« More Voodoo Economics | Main | Authoritarian Personality Theory and Studies. »

July 11, 2006


Par for the course. The corporate media will find any excuse to shill. This seems to be part of a well orchestrated move to reinforce that the consiprators have got away and there is nothing left of the Fitz investigation and all is clear on the western front. And no crimes have been committed. Notice that Rove is back to his propaganda ways on the speaking circuit and running the Fall camapign for the Repubs to retain their congressional majority.

The AP nailed it. Novak said Rove was a source for his Plame column. That's really all there is to it. The only two questions are:

1. Who's the first source, presumed to be Armitage?

2. Why now?

Lots of speculation on number 1, but I think number 2 is more fun. Rove is in the spotlight a lot these days trying to save the House and the Senate. He certainly didn't need this. And Novak is naming Rove but not his first source. I can't really read this as anything other than a swipe at Rove. Note also that Novak came forward and claimed he was cleared well after Rove did. The timing is a bit odd. You would think that if Fitz had just thrown up his hands, they would have both gotten letters at the same time. Wild-ass theories:

A. Fitz got a lot more out of Rove than anyone has let on. He was able to use his additional information to put the screws to Novak, who also had to cough something up. Fitz has concluded that they are both assholes, but in the end, they both told the truth, and neither of them can be proved to have violated the IIPA.

B. A Wilson/Plame civil suit could be imminent, and Novak may just be trying to get ahead of the curve. He would almost certainly be named in any civil suit, since he was specifically told not to publish this story by the CIA. In one of life's wonderful ironies, this could hit at exactly the time that the White House tries to bring down the hammer on reporters who publish classified information.

C. My favorite: Rove gave Fitz the goods on Cheney, and now Cheney is trying to get back at him through Novak. Remember, two days ago, the talking point was that Rove had been cleared. Now we're back to Rove being guilty all along, and it's coming straight from the douchebag of liberty's mouth.

Has anyone been able to confirm or refute the rumor that the statute of limitations for the Wilsons is three years?

i agree with Frank that the AP story might represent a shift in the coverage. We'll see. But just to add to the outrage, not only is it not news that Harlow discussed Plame with Novak, it is even less newsworthy than the fact that Rove was Novak's source, since this in fact is the first time that Novak has confirmed publicly that Rove was his source, while Novak himself has discussed - and discussed more extensively - his contact with Harlow. So it's not even news that Novak is saying on the record that Harlow was someone he talked about Plame with. To say nothing of the fact that Harlow was not one of Novak's two senior administration offical anyway.

I'm just astounded about two things:

1) They totally botched this media blitz. Maybe they were in a rush. But geez, this isn't like Rove OR Novak.

2) Having been worked into a frenzy and then short-changed on the promised scoop, the media has so far reacted by looking for a scoop, any scoop, even if it's a recycled scoop. When do you get angry for being misled?

Have any of you actually ready the original article of Novak's? Especially where he says that he got Plame's name from Wilson's paid entry into 'Who' who in America' and that Rove was the 'confirming' source not the 'primary' source? Some of you people will believe everything you read in the lame-street drive-by media...
Go to the source! Not someone else's version...

Uh, unbelieveable, perhaps you ought to do a little research yourself before you start lecturing people?

Emptywheel, you have proved my point. Reread your 'article' and see how many times you add your own opinions and speculations...

Pretty neat idea about "Flame" and Novak's melt-down with Mr. Matalin on CNN. That was a special moment, ahh.

Having been worked into a frenzy and then short-changed on the promised scoop, the media has so far reacted by looking for a scoop, any scoop, even if it's a recycled scoop. When do you get angry for being misled?

Great point, but the answer to the question is probably never.

Maybe Fitz freed Novak because some part of Rove's "commitments" to him have been achieved and Novak is relaying this info? Fitz now has a case against Bickus Dickus (BDUS)?

Funny how Novak doesn't quite come out and say who was the first person to tell him that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA... and specifically, whether he already knew that when he spoke to the primary-source-presumed-to-be-FleischerArmitage.

If he's such a free man and is going to be all over the media today, maybe someone could ask him.

Noting that Mr. Novak seems well advised from a legal standpoint, I can’t imagine that this column was published without the blessing of his legal advisors. My experience with good lawyers is that they choose words very carefully. The following just stood out for me:

1. "Published reports that I took the Fifth Amendment, made a plea bargain with the prosecutors or was a prosecutorial target WERE all untrue." emphasis added

Does this mean that they were untrue at the time they were published? and are now true? Wouldn't "are" have been a better verb?

2. "The other was by presidential adviser Karl Rove, whom I INTERPRET as confirming my primary source's information."

What a choice of words! Suggests clearly that the facts are open to interpretation.

Apologies if any of this repeats points made in any of several earlier posts.



No, I think you're right to watch Novak's parsing. He's a master parser. I'm most struck by his "I interpret." He may be trying to address criticism that, if all Rove said was, "you've heard that too?" then he had no business reporting it--that it doesn't qualify as a confirmation, according to any known rules of journalism. Or, he could be trying to parse knowing that Rove said something qualitative about Plame, but Novak has downplayed that.

about the Statute of Limitation on Valerie Plame's civil suit

if Valerie Plam can prove there was a criminal conspiricy involved, she can invoke the RICO Statute

the RICO Statute has a 10 year Statute of Limitation

anybody think Ms Plame will have a problem proving a conspiricy ???

Saving Novak and Rove
Here is a post with a title. hm

I think Novak is trying to ease the burden he has carried these long three years since the articles he published setting the vortex into motion. If it is true he has no income sourced from the prominent defense funds such as the telephone bank jammer or the indicted chief of staff from the VP's office, he makes his eloquent diclaimers now and basks as the responsibility for the smear becomes diffuse.

I looked a bit at the origin of IIPA. It came from very turbulent times when some intelligence agency people who sought to help proletarian demonstrator politicos in the US were brought into a very narrow definition of illegal behavior with passage of IIPA. It originated as a conservative legislative construct. It would be peculiar if the very specificity of the current smear were to result in netting a few paleopartisans. I would imaging Novak having written opEds at the time in support of IIPA. We have good lawyers in our company who know best about these matters.

I hope the seeming new life in congressional committees recently is an awakening. There is so much to know, though, the seal appears on the Novak exoneration until at least January 2007, which is probably the motive for the amorphous exculpations now. If Rove and Novak are immune now and if they were central to how the smear initialized, they are sure to be much more contented over these next few months.

Many parallel threads are ongoing, especially this week, but those will wait until the germane diary post appears. KX is tracing, and helping lead in some of these.

Took a long time from when the investigation ended with Luskin's fax from Fitz for Novak to admit he had a concurrent fax, didn't it?

Let;s not forget Novak's big shout-out to Karl: "They already knew."

They definitely already knew - Who didn't? - Peace - Shareeen x

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad