bogus claims about Iraq seeking uranium ore from Niger.

On June 23, 2003, also two weeks before Wilson’s article, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis Libby, gave an interview to New York Times reporter Judith Miller about Wilson and, according to a later retrospective by the Times, may then have passed on the tip that Wilson’s wife worked at the CIA."

It ought to be possible to get the phone records from Armitage's office. It appears that his secretary may have called Novak on or about June 23rd, which would be a rather unlikely coincidence. ;^) Somebody unleashed the hounds and they all went off baying their throats raw.

Also, a belated "thank you" to the folks who gave me the links to the date of the E.O. for Cheney's supposed authority for classifying/declassifying materials. If Cheney has/had tiptop on-the-spot declassification authority, Libby as right-hand man should have known about it all along... and would not have needed to ask for further confirmation from anybody. Since Libby hesitated to act on his boss's say-so, it is quite possible that Cheney doesn't have universal declassification ability... and thus ordered the outing of a spy with no authority to do so.

Carolly

[mickey]

pollyusa,

"spy4hire@...!" Hmm. Didn't notice that! Thanks...

[emptywheel]

polly

No, I rhink I understood you--I'm just taking a different approach. I've got to be the strongest believer out there in an earlier Libby to Novak conversation, so I do think it possible that he was the source for that.

But I'm just trying to push Novak into the binary of 1) either he spoke to Rove in much more substantial form than he has testified, or 2) he spoke to someone else. I was thinking of ways to get to that Libby conversation.

[Pollyusa]

EW

No, I rhink I understood you

Good. When I reread what I wrote, it seemed I wasn't clear. I usually put the bare minimum on my posts here, knowing you can follow my logic without my including all the dots. As usual you did.

I guess sometimes I just can't tell the difference between Rove and Novak

As I'm sure you can tell, I read every detail of your posts and comments.


(I know well the allegation that Fred Fleitz was involved in the INR memo and read it to Libby over the phone)

I am wondering where you found this allegation?

[waddayaknow]

"...closer to the truth..." What does that mean, exactly? Which lie is closest to "truth"? Or the truth is he knew he was outing a CIA "operative" (his word) but he has to lie about what he is telling all of us to keep his keister out of the 'big house'? Or he just likes to get "...closer to the truth..." without actually telling the truth?

[emptywheel]

The Fleiz allegation is one rawstory made back when Leopold was still there--assuming the CIA officer we believe to be Grenier was actually Fleitz. But there is still a fairly robust suspicion that Fleitz was involved in distributing the INR memo.

[Jeff]

The Fleiz allegation is one rawstory made back when Leopold was still there--assuming the CIA officer we believe to be Grenier was actually Fleitz.

A perfect example of how unreliable sources used Leopold and/or his coauthor, as patsies to spread maliciously false information. That rawstory story is sourced to lawyers involved in the CIA leak investigation (which of course does not mean they were involved in their capacity as lawyer) as well as intelligence officials, and the specific claim that Fleitz is the CIA senior official cited in paragraph 11 of Libby's indictment appears to be sourced to the attorneys. Now, we know as a matter of fact that the claim is false: that CIA senior official is Robert Grenier. So why were Rawstory's sources feeding the reporters false information? And what - if anything other than opposition to Fleitz and his ilk - was the basis for their information? And how much of the rest of that story, which is mostly about a group of neocons, is false as well? It's worth noting, in passing, that they cite MSNBC for the claim that Bolton testified in the CIA leak investigation; but that is, of course, David Schuster who to all appearances had the same set of sources that Rawstory had; and it's pretty clear that Bolton did not in fact testify in the investigation, or at least MSNBC withdrew the claim. So it looks like there's something of an echo chamber going on.

The point is, Leopold clearly has some unreliable sources who appear to be more than willing to simply make stuff up, such as the assertion that Fleitz is named in the indictment, when he's not. Let's hope he's not still relying on them.

[Ed]

Have I missed it, or has anybody asked the key questions? WHY would ANYBODY from within or without the Bush administration risk federal prosecution by exposing Plame to Novak, et al?

Retribution against Wilson?
Retaliation against CIA for not going along with the plan ("proving" Iraq had WMDs)?
A threat to expose other intel types if they go public about lack of WMD proof, thus careers and contacts destroyed?
Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby, et al, just plain stupid?
Attempt to hide lack of intel evidence of WMDs by all of the above?

It seems almost elementary to venture a guess when all evidence points to the obvious. And if that is true, then all the back and forth about Novak and definitions and who said what are staged distractions.

Which leads to another question: What group are we aware of in DC that are without question the premier distractors, propagandists, and bullshitters?

There's your answer. Now go out and confirm the obvious.

Ed