He Said, He Said, He Said

by emptywheel

I'd like to follow-up on my posts from yesterday to lay out the status of Bob Novak's story. As he alluded in his column yesterday, Novak's testimony differs from Rove's and Harlow's testimony. Novak doesn't say if his testimony matched (presumably) Armitage's, perhaps because he doesn't know the substance of Armitage's.

I have revealed Rove's name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection. I have revealed Harlow's name because he has publicly disclosed his version of our conversation, which also differs from my recollection. My primary source has not come forward to identify himself.

In addition to these admitted differences, Novak's story differs from the story he was peddling in October 2003, during the prime cover-up period. By looking at these differences, I hope to understand more about how Rove and Novak got away with with the story they told Fitzgerald.

Rove Said, Novak Said

In yesterday's column, Novak doesn't provide many details about how he testified regarding his conversation with Karl.

Following my interview with the primary source, I sought out the second administration official and the CIA spokesman for confirmation.

Conveniently, Rove spokesman Corallo (hey! What is he doing sticking around? I thought "it was over" six weeks ago?) seems to be addressing the discrepancies in testimony in these comments (and I should reiterate, this Yost AP story is far and away the best coverage I've seen of Novak's brain dump yesterday).

"I have revealed Rove's name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection," Novak wrote. Novak did not elaborate.

A spokesman for Rove's legal team, Mark Corallo, said that Rove did not even know Plame's name at the time he spoke with Novak, that the columnist called Rove, not the other way around, and that Rove simply said he had heard the same information that Novak passed along to him regarding Plame.

"There was not much of a difference" between the recollections of Rove and Novak, said Corallo.

If this Corallo quote was really an attempt to explain the discrepancy, there were presumably three differences:

1. Novak says Rove knew Plame's name, whereas Rove says he didn't even know the name, much less share it
2. Novak says Rove called him, whereas Rove says Novak made the call
3. Rove remembers saying, "oh, you've heard that too," whereas Novak suggests Rove said something more

Not much of a difference, says Corallo. Though if we had a press corps, we might press the significance of these issues. Did Novak say Rove used Plame's name, for example? Not according to yesterday's Novak column. Novak reverts to--and strengthens--a claim he made during the cover-up period.

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

Compare that to Novak's claim from October 1, 2003.

Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry.

Or even Novak's use of the hypothetical in August 2005.

Once it was determined that Wilson's wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as "Valerie Plame" by reading her husband's entry in "Who's Who in America."

Whereas yesterday, Novak clearly claims he learned of Plame's name from Who's Who, in October 2003 and August 2005, he only said the name could be found via Who's Who, not that he had learned of it that way.

One aside about the name. I've pointed out that one version of Novak's October 2003 column used the name Valerie Flame. That was, of course, long before we knew Valerie Flame appeared in Judy Miller's notebooks, apparently coming from one of her sources on Plame. So Novak may have strengthened his Who's Who claim to downplay any chance that "Flame" reference came from the same source Judy got it from.

And here's a curious detail. We know that in his July 2003 interview with Phelps and Royce, Novak clearly said the SAOs called him.

Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

Here's how Novak described his Rove conversation in his October 1 column:

When I called another official for confirmation, he said: "Oh, you know about it."

In October, at least, Novak admitted to having called Rove. In yesterday's column, Novak says he sought out Rove (though this leaves open the possibility that Rove returned Novak's phone call, as Waas has alleged).

I sought out the second administration official and the CIA spokesman for confirmation.

Yet Corallo seems to suggest Novak testified differently (indeed, it is the strongest claim for a difference in testimony in Corallo's response), that Novak said Rove called him, not vice versa.

Then there's the question of what Rove said. Mostly, this dispute has been described as the difference between saying, "You heard that too?" and "Oh, you know about it." But there's one more discrepancy. In yesterday's column, Novak claims to have had three sources for his column: Armitage (presumably), Rove, and Harlow (plus Wilson, from whom he has two quotes). If had only three sources for the anonymous comments in his column, then, who told him the following:

The story, actually, is whether the administration deliberately ignored Wilson's advice, and that requires scrutinizing the CIA summary of what their envoy reported. Wilson's report ... was regarded by the CIA as less than definitive, and it is doubtful Tenet ever saw it. After eight days in the Niger capital of Niamey (where he once served), Wilson made an oral report in Langley that an Iraqi uranium purchase was "highly unlikely," though he also mentioned in passing that a 1988 Iraqi delegation tried to establish commercial contacts. The CIA report of Wilson's briefing remains classified. The Agency never before has declassified that kind of information, but the White House would like to do just that now -- in its and in the public's interest.[my emphasis]

Perhaps I'm crazy in thinking that Armitage was not part of the CIA report declassification process, led (as we know) covertly by Libby and Dick and overtly by Tenet and Hadley and Bartlett. Perhaps I'm crazy in wondering who in the White House would have told Armitage that they were trying to declassify the report. The last sentence, though, is definitely attributed to the White House. Armitage is not in the White House. So unless he's passing on information from the White House, then Novak either has more sources, or Rove said more than he's letting on.

So to summarize: assuming Corallo was indeed describing the differences between the testimony, then here is what has happened with Novak's and Rove's testimony.

Plame's Name: In October 2003 and August 2005, Novak hedged about the source for the name. In his column yesterday, he says he relied on Who's Who. But Corallo suggests Novak said Rove knew Plame's name, though Rove claims he didn't.

Who Called Whom: On July, 2003, Novak says "they" called him. In October 2003, he says he called Rove. Yesterday, he says he "sought out" Rove. Though Corallo seems to suggest Rove and Novak dispute who called whom.

What Rove Said: Small discrepancy in Rove's confirming statement, possible discrepancy on the level of detail passed on.

Harlow Said, Novak Said

The Harlow discrepancy is much more clear, because (contrary to what the press corps seems to understand) it was all exposed last summer. First though, let me point out how Novak's grammar has resulted in a huge misunderstanding on the part of the press. Novak describes learning that Fitzgerald knew he had spoken to Harlow when Fitzgerald showed up to Fitzgerald's first interview with Novak with a waiver from Harlow.

When Fitzgerald arrived, he had a third waiver in hand -- from Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column confirming Mrs. Wilson's identity.

Now I think this sentence means, "Fitzgerald had a third waiver, from Bill Harlow, the CIA source I cited in the column in which I confirmed Mrs. Wilson's identity." That is, the phrase, "confirming Mrs. Wilson's identity" modifies "column," not "CIA source." Nevertheless, many in the press are reading the sentence as, "Bill Harlow, the CIA source who confirmed Mrs. Wilson's identity." I'm sure Novak doesn't mind being misunderstood the way he is being misunderstood, since it makes it seem like he has confirmed a new source, as Drudge promised he would do. Who cares about clarity if it allows you to dominate the media and smear the CIA?

The actual discrepancy between Novak's and Harlow's testimony, as I said, is clearer than Novak's grammar. A WaPo article last July explained what Harlow apparently testified to.

Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed.

Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified.

A few days after the WaPo article, Novak responded with a rebuttal. First, he denies using the phrase "authorized" when he spoke to Harlow.

There never was any question of me talking about Mrs. Wilson "authorizing." I was told she "suggested" the mission, and that is what I asked Harlow.

He also goes onto to dispute the veracity of Harlow's characterization in the WaPo, using the politicized SSCI.

His denial was contradicted in July 2004 by a unanimous Senate Intelligence Committee report. The report said Wilson's wife "suggested his name for the trip." It cited an internal CIA memo from her saying "my husband has good relations" with officials in Niger and "lots of French contacts," adding they "could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." A State Department analyst told the committee that Mrs. Wilson "had the idea" of sending Wilson to Africa.

The claim that Plame "suggested" Wilson came from the additional views from Roberts, Hatch, and Bond, not the unanimous conclusions. Plame did write a memo describing Wilson's qualifications. But the SSCI misrepresents what the analyst notes say.

So Novak uses spin to make his point, but it shouldn't matter. Even if Harlow lied to Novak about Plame's role in the Niger trip as a way to shut him up, if Harlow said it, then there shouldn't be a dispute. So for the purposes of testimony (as opposed to spin) the discrepancy is between "authorized" and "suggested."

Novak reacts even more strongly against Harlow's description of the warning he gave Novak.

Harlow said to the Post that he did not tell me Mrs. Wilson "was undercover because that was classified." What he did say was, as I reported in a previous column, "she probably never again would be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties.'" According to CIA sources, she was brought home from foreign assignments in 1997, when Agency officials feared she had been "outed" by the traitor Aldrich Ames.

I have previously said that I never would have written those sentences if Bill Harlow, then CIA Director George Tenet or anybody else from the Agency had told me that Valerie Plame Wilson's disclosure would endanger herself or anybody.

Again, a lot of this is irrelevant to the testimony they each gave. Harlow admits he didn't say Plame was undercover, because that was classified. They agree, apparently, that Harlow said exposing her name would "cause difficulties." The biggest discrepancy in their testimony--and the most important discrepancy--has to do with whether Harlow told Novak not to use Plame's name. Harlow says he told Novak twice not to use Plame's name. Novak makes some lameass excuses, but never actually denies that he received a warning or two not to use her name.

So to summarize, here are the similarities and differences between Harlow's and Novak's testimony:

Plame's Role in the Trip: Harlow claims Novak said Plame "authorized the mission." Novak says he said Plame "suggested" the mission. Novak doesn't apparently dispute that Harlow told him Novak's assertion was wrong.

Plame's Status: Both agree that Harlow didn't tell Novak Plame was covert.

Use of Plame's Name: Harlow says he told Novak, twice, that he shouldn't use Plame's name. Novak says Harlow said, "exposure of her name might cause 'difficulties.'" Novak says Harlow didn't tell him using Plame's name "would endanger herself or anybody."

Novak on (Presumably) Armitage Then, and Novak on (Presumably) Armitage Now

There are even some discrepancies between what Novak has previously said about (presumably) Armitage and what he said yesterday. In October 2003, he said the following.

During a long conversation with a senior administration official, I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger.

Yesterday, he said the following.

Joe Wilson's wife's role in instituting her husband's mission was revealed to me in the middle of a long interview with an official who I have previously said was not a political gunslinger. After the federal investigation was announced, he told me through a third party that the disclosure was inadvertent on his part.

In 2003, he described this source as "no partisan gunslinger;" yesterday, he only said he had previously said the source was "not a political gunslinger," which may suggest he's backing off his prior claim. I have no idea whether Novak considers a "partisan" gunslinger to be different from a "political" gunslinger. [Hat tip to Elwood Dowd for noticing this detail.]

Also note that yesterday Novak didn't admit to asking (presumably) Armitage about Wilson's trip, instead leaving the impression that (presumably) Armitage brought it up of his own accord.

Most importantly, though, Novak changes his description of what (presumably) Armitage told him. In 2003, he said, "Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife." Novak, like Libby, knows enough about the CIA to know that a counterproliferation employee would be in the DO side of the house, and almost certainly covert. But yesterday, he was much more vague about what (presumably) Armitage said. "Joe Wilson's wife's role in instituting her husband's mission," carries none of the same connotation of covert status that his earlier version did. Is Novak changing his story about what he learned?

Novak Said Then, Novak Said Now

I think I'm most fascinated by the other key difference in Novak's October 2003 story and yesterday's story. (I mentioned this yesterday and Swopa's done more on it today.) In 2003, Novak went to great lengths to invent some BS about Plame's employ at the CIA being common knowledge and why he used the word "operative."

How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry.

A big question is her duties at Langley. I regret that I referred to her in my column as an "operative," a word I have lavished on hack politicians for more than 40 years. While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is "covered" -- working under the guise of another agency. However, an unofficial source at the Agency says she has been an analyst, not in covert operations.

Never mind that both of those have been discredited. Apparently, Fitzgerald has reason to believe that May did not know Plame's identity. Of course, Novak didn't say he, Novak, knew of Plame's employ, only that May had claimed to. And Josh Marshall has shown that Novak uses "operative" to refer to people working in clandestine capacity. Of course, Novak didn't claim he was using the word "operative" with Plame to smear her as a partisan hack, only that he had in the past. (And he further evades the issue by talking about her function, rather than her classified status; and yesterday's article suggests his "unofficial" source naming Plame as an analyst was a later source, not one he used for his original column.)

So both these claims are bullshit. But Novak thought them sufficiently important bullshit to dedicate two paragraphs to, in 2003. He went to great lengths to invent excuses for revealing that Plame was covert.

But there was none of that yesterday. He simply ignores his qualification of Plame, in the original column, as an operative.

I reported that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was employed by the CIA and helped initiate his 2002 mission to Niger.

He backs off describing Plame as working in counterproliferation again when he describes his conversation with (presumably) Armitage. His only mention of anything to do with Plame's covert status comes in his parsed statement that suggests (presumably) Armitage and Rove will not be prosecuted for the IIPA violation.

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

Yet even there, he backs off claiming that no one will be charged for the violation, or even knowing that Fitzgerald won't indict his sources for an IIPA violation.

In other words, Novak changes the story completely, turning a case about the outing of a covert operative into a story about Plame intervening to suggest her husband for the Niger trip.

Would it be too much to hope that journalists might notice the difference and ask Novak about the discrepancy as he plays media whore today?

Never mind. Don't answer that.

Bonus New Robert Novak Links

To piss us liberals off just as we're linking to Town Hall for the first time in months, they've redone their archive. As a special service, here are the new Townhall URLs for all the Novak stories relating to Plame:

July 10, 2003 Column Smearing Frances Fragos Townsend
July 14, 2003 Column Outing a CIA NOC
October 1, 2003 Column Inventing a New Story
August 1, 2005 Column Disagreeing with Harlow

Comments

[kim]

Is Typepad down due to some ultra-secret NSA counter-terror program?

[kim]

Hey, it's working again!

EW, what do you think of Novak's characterization of his as-yet-unnamed source (basically, a senior admin official who it is very hard to get to talk to)?

[John Casper]

As per usual, thanks for a terrific post and the Fitz fix.

[emptywheel]

kim

Yup, Typepad sucks bad! It was down most of the day yesterday.

I'm watching the video now. I think the characterization (he also says they talked about foreign policy and they talked in person) strongly supports the Armitage theory and almost certainly rules out Ari (whose name was one of the only ones that fit in the redacted trascripts).

I'm most curious about how Novak characterized the descriptions Armitage (presumably) and Harlow gave. Armitage supposedly said, "Nuclear nonproliferation office" and Harlow said, "office of weapons of mass destruction." That differs from what he has said in the past, and may suggest WINPAC (on the analysis side) rather than CPD (on the operations side). In other words, it would lead someone to think she was an analyst, not an operative, as Bob called her. So why did he use the term "operative"?

[kim]

But does Armitage seem like someone who would be hard to get to talk to? Maybe ol' Bob is just fogging the waters (muddying my metaphors) again?

[kim]

It's gotta be Bush, Cheney, Powell, or Tenet! (Rice? Novak did say they were talking about foreign policy....)

[emptywheel]

Well, Andrea Mitchell was bitching contemporaneously because he wouldn't do any interviews with her.

It can't be any of the people you list. Their names don't fit the redacted filings.

[QuickSilver]

From today's Los Angeles Times:

Last month, Wilson and Plame — who retired from the CIA last year, saying that her career had been ruined by Novak's disclosure — indicated through their lawyer that they were considering legal action against Rove and other officials.

Although it is far from clear how such a suit would be structured and who the defendants would be, Novak would probably be a key witness. Some people close to Wilson and Plame think they would like to subpoena Novak and ask him under oath to identify the source who started it all. The law seems to be working in their favor: Judges are increasingly saying that journalists have no right to withhold the names of their sources.

"We are keeping all of our options open," Wilson said when asked about prospects for a lawsuit in an interview with The Times last month, "and I am leaning forward as I say that."

[QuickSilver]

The full Robert Novak interview on Fox can be viewed on YouTube (Part I and Part II).

[QuickSilver]

Emptywheel, did Novak say he met with his original source a few days after the Wilson column ran? Does that make sense?

[orionATL]

thanks for the summary and for keeping track of this hydra,

it may all be over, as most assume, but, if so, there are some pieces that have been removed, ex cathedra, from this puzzle.

[Jeff]

There is a lot of interest in Novak’s Fox interview, but I want to point out one seemingly new detail Novak provides which addresses the question: what did the CIA do to try to dissuade Novak from publishing, and specifically, what did Harlow say to Novak? Novak has argued that he got a weak request. Up until now, Novak’s canonical version of what Harlow told him was given in his October 1 2003 column:

He asked me not to use her name, saying she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad. He never suggested to me that Wilson's wife or anybody else would be endangered. If he had, I would not have used her name.

This makes it sound like Harlow told him that she probably will never again be given a foreign assignment but that exposure of her name might cause “difficulties” if she traveled abroad, right? Well, in the interview yesteday, on this point Novak initially repeats his canonical version:

Bill Harlow said to me that she would likely never have another assignment abroad. He said it might be embarrassing if her CIA connection was written about and he asked me not to write it.

Now, on the question of what Harlow asked Novak not to write about, this is interestingly different from what we’ve heard previously: Harlow asks Novak not to write about her CIA connection, not just not to write her name. I suspect anyway that Novak has always been willfully misunderstanding and misrepresenting the point of what Harlow told him in asking him not to publish – namely, Novak has suggested Harlow asked him not to publish her name, but was okay with publishing “Wilson’s wife.” Whether Harlow talked about not using her name, I strongly suspect the obvious point was, “If you write about Wilson’s mission, don’t use Plame,” i.e. don’t use information about Plame and her CIA affiliation.

In any case, the point I want to focus more on is that when Novak comes back to the issue later in the interview, he really significantly departs from the canonical version on what Harlow told him about risks to Plame from publishing:

But as a matter of fact, her life wasn't in danger and he said it is very unlikely she would ever go to Europe. That meant to me that she was not doing any kind of work as an agent in Europe. So, all he was saying is it might be embarrassing to her if she went on a vacation trip with her husband if she was identified as a CIA person and that wasn't a good enough reason for keeping her name out.

Got that – on this account, what Harlow told Novak was not that Plame would probably never go (on assignment) abroad altogether, not “she probably never again will be given a foreign assignment,” but that Plame would probably not go (on assignment) to Europe. If I were a smart reporter and Harlow told me that, the question I would ask myself is, “Is Harlow telling me she may go on assignment abroad outside of Europe?”

Novak himself now seems to suggest that he interpreted what Harlow was saying differently, via a two-step inference, from what Harlow said to the reasonable inference that she was not doing any kind of work as an agent in Europe and from there to the unreasonable inference that “it might be embarrassing to her if she went on a vacation trip with her husband.” I strongly suspect that Novak is now offering the merest rationalization for his willful misunderstanding of what Harlow was doing - trying to indicate to Novak that he really shouldn’t publish because she might indeed be involved in the future in covert assignments abroad.

To be fair to Novak, there is, I think, another piece of the puzzle of what Harlow told him, the piece paraphrased in Novak’s canonical version as the fact that “exposure of her name might cause "difficulties" if she travels abroad.” If Harlow told Novak that there might be difficulties if she traveled to Europe, then Novak can make a more defensible case for understanding what Harlow was telling him the way he did. But if Harlow told Novak there would be difficultlies if Plame traveled abroad, then Novak is an even more indefensible scoundrel than I thought. Because then the obvious implication of what Harlow was telling Novak is, "Plame won’t be going on assignments in Europe in the future, but if you write about her, there will be diffulties – that is, trouble for her – if she travels on assignment abroad, which we are hereby implying she will do, just not to Europe.” If Harlow told him there would be difficulties if Plame traveled abroad, and that she would probably not go on assignment to Europe, then Novak’s inference that Harlow was telling him that exposure of her identity would make it difficult for her and her husband to vacation in Europe is so blatantly idiotic that it can only mean that Novak was willfully misinterpreting what Harlow was telling him and ignoring the warning he was issuing.

Will we ever find out? Libby’s defense has Harlow’s notes of his conversation with Novak, which quite a while back Waas reported (assuming he is talking about Harlow, as I am almost positive he is) confirm Harlow’s version – though we’ve never gotten the detail about Europe from Harlow himself as of yet. And Harlow may testify, as part of Libby’s effort to suggest the CIA didn’t act like it needed to protect Plame’s status. But if Harlow’s notes are as damning for Novak as I am suggesting they might be, then Libby may well stay away from that episode, even if he calls Harlow to testify about what he told Cathie Martin. Maybe we’ll get a fuller version of Harlow’s version in Tenet’s book. Or maybe Harlow will go public again and in more detail in response to Novak’s most recent version.

[Jeff]

Some more notes from Novak's Fox interview:
1. Novak called Rove.
2. Novak appears never to have had an explicit confidentiality agreement with Armitage, he just assumed one based on how candid Armitage was being. Novak may never had had one with Rove either - he just may have assumed this like most of his conversations with Rove was not for attribution.
3. Novak resists Hume's efforts to get him to say he called Rove about something else (i.e. Townsend), saying at one point he called Rove about several things including the Niger mission and then saying that he called Rove about the Niger mission.
4. Novak makes it sound like when he called Harlow initially, Harlow didn't really say anything about Plame, only talking about Plame when Harlow called Novak back. This is consistent with one past report and seemingly inconsistent with another.
5. The person who got in touch with Novak shotrly after the investigation was announced to tell him about Armitage's inadvertence wasn't Fitzgerald, but someone close to Armitage. (Powell, Wilkerson, or someone less prominent?) Wow, so Novak not only coordinated his story with Rove, he was coached by Armitage.
6. Novak clarifies that Armitage's inadvertence wasn't mentioning Wilson's wife, as his column seemed to suggest and which makes no sense, but rather was the revelation of classified information about Plame. That is, Armitage deliberately brought up Wilson's wife's CIA affiliation and her role in her husband's trip, thereby blowing her cover, but he wasn't deliberately or knowingly blowing her cover or revealing classified information. Presumably this is the strategy he pursued in getting off the hook with Fitzgerald. Libby will be quite happy to hear this, especially if Armitage learned about Plame from Grossman or the INR memo, as seems likely.
7. Novak is saying he learned Plame's CIA affiliation from Armitage, and had it confirmed by Rove. I take it this answers Swopa's question.
8. Novak says that no one in the administration was critical of Wilson, that he wasn't critical of Wilson in his column, and that Rove at no time belittled Wilson. We've had some disagreements over how to interpret Novak's column. But in any case, if all this is true, then someone should ask Novak how he came up with the judgment and manner of expressing it he gave Wilson's friend on the street on July 8: "Wilson's an asshole etc." I take it the short answer is, Armitage. Unless Novak came up with it all on his own.

[kim]

I saw somewhere (Huffpost-AP?) that Novak says he only talked with Rove for 20 seconds, sounds like just calling to verify a fact - not much time even for background. I still don't think these details fit Armitage, though Armitage does seem to fit the redacted spaces.

[emptywheel]

Kim--the part about Plame was only 20 seconds long. The rest was about other aspects of the Niger trip.

[Jeff]

One more note on what appears to be the emergent collapse of Novak’s previous, self-exculpatory accounts of what Bill Harlow at the CIA told him. As I mentioned, one aspect of Novak’s justification for publishing about Plame despite warnings from Harlow against it has focused on her name. Novak represents himself as having interpreted the warning to refer specifically to her name and the name alone. Here is the strongest form of Novak’s interpretation of what Harlow said on this count, from Novak’s August 1 2005 column in response to a Post article a week or so earlier that cited Harlow:

He told the Post reporters he had "warned" me that if I "did write about it her name should not be revealed." That is meaningless. Once it was determined that Wilson's wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as "Valerie Plame" by reading her husband's entry in "Who's Who in America."

Now, Novak here appears to be on solid ground, since it appears that Harlow’s own account states he specified that Novak should not use her name. But was he fixating on the name as such? Novak is now claiming that he did in fact learn her name from Who’s Who, not any of his sources – and the implication of that is that he already had “Valerie Plame” in hand when he spoke with Harlow on July 10, since Novak used her first name with Wilson’s friend whom he talked with on the street on July 8. This raises several questions regarding what Novak and Harlow said to each other, especially in light of something Novak is now saying: Harlow himself did not use, and therefore did not raise, Wilson’s wife’s name. From last night’s reprehensible performance by Novak on Hannity and Colmes (transcript via Crooks and Liars):

But, as a matter of fact, let me assure you that neither my primary source gave — mentioned Valerie Plame’s name to me, nor did Karl Rove mention the name to me, nor did the CIA spokesman. They just talked about Joe Wilson’s wife. I got her name from "Who’s Who"…

So, 1)did Novak bring up Plame’s name with Harlow? 2)If not, then her name wasn’t used at all, and how could Novak have interpreted Harlow’s warning as applying specifically to her name, as opposed to her, especially since Novak now seems to acknowledge that Harlow asked him not to write about her CIA affiliation? 3)If her name did come up because Novak brought it up, did Harlow issue a specific warning about the name in addition to the one about her CIA affiliation? And if so, how could Novak not have appreciated that something was going on that he should be cautious about? And what exactly was the warning regarding her name – was it, “If you write about her, don’t use her name”? Or something like, “If you write about the mission, don’t use her name?” Because if it’s the latter, then it is not nearly as meaningless as Novak tried to suggest.

[QuickSilver]

Novak claims his interview with Mr. X took place "just a few days" after Wilson's July 6th editorial was published. That better be July 8th, because that's the day (afternoon) a friend of Wilson's showed up at his office with "a strange and disturbing tale" of having met Novak on the street near the White House. "Wilson’s an asshole. The CIA sent him. His wife, Valerie, works for the CIA. She’s a weapons of mass destruction specialist. She sent him,” Novak reportedly said. What would have pushed Novak into such a fit of anger? Novak's emotional state on July 8th (and his later dissembling about it) speaks to a deeper animus. Rove and Novak are also known to have spoken about Mrs. Wilson on July 8th.

The timeline just doesn't feel right, and I suspect Novak already knew Plame's identity and CIA role when interviewing Mr. X. It's very troubling that Mr. X later sent word to Novak, through a third party, that his admission was inadvertent. Essentially, he let Novak know it was OK to testify about their conversation and, if necessary, to make use of it as his (supposed) primary source.

[emptywheel]

Jeff,

Btw, I thought the Europe reference was just an attempt to make the travel thing sound even more farcical, as if the only danger would be if Valerie didn't get to buy ball gowns in Paris anymore. But it also suggests he knew where Valerie was posted. Now, he's probably read Joe's book (or had some flunkey read it for him), so he could have learned it then. But the reference to Europe implies a knowledge of her past work which was not public at the time.

Novak's blabbing is ruining his logic. You both raise superb points (but come raise them in my NEW Novak post). So far, we've got:

Novak's anger on July 8
Jeff's name issue
The hide the affiliation issue
THe use of "suggested"
THe use of "operative"
The transparent BS of the Who's Who

Also, why look in Who's Who anyway? Why not look in Joe's State bio for background? There's no reason to use Plame's name, and never was, particularly not after Harlow said not to use it.

All of which suggests that Novak just fucked with the CIA as much as he could. He basically ignored everything Harlow said.

[Jeff]

Have I been EPU'd? What does that mean anyway?

But it also suggests he knew where Valerie was posted.

I was going to include one interesting item on this. In his article way back in February 2004, Waas has this, pretty obviously based in part on contact with Harlow:

The two officials say Novak was told, as one source put it, that Plame's work for the CIA "went much further than her being an analyst," and that publishing her name would be "hurtful" and could stymie ongoing intelligence operations and jeopardize her overseas sources.

"When [Novak] says that he was not told that he was 'endangering' someone, that statement might be technically true," this source says. "Nobody directly told him that she was going to be physically hurt. But that was implicit in that he was told what she did for a living."

Now, some of this may be overstating the case that was made to Novak. But that last line makes me think that Novak may indeed have been told that she did sensitive work in Europe in the past, perhaps as a setup for saying she won't work in Europe again as a way of implying that she would work elsewhere.