Novak's Latest

by emptywheel

Does anyone think it odd that the latest new scoop on Novak comes from a fellow Chicago Sun-Times writer? It's a remarkably self-reflexive article, a Sun-Times reporter describing a Sun-Times-sponsored panel in which another Sun-Times reporter hammered Novak with the questions we've all wanted answered.

Novak made his remarks at the first of an occasional series of forums jointly sponsored by the Sun-Times and the University of Illinois at Chicago. Sun-Times political writer and Channel 5 reporter Carol Marin, who moderated the forum, immediately asked Novak what he could say about the Plame case.

Almost as delightful as the Ed Henry and James Carville planned ambush of Novak back in August, which caused Novak to storm off the set, never to return.

The panel does seem to have gotten a little testy, with Novak making a concerted effort to put his own involvement in the case in the best light. Thing is, Novak only denies that he took the Fifth, not that he squealed on his buddies in the White House.

Novak acknowledged the swirl of speculation regarding his actions in Fitzgerald's investigation of the leak, including whether he testified before a grand jury, revealed his source to Fitzgerald or made some sort of a plea bargain by fingering someone else so he could stay out of jail.

But he called the speculation "ridiculous," declining to reveal his actions.

"I'm not going to tell you because it's none of your damn business," he said.

Still, he did say, "If I had gone before a grand jury and taken the Fifth Amendment, Mr. Fitzgerald would have that on the street in about two minutes."

Call me crazy, but every time I see someone make a specific denial (in this case, that he plead the Fifth) while refusing to comment on a number of other allegations (in this case, that he revealed his source or made some kind of plea bargain)--particularly if the speaker is a major league asshole like Novak--I get even more suspicious that he cannot deny the primary allegations because, well, maybe they're true. Though if Fitzgerald dealt with Novak the way he dealt with Judy, then I suspect he would just hold the threat of an Obstruction charge over Novak's head to make him talk, not necessarily give him a full plea bargain.

Which brings us to the news that has gotten folks excited about this reporting:

Novak also claimed that investigators know who leaked the information, although he did not say how they know.

"The question is, does Mr. Fitzgerald know who the source was?" Novak asked. "Of course. He's known for years who the first source is. If he knows the source, why didn't he indict him? Because no crime was committed."

Novak said he doesn't believe his source violated laws forbidding the disclosure of a CIA agent's identity.

[snip]

At an appearance in December, Novak said President Bush knows his source, too. On Wednesday, he called those remarks "indiscreet."

Fitzgerald knows who his source is. Check. Is that because you told them, Novak? Oh, that's right, "none of your damn business." I'm most fascinated by the room for careful parsing here, something Novak is exceptional at.

First, Novak speaks about "the first source." An interesting way to describe that source, leaving open the possibility that Rove (the second or possibly even third source) is the one who gave Novak the real dirt, information on Plame's status. Which might be true if "[Novak] doesn't believe his source violated laws forbidding the disclosure of a CIA agent's identity." That is, if someone like (say) Richard Armitage told Novak that "Valerie Wilson works at the CIA" believing that she was a non-covered analyst, then Armitage would not have disclosed a (covered) CIA agent's identity. (Suggesting that maybe Rove did.)

But then there's the second part of the news, that in the same appearance where Novak insists that Fitzgerald knows who his source is (well, duh), he is backing off his December claim that President Bush knew who his source is. He doesn't deny it, mind you. He simply calls it "indiscreet."

From this, Sharon Jumper makes an interesting speculation over at DKos. Does this mean that Cheney or Bush was Novak's first source? They just insta-declassified a NOC's identity, as they did with the NIE and Wilson's trip report?

If so, there still would be some funniness with the Fitzgerald filing, which seems to name someone with a longer name as Novak's source.

But remember, that named source dealt with information Libby would (ostensibly) have no way of knowing. Fitzgerald wouldn't have to address information that Libby had testified to.

Suppose, if you will, that in addition to authorizing Libby to leak the NIE and the CIA report on Wilson's trip and the mysterious January 24 document, Bush or Cheney (more likely the latter) authorized Libby to seed the Plame leak. Suppose, further, that Libby did not testify to that fact--that he said only that Novak ought to look into the source of Wilson's trip, but that he did it on his own. But that Fitzgerald has reason to know (perhaps Novak told him) that Libby had told him Dick authorized the leak. So Libby, at the same time as he's seeding the Frances Fragos Townsend smear (also authorized by Dick), he seeds the Plame smear. Not a full-blown leak, mind you, not yet, anyway. Perhaps the instructions, "Go ask Armitage who sent Wilson."

It's all very convoluted and rampant speculation. But something like this seems to be the direction where Murray Waas' latest, which suggests strongly that Dick or Bush authorized the Plame leak, seems to be headed. And it's worth noting: I first reacted strongly against Novak's claim that, "If I had gone before a grand jury and taken the Fifth Amendment, Mr. Fitzgerald would have that on the street in about two minutes." Fitzgerald is nearly leak-proof. So how can Novak claim Fitzgerald would have leaked this news? But someone has gotten some details of Novak's testimony out to Waas. (Probably not Fitzgerald, but probably the FBI investigators working in Fall 2003.) The only way Novak can make such a complaint is if Waas' early reporting on Novak is accurate. Which would suggest his current reporting may also rely on Novak testimony.

The Novak claim that Bush knew his source has always been the biggest remaining piece of evidence against Armitage as Novak's source. There's just no reason why Armitage would have told Bush of the fact. But some convoluted plot like this one might explain both the Armitage allegations, Waas' latest, and Novak's bloviating from December.

Comments

[Jeff]

The only real news in Novak's comments I can see, and it is barely news, is that Novak pretty clearly confirms that he testified before the grand jury, and almost certainly did so early on in the investigation (all of which has been reported, of course). We knew that Fitzgerald learned who Novak's first source was in early 2004 (which makes it years ago), and i strongly suspect Novak talked after his source, Armitage, acknowledged being the source to Fitzgerald and released Novak from his confidentiality pledge. (Do we know when Armitage talked with Fitzgerald?)

I am still deeply puzzled by Novak's insistence that he can't talk about the case because of advice from his lawyers, and can't resist the idea that that puts him in a different category from the rest of the reporters, though of course it could just be covering for Armitage until the case is closed. I agree that Novak's comment about being astonished if Bush didn't know who his first source was remains puzzling. But maybe it was just a comment on the fact that within the administration it was no big secret, and it's hard to imagine Bush wouldn't have found out by now.

As for Waas, I've said it before, but I really don't think Waas is hinting that he knows that Cheney directed Libby to leak about Plame, only sharpening the question of whether he did in by showing the increasing improbability that he didn't in light of newly revealed, but public, evidence - Cheney's highly unusual role in micro-managing media strategy in relation to the 16 words and Wilsons' trip in July 2003.

[jerry]

If the President leaks it it's not a crime?

Maybe so, I've wondered if Tenet leaked something it's not a crime. I've also read that Congress has to approve declassifying NOCs identities., to avoid these things getting wrapped up in WH politics (Congressional politics being marginally better).

Yesterday I was thinking Bush could have been the source, it would explain why he's not dealing directly with the public about the story - and in his case perhaps it wasn't a crime. While doesn't fit the "no partisan gunslinger" description it would explain why Novak says Bush knows the ID of the leaker.

I'm enthused thinking Cheney would do it.

Interesting also about the FBI leaking to Waas.

[Mimikatz]

I suspect that this was a pretty well-coordinated, multi-stage project with bits and pieces leaqked out. "Seeding" the leak is a good metaphor. Fleischer did a bit, sending Novak to Armitage was probably a part, until someone (Rove?) actually gave Novak a couple more dots for him to connect to "Wilson's wife who works at the CIA sent him to Niger as a boondoggle; it had nothing to do with the VP and he never knew the results." Remember the Wilson smear is just part of a larger, well-coordinated strategy to deceive the people about the threat posed by Iraq and then covering up that fundamental deception. Large numbers of people in the Exec Branch were involved in this enterprise.

I think Novak's hints that Bush must have known mean that he got leaks from Libby that Libby said were authorized by Cheney and from Rove.

[whenwego]

Obviously, Novak's source was Cheney:
1. Cheney says Bush authorized him to "declassify", meaning "Bush knew" as Novak says
2. "No crime was committed" bcause it was an insta-declassification
On to the constitutional questions regarding indicting a sitting VP who claims the Prez made him do it!

[whenwego]

By the way, 3. "Vice-President" is quite a long name for the Fitz filings...

[William Ockham]

I think people here (and elsewhere) are reading way too much into Novak's statements. Novak's claim that there was no crime in the leak is pure bluster and spin. There is simply no way he can know that, but it is incredibly important for him to spin it that way. No one has ever been prosecuted for violating the IIPA and its authors certainly never envisioned the possibility that someone acting in the interest of the President (whether or not the President actually authorized the actions) would reveal the identity of a NOC operative for political revenge. A prosecutor as careful as Fitzgerald isn't going to even contemplate making that charge until he has the whole story. Libby's rather blatant lies, together with Rove's machinations, made it impossible to prove what actually happened. I wouldn't expect to see any charges relating to the actual outing until after Libby's trial. If Fitzgerald charges Rove for perjury and/or obstruction, we will have to wait until that one is over too. In the end, there actually may be no way to prove there was an IIPA violation.

[KenBee]

A little off topic..nah
Rove indictment RUMOR: yesterday 4/20/6 during his show, I only heard a minute of it, but Ed Shultz said Jason Leopold said Fitz had announced somewhere that Rove was going to be indicted.
Searched goog for Leopolds writings..nada.
Hours later after work, I expected to see stories all over...nada.
Jason..I've heard the rap. But Ed went with it I think...and it wouldn't be the first time he's gotten the breaking news before it broke either.
Anybody hear that? What about it? (Maybe I dreamed it..hah)(may have been a repeat show..I don't think so)
Good writing EW, you even make it look easy. Thanks again.

[Chow]

Slightly off topic question, but does Waas have a regular schedule of publishing articles? Like, does he publish a new one every other Thursday? Something like that?

[squeaky]

Nice one ew- I thought that the Novak article was basically self serving. He wants the world to know that he is deepthroat II and not obsolete. The weird line about Fitzgerald leaking was so off, even as a smear, that I thought he had gone dotty.

Your point is a bulls-eye and puts both Waas and Novak's line that no law was broken in perspective. He knows that his testimony was leaked and he thinks that it is Fitz. The only way Novak can make such a complaint is if Waas' early reporting on Novak is accurate. Which would suggest his current reporting may also rely on Novak testimony.

Fitz will serve justice by sticking with the simpler charges and stay away from the leak charge. Once the dems take back congress we will be able to sort out the unitary leaker and chief as well as the veep. To many worms for Fitz to open that can.

[JohnLopresti]

Novak's comment about the likelihood of Fitzgerald's informing the press [if N had sought protection of the fifth amendment] was a supportive comment related to Libby's strategy to suppress or crimp the flow of information. Jeralyn covers the latest very well today and just added a link to Jane's view; it is about the current contention between Libby and Fitzgerald regarding Walton's pending gag on both prosecution and defense. The most recent indiscretion was Libby's folks caught releasing a document before the court clerk had published it.

[Nancy Irving]

Excellent post, thank you very much!