Luskin and Fitz are friends? WTF?

Sounds like a set-up of some weird sort to me.

Did someone say ‘rat’?

I greatly admired the way our man Fitz ran through that rat behind the curtain last Fitzgiving…however…perp’s like Rove can sense the slightest weakness. By not slapping Gonzo and Woodchipper with serious obstruction indictment’s I believe he may have shown weakness …in the reptilian eye’s of the Turd Rex I mean.

Then again he may be playing Sun Tzu’s game of luring the enemy ‘ in deep’.

This is a tough one but I would urge all not to place all cereal’s in one box. ( Or beers in one can for that matter ) Merry Fitzmas and happy state of the union next year.

GrandmaJ metaphor of Rove playing 3 chess-
games has a lot of merit to it. We all need to
develop a counter-strategy if this is the case.
I do see Rove going down. Who else including Libby we all will have to wait. Down the road
look for a lot of right-wing Nationalistic
hysteria even more shrill then today coupled
with Voting machine corruption to steal
elections in 06. Cheney will have accomplished
his work which is deliver the OIL of Iraq to the
Multinationals, even if he is indicted.
Have a rat running in the walls tonight.
Going to go set some traps. That’s what we
have to do to this criminal ruling class—trap
them anyway we can.

Sam, I think we are going to hear a lot more about the unspoken prime driver for the war in the coming weeks.

Lieberman, Iraq war cheerleader, recently talked about the geopolitical oil issue:

http://www.forbes.com/business…..61993.html

I’ve also noticed a lot of articles recently about Sudan and China.

There is also the interesting recent Zogby poll about China being right behind France as the country most trusted by Mideast Arabs.

Throw into the mix the leaked 2002 DPB presentation:

http://www.cooperativeresearch…..isinvolved

Not good. Not good at all. Dec. 15th Iraqi elections upcoming (Judith, are you on the story?), with Sistani making an implicit endorsement – and a call for unified Shiite voting- is basically going to leave us up the creek without a paddle.

Anyway, more on point, my latest theoretical narrative is:

- WH knew Niger story blew chunks for awhile
- Wilson wife outing was just one prong of a Cheney approved WHIG damage control operation
- damage control focus was to make sure the whole Niger thing wouldn’t be looked at too closely, because it was part of larger information operation (not just WHIG)
- Fitz’s problem is that he know about the wider operation (partially classified) and the authorization of the WHIG Niger action but can’t find conclusive evdence that there was a conspiracy beyond Libby and Rove. But he suspects there might be Cheney approval
- Hadley, knowing the most about the Niger fiasco, was the point man in the WHIG for coordination on the Niger action
- Rove’s e-mail to Hadley was simple reporting up for coordination purposes.
- the Strobel article about the Franklin investigation being about the “whole ball of wax” was where that investigation intersected the global information operation activated at the beginning of the Afghanistan war.

But, tomorrow I may think differently.

I went searching for more about the Rove Hadley email, and found an interesting Newsday article as to what Fitz was looking for in WH supoenas http://ballistichelmet.org/pip…..02616.html

http://justoneminute.typepad.c…..y_on_.html has the same Newsday article, but also adds more as to the supoena list. Interesting list, but it’s not clear where this added information comes from.

—A federal grand jury has subpoenaed White House records on administration contacts with more than two dozen journalists and news media outlets in a special investigation into the improper leak of a covert CIA official’s identity to columnist Robert Novak last July. They include:

Robert Novak, “Crossfire,” “Capital Gang” and the Chicago Sun-Times; Knut Royce and Timothy M. Phelps, Newsday; Walter Pincus, Richard Leiby, Mike Allen, Dana Priest and Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post; Matthew Cooper, John Dickerson, Massimo Calabresi, Michael Duffy and James Carney, Time magazine; Evan Thomas, Newsweek; Andrea Mitchell, “Meet the Press,” NBC; Chris Matthews, “Hardball,” MSNBC; Tim Russert, Campbell Brown, NBC; Nicholas D. Kristof, David E. Sanger and Judith Miller, The New York Times; Greg Hitt and Paul Gigot, The Wall Street Journal; John Solomon, The Associated Press; Jeff Gannon, Talon News

Hmmm… if the list is correct, seems hard to “understand” why “Cooper” would have been left out of the search terms. But maybe they were looking for direct communications and not emails mentioning reporters. Whatever, I found it pretty amusing that “Andrea Mitchell” and “Jeff Gannon” were on the very same list.
-

Jane S: “I think the Feds. and Fitz knew about the email and watched Karl lie about it to the Grand Jury. “

I’m with Jane S. on this, and Fitz’s gamesmanship in this regard also relates to P’s anxious comment earlier at 8:07:

“…what bothers me is the redacted 8 pages in the Dow Jones motion….Now, from FitzÂ’s motion to release portions of the redacted pages, itÂ’s revealed (I think) that there is no classified information in there and that most of the information is already out there….Please, if someone could convince me …that there is some sort of indication that this investigation has expanded beyond just Libby and Rove, IÂ’d most appreciate it.”

P, I don’t think you have to worry. Two things about Fitz: 1) he starts low and relentlessly works his way up. 2) He appears to be a master of understatement and soft-sell. Remember Fitz’s indictment press conference? He said words to the effect, “This investigation is for the most part over…” He described the limits of “this indictment,” and made of point of saying that it didn’t cover the espionage act. He didn’t say, “I’m not going there.” He said, “This indictment isn’t going there.” People wailed, “Fitz don’t fail me now” (sorry for the pun… Little Feat fan). But he’s since gone on to more investigations, and a new GJ.

We’re going beyond Libby and Rover. It won’t happen fast, but it will happen.

Frank P.

The original search of e-mails did include “Niger”. I still don’t see how it was missed even without the “Cooper”, “Wilson”, etc.
Teresa | 12.03.05 – 8:34 pm | #
———————————————————–
Teresa and others,

Mea culpa. I had forgotten about the Niger reference. So much for that idea.

LOll.. so slap me… i should have refreshed before correcting me3 for a fourth time.

Me3,
You are thinking of Conrad Black, the publisher. Charles Black swims in much smaller ponds.

Btw, whenever the comment thread over here gets too crowded, we can all head over to Needlenose. The comments there are moderated, and I know for a fact (well, friend of a friend told a friend kind of thing) that Swopa would like nothing better than to moderate 50-100 comment submissions per hour.

You game? :)

“In assessing conduct and motivations here, don’t forget then that delay until after the elction was at the top of their list..
Robin | 12.03.05 – 8:34 pm “

And in keeping with that line of thought, I have wondered if Rove really is playing with a different game board than everyone else is, including Fitz.

He might just be diverting everyone’s attention in 10 different directions and not even care about proving eventual innocence or guilt. He believes he can out bloviate anyone around, including Fitz, and will wait for his pardon.

If Rove has to leave the WH, he will be on everyone’s speed dial.

Rove is playing 3 level chessgames. One level is Bush policy (ick), second level is Fitz and keeping him at Bay until Dec. 2006, and third is to keep their majorities in both houses despite their turmoil.

We have new mail :)

Shez,

Nice find, “welfare reform” deal with Rove. That puts it in context I guess time wise. That’s been bothering me for a long time! ; )

What a great forum this is! I’m so glad I found “you guys” (Jane, Redd, posters). Nite!

Soory bout that… Conrad Black was the media tycoon just taken down by Fitzgerald :-0

oops… back to sluthing

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cpress…..r_black_19

Me3: you’re thinking of Conrad Black – a different Black.

The URL for the article Big Oil Take Over of Iraq

http://www.comondreams.org/views05/1203-23.htm

or just go to Google and type in
CommonDream.org.

The article is on todays post there.

Cozumel — I can see a possibility painted out of that scenario; Rove hangs up in full CYA, does a quick search to see what Cooper’s been working on, whips up an email with mixed context combining welfare reform and Niger/Plame. Maybe leaves it in a draft folder… Doesn’t come up on first search because it’s only a so-called draft — the search parameters only picked up sent mail.

But did Rove really generate a draft at the time of the call? or much, much later? Hmm.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1203-23.htm

Mission Accomplished: Big Oil’s Occupation of Iraq
by Heather Wokusch

Different Black – if you’re thinking about Conrad Black aka Lord Black of Crossharbour who appeared in court in Chicago this week.

Conrad Black is different from
Charles R. Black, Jr.

Ron Russell | 12.03.05 – 8:23 pm |

Perhaps this is naive on my part, but I still believe Espionage charges are on the table.

During his press conference Fitz made it clear that his intention was to bring charges on the Plame leak but was hindered by “sand thrown” in his eyes. But he went on to say that Libby committed perjury and obstruction, and from the point of view of the law, the public would be”vindicated,” by a convictions of perjury and obstruction. In plain English, if he can’t get them on one charge, he will get them on another which will vindicate the need for justice.

My sense is that he is going to bring charges he has a very high probability of winning, rather than bring a more serious charge that he has a poorer chance of proving. And he did say that proving guilt in a leak case requires proving culpable knowledge and intent, a much harder thing, he implies.

Also in terms of expiditiousness, proving obstruction, conspiracy, and perjury have a much smaller chance of tying up the process in security and classification issues than one of security breach or espionage.

So yes, espionage charges are still on the table, but bottom line, his aim is to “vindicate” and whether he charges on the underlying crime or not is going to be leveraged by that.

Sam, I’m keenly interested in that side of the atory. Do you have the url for the article?

*waves* to percy and Mrs. K8 !

ooohhh those are good finds too ccmask.

My oh my oh my… From the kos link:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..1149/53203

A theory of SUPER CONSPIRACY deepens when you see that Lincoln Group has listed as a sub contractor, the Republican Power House and King maker BKSH and Associates, and organization presented a bipartisan, but is actually a part of Burso-Marstell (supposedly world’s fifth largest PR firm), which is run by world reknowned Republican strategist Charles R. Black, Jr., who served both Ronald Reagan, and the first President Bush as well as acting as a spokesperson for the Republican Party.

Didn’t Fitz just take down Black??? He’s out on $20 million bond yes?

To Grampa: “… are you connected to GrandmaJ?
blythetdm | 12.03.05 – 7:10 pm ”

Just the same generation. These grey hairs of mine I wear proudly. And to Grampa, did you happen to see the praise I sent to you last night? Just that I value your analysis and glad some of us can keep up with the younguns. Good going.

I’m obsessed with the Hadley email. Luskin should have looked at all Rove’s emails in the given time period b/c that is what a good, high priced attorney does or has his minions do for him.

The feds should have found it–of course you search Niger. Fitz would want all the emails plus he talked to Hadley.

I think the Feds. and Fitz knew about the email and watched Karl lie about it to the Grand Jury.

The “faking the email” is a very interesting but tinfoily proposition. Karl is not a computer wizard and I think he is smart enough to know that hard drives can be searched. Or what if they show Hadley the email and he says, I never got that. Of course, you could be really tinfoily and say Rove and Hadley cooked up the fake email…

Don’t want to spoil the party tonight over all
the wonderful analysis and speculations going
on. Remember Dick Cheney’s energy task force
proceedings in SECRET and kept under secrecy
by SCOTUS. What was set in motion back then
is now emerging clearly and has huge implications far beyond who leaked to whom.
Heather Wokusch has written an article in
Commom Dreams titled “Mission Accomplished:Big Oils Occupation of Iraq.

Please take some time to read it. Don’t want to
take up bandwidth summarizing her article.

What was it Hemingway said?….something about developing “a built-in bullshit detector”. I think he was talking about skills writers need to develop. Perhaps the DC stenographers skipped that chapter. But here’s hoping that the biggest Bullshit Detector of them all is our friend Patrick Fitzgerald. He certainly is gazing into a scatological nightmare.

I get really confused….but 2 months after Cooper phoned Rove he did write a short piece on welfare reform…..

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004921.php

Mrs.K8 & others – sorry I didn’t refresh to see the remaining comments before answering Frank P.

Thanks Shez. I just went to look it up myself.

This part of Cooper’s testimony is great:

The grand jurors wanted to know what was on my mind, and I told them. The White House had done something it hardly ever does: it admitted a mistake. Shortly after Wilson’s piece appeared, the White House said that the African uranium claim, while probably still true, should not have been in the President’s State of the Union address because it hadn’t been proved well enough. That was big news as the media flocked to find out who had vetted the President’s speech. But at the same time, I was interested in an ancillary question about why government officials, publicly and privately, seemed to be disparaging Wilson. It struck me, as I told the grand jury, as odd and unnecessary, especially after their saying the President’s address should not have included the 16-word claim about Saddam and African uranium.

Mrs. K8,

“Then, boom, they “find” an email that states precisely that.”

Yes, but that’s just an email alleging what was said verbally, “welfare reform”. I don’t see any timely context. In other words, I think Rove made up the “welfare reform” bit in the email along with the rest of it in an attempt to give the email credibility. The salient point being he was panicked after the phone conversation and was in CYA mode.

Duncan still thinks Luskin is in trouble:

http://atrios.blogspot.com/200…..6500025126

Hehehe, percy’s going to love it Jane.
Shez | 12.03.05 – 8:12 pm | #

And I did… :^)

Corn’s brain is already getting Pajamas-stained. Ew. But then, he never really was far from that madding crowd. Always ready to kiss up to move up, and ready to sell out a fellow progressive. Review his history.

Love,
News Nag

” A surprising line of questioning had to do with, of all things, welfare reform. The prosecutor asked if I had ever called Mr. Rove about the topic of welfare reform. Just the day before my grand jury testimony Rove’s lawyer, Robert Luskin, had told journalists that when I telephoned Rove that July, it was about welfare reform and that I suddenly switched topics to the Wilson matter. After my grand jury appearance, I did go back and review my e-mails from that week, and it seems as if I was, at the beginning of the week, hoping to publish an article in TIME on lessons of the 1996 welfare-reform law, but the article got put aside, as often happens when news overtakes story plans. My welfare-reform story ran as a short item two months later, and I was asked about it extensively. To me this suggested that Rove may have testified that we had talked about welfare reform, and indeed earlier in the week, I may have left a message with his office asking if I could talk to him about welfare reform. But I can’t find any record of talking about it with him on July 11, and I don’t recall doing so. — Cooper

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071705X.shtml

There’s no way Rove did not know about the Novak heads-up on Cooper before his first GJ appearance in February. Why?

Because he would have fired Luskin on the spot as soon as he heard about this little cocktail chat with Novak if he had not been told before going into to Feb GJ session. A Boy Genius like the Rovester would have instantly realized he had a serious problem after finding out that his attorney forgot to mention this “minor” detail after his memory-deficient Feb testimony was already on the books. He would have been righteously furious and Luskin would have most certainly been figuratively (and maybe literally) “whacked.” That clearly didn’t happen as Luskin’s still on the payroll, and therefore we can conclude that the Rovester must have known about the “Cooper problem” before going into the GJ in Feb. and said, “screw it, I’ll roll the bones” and hope that Fitz never gets that little prick Cooper to sing…

…that’s my theory and I’m sticking to it.

Frank P.

The original search of e-mails did include “Niger”. I still don’t see how it was missed even without the “Cooper”, “Wilson”, etc.

Would some tell me what “trex” means? I thought it was a wood/plastic deck board material.

Thanks,

Szabo

Two points/observations to keep in mind here:’

-While all this was transpiring in 2004, the re-election campaign was in full swing. It was an intense time as we all should re-call, and the obsession was to get Bush re-elected–at all costs. This investigation only concerned Rove et. al. to the extent it could result in revelations/indictments bad news BEFORE the election. There would be time after the election to then worry about it. Thus, delay and obfuscation were perfectly OK if it punted the matter forward. Thus, Rove will admit to being Novak’s source in first GJ testimony (he had to, since it was likely known Robert Novak had cooperated. But lieing about Cooper was acceptable, because Cooper was ot going to talk before the election–an admitting to a Cooper conversation in early 2004 could have shown a pattern of conduct that might have led to an indictment (for conspiracy and the underlying crime before the elction. Same motivations for Libby–can’t admit to all the contacts before the election–it could really cause a Bush defeat. So blow smoke and obfuscate, and worry about it after the election.

In assessing conduct and motivations here, don’t forget then that delay until after the elction was at the top of their list..

does the Me3 tag indicate a move into podcasting? Nope it just seemed to fit.

As for empaneling a new GJ… Ok, he did not go to Hogan and say “I want a new GJ” – He went to Hogan and said “I want that new GJ that was just seated” – And he got it. Which means he has criminal charges to present.

Commenting on Ron…

There is a huge difference in culture between Washington connected/spin/buddy-buddy nobodies a criminal in DC lawyer… And a NY-Chicago mob/terrorist prosecutor.

It’s like night in winter and daylight in on the Forth of July.

These guys played pattycake with Fitz. Fitz plays hard prison time, and he prefers the time served be in crummy prisons with gray bars and matching shades of balogna served on white bread for two meals a day.

I kid you not. DC is in trouble with Fitz.

More in depth sleuthing on the Lincoln Group:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo…..1149/53203

From the bowels of my memory, I remember that someone in the MSM reported that Cooper testified that he does not recall ever discussing welfare reform with Rove.

I don’t have time to do the Nexis search right now, but I think that it’s out there.

[ dave | 12.03.05 - 7:05 pm | #]

Yeah. That rings true, preemptively avoiding charges of prosecutorial misconduct. The favored Rovian M.O. is to attack on a strength and in Fitz’ case it is Fitz’ position as special prosecutor. Exercising prudence chews up time, generates lots of spin between the incestuous commercial payola mill and the blogosphere, but the mills of the gods grind sure if slow.

“On February 13, 2003, the House passed a comprehensive welfare reform reauthorization bill (H.R. 4). The Senate has not yet acted.”

I found this in a google search, so WTF is Rove talking about?

Does anyone know if Cooper actually did a story on Welfare reform after this “e-mail”??

Cozumel –

I think the idea was some sort of story about what’s happened to folks SINCE welfare reform.

What always struck me as contrived about this email is that I think there were stories in the paper, carrying water for Rove, claiming that Cooper’s source couldn’t possibly be Rove, because when Rove spoke to Cooper it was about welfare reform.

Then, boom, they “find” an email that states precisely that.

Always sounded contrived, as in hinky.

It’s also possible the email was written at the time as an attempt to take out insurance against any future criminal or other investigation.

Sophisticated white collar crooks create a phony, exculpating paper trail in the record, or try to.

Up is down, down is up.

Me3 and Mack:

I agree with you about Fitz being relentless and him making it stick. Perhaps this is naive on my part, but I still believe Espionage charges are on the table. At this point, Fitz has everyone falling all over themselves to prove they didn’t lie, regardless of whatever else they cop to. Do all the Perp’s now have a false sense of security that they only have to muddy the path about lying and obstructing? Going back to Libby: While Fitz can’t use this new Grand Jury to flush out more details on the last GJ’s indictments, he could use it for new Indictments against Libby (or anyone else) for Espionage. What if Fitz cuts through all the b.s. about “reporters” being the source and that’s his game plan all along? Once he establishes a clear chain of custody in terms of this National Security Secret for each perp, that defense strategy is over and only adds more obstruction counts for the perps! Remember Fitz’s anology about having had the sand thrown and what that did. During the Libby Indictment Press Conference, he also expressed sentiments that indicate he is willing to indict for Espionage.

I agree with the folks who suggest that Rove/Luskin gambit about Prosecutorial Misconduct. I’m also beginning to wonder if Fitz might turn the tables on those who originated this and add that count of obstruction to whatever each is indicted for?

Valley Girl,

“–Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he’s got a welfare-reform story coming.”

That’s something I’ve always wondered about. What “welfare-reform story”? Where is it? I thought Clinton took that away from their agenda!? ; )

Oh, my apologies if I misunderstood Frank. It must have been this:

The last 2 posts from “Frank” haven’t been me.

Frank | Homepage | 12.03.05 – 7:32 pm

Me3 | Homepage | 12.03.05 – 7:39 pm | #

Fitz would not have seated another GJ if he had not completed additional discovery to present and have read into the record as evidence. Fact.

Did Fitz empanel a new GJ or is he just using a standing one? If he did empanel a new jury it wasn’t widely publicized. Anybody know?

That may be the entirety of the body of the Rove -> Hadley e-mail. But, I wonder what the title (subject line) was?

I think the reason why so many plamologists like the idea of the forged email is that it sounds so contrived, made to order for the alibi du jour (welfare reform, not taking the “bait”) that was being floated just before “discovery” of the email.

I’m agnostic on the matter, but it sure is a funny-sounding email.

Hehehe, percy’s going to love it Jane.

FWIW, this is the text of the Rove to Hadley email, at least according to http://www.anonymousliberal.co…..email.html (albeit with a disclaimer: “As far as I can tell from reading press reports, the entirety of the email was as follows:”)

–Matt Cooper called to give me a heads-up that he’s got a welfare-reform story coming. When he finished his brief heads-up, he immediately launched into Niger. Isn’t this damaging? Hasn’t the president been hurt? I didn’t take the bait, but I said if I were him, I wouldn’t get Time far out in front on this.–
-

Apparently the dose of trexing wasn’t strong enough to remove the foul air in here.

“Previous searches of the e-mail probably were text searches for things like “Wilson”, “Plame”, “CIA”, “uranium”, and “Niger”. In other words, they were searching through e-mails based on subject matter.”

That seems pretty lame. Even my little personal Earthlink email search feature could find something like that. And who does “one word” searches anyway? I always use phrases or multiple words for that (my emails) or when googling or yahooing.

Just so you all know where I’m coming from. I think my Blog Statement says it quite nicely:

Former Libertarian against torture. Defeating Republicans at AMOST all costs.

And I never said anyone should be shot seriously.
Frank | Homepage | 12.03.05 – 6:54 pm | #
——————————————————————————–

Blythetdm- Sure, but if no one bothers reading you might as well be talking to the air.

Which, of course, is the case with MY blog.
Frank | Homepage | 12.03.05 – 6:56 pm | #

——————————————————————————–

I didn’t post either of those. Check the IPs

Along the lines of rethinking things as time moves on, let me ask this:

Is there any tell tale hint that Fitz is looking any higher than Libby and Rove?

I know a lot of us dream that Cheney is the end game and that this is like a mob case where Fitz is getting the little guys first and trying to force them to turn on the boss, but playing the devilÂ’s advocate with myself IÂ’m starting to have some doubts over the past week or so (although, I might be falling for LuskinÂ’s and the WHÂ’s spin).

I am quick to forget details, but what bothers me is the redacted 8 pages in the Dow Jones motion. Originally there was a lot of speculation (with a lot of circumstantial evidence) that those 8 pages might contain some facts regarding the seriousness of the leak and possibly mention analysis of damage done by the leak or highlight how high up a possible conspiracy may have been orchestrated.

Now, from FitzÂ’s motion to release portions of the redacted pages, itÂ’s revealed (I think) that there is no classified information in there and that most of the information is already out there.

Please, if someone could convince me that I’m not suffering from “group think” and that there is some sort of indication that this investigation has expanded beyond just Libby and Rove, I’d most appreciate it.

Thanks,

Product Image Disaster

Shortly before his client’s second appearance before the grand jury in October, Luskin personally conducted a review of thousands of e-mails Rove had sent during the crucial weeks in 2003, including those from accounts reserved for personal and political correspondence, a source familiar with the situation said.

Jane, thank you for the “heads up” concerning the hunt for the Red October Email.

Now, I would have expected a more “shot-gun” type of search. All accounts under K Rove name sent as well as received Emails, and also the same criteria for his office assistant or secretary or whatever.

On the other hand, it is strange to have the lawyer of the defendant look for proof of guilt or innocence, it does not seem appropriate.

me:
does the Me3 tag indicate a move into podcasting?

Also Identity theft sucks.
Frank

You wish. “Frank Probst” leaves us with intelligent, well thought out posts everytime he visits. He reminds us of a verbal Jeff Probst. ;)

Fitz is sitting on this information while Rove and Luskin keep spinning like a top.
the green lantern

Ya… Fitz is a perp nightmare… HE WITHOLDS EVIDENCE!!! JUST LIKE THEY DO!!!

Only he charges them for it, and it’s like, real expensive ;)

No matter how much spin… No matter how I look at this, Rove is a bar-b-qued piglet. This Vnovak stuff is just sauce… The dude and his bubble press may be floating and spinning… But he is roasting. He no longer flys first class on airforce one ;)

The WH press corp may need to stock up on cyanide and Flavor Aid. Their world is gonna implode and reality is gonna hit em hard. They should seriously think about offing themselves for all the harm they have spread on our country.

And it is _OUR_ country… It does not belong to them, they don’t even deserve to rent here.

Previous searches of the e-mail probably were text searches for things like “Wilson”, “Plame”, “CIA”, “uranium”, and “Niger”. In other words, they were searching through e-mails based on subject matter. When Luskin found out Rove may have talked to Cooper about Plame, he had them search the e-mails for “Cooper”, and that’s when this e-mail came up.

Um, no.

The problem with this thought is that the email did mention NIGER — which means it should have turned up in anybody’s idea of a decent content-based search.

From memory, Rove said to Hadley — “I told him (Cooper) not to get too far out on that Niger stuff.”

This is a paraphrase, but I know for a fact that “Niger” is in the email.

“e-mails have two sides”

That’s the point which gets being left out of this discussion and why I believe this VNovak story is a red herring.

Hadley (the recipient) had to have been interviewed early in the investigation and his relevant correspondence handed over to the investigators.

Fitz is sitting on this information while Rove and Luskin keep spinning like a top.

Also Identity theft sucks.

I’ve been away for a week and it’s great to be back.

I’ve gone back and read most of the posts I missed AND most of the comments. Wonderful, sublime anarchy-smart, witty people posting smart, witty comments. Trolls notwithstanding, I find this blog and its commenters a true and pure exchange of ideas and opinions that matter. Jane, Redd, please don’t shut that off.

And Zennurse, thanks for the Rich column. Another keeper.

Me3- I didn’t know I needed to be forgiven for that.

Grampa- You don’t know how to read a :)? That was a smily face, it meant I was joking.

Maybe Rover told the GJ that he chatted with Matt Cooper, but said it was after 7/14/03.

Even if the email was produced, it doesn’t mention Valerie; it mentions Niger.

If memory serves, the email does not document that he revealed Valerie’s name and status.

It is Matt’s testimony that did that, testimony that Rover thought would never see the light of day.

So, the time in question (when in 2004) relative to VNovak isn’t relevant to Rover’s testimony unless she tells Fitzy that she told Luskin that she knew that Matt talked to Rover about Valerie prior to Novak’s column.

What she tells Fitzy about the date factor is going to make a lot of difference. No date = doesn’t hurt KKKarl. Yes on date = another layer of evidence in court.

Having been somewhat sick today, I’m only just now joining the party, and may not even feel well enough to reach for the weenies.

Youse guys with all your terrific comments sure make it tough to catch up. The only point left for me to make is:

It’s funny that the latest casualty of the brilliant Trexing system seemed to be making the point that Trexing wasn’t really “all that” — and that we needed some sort of overhaul of the system here.

Methinks the system here is just fine, and if it ever ISN’T fine, I certainly trust Jane and ReddHedd to decide appropriately how to deal with that.

Which is precisely the point I made late last night.

Hamsher: “Oh fuck it, why do I even waste my breath.”

J.H., I think you just picked up a 7-10 split. My compliments! Occasionally, you come across a one sweet bitch. Without intending to, I’ll wager. You go girl, too!

I am going to comment on Fitz’s work. First, way back when as Jane noted when people came running here in a panic because the MSM was reporting the Fitz investigation was shut down and done… I knew for a fact it was a bald assed lie… I wrote to every BushCo psychotic living in bubble world and told them they were full of it and did not know Fitz for beans, and they were deliberately misleading people to boot.

In the end tho… It played rather nicely. Fitz seats with a new GJ and everybody acted with shock and surprise… Wayward’s career is holed, he has zilch credibility and his books are now worth pennies second hand. His history is invalid now that just a sliver of the light of truth has shown into the bubble.

Back to Fitz… He works angles and covers his bases… He is as infallable as any human can be. He cannot be spun, and has an amazing (truly) ability to descern lies from truth, even without supporting evidence. He understand the criminal mind.

Fitz has this obsession… It is a true obsession, about evidence discovery. He nevers leave evidence in a case that comes up after charges have been presented. By the time he is ready to indict, he knows everything the perps and their perps know. It’s scary for the perps, because he finds everything. He is obsessed about it.

Now… He knows everything about the Libby aspect of the case. He is only charging for a portion of the evidence he is holding. He has been sued in civil court to open the additional evidence he has not charged, and he will only release the portions of the evidence that directly relate to the Libby indictment.

He is still in discovery on Rove. He generally works perps one at a time. He may have collected evidence on Rove while he was working on discovery for the Libby indictment, but he was not focused in on Rove… He takes perps in order and plays them… Not two-three perps at a time.

Fitz would have ended the investigation with the Libby indictment if he did not have other indictments to process. Fact.

Fitz would not have seated another GJ if he had not completed additional discovery to present and have read into the record as evidence. Fact.

Vnovak is a bit player in all this, a gossip who gossips… David Corn can spin for his friend all he wants… Her bottom line is she does not want to end up as the subject of a Frank Rich editorial and her career in shambles… She was witholding evidence in a criminal investigation and had no first amendment rights to stand on… Just gossip rights.

All she manages to do is put Luskin himself in the witness seat, she complicates the case, screws up her credibility, and adds her squid ink to the water that keeps us from seeing all the angles.

None of this matters beans to Fitz, it’s just part of his job. He is a prosecuting machine… Obsessed with discovery and evidence development, a builder of bullet-proof cases against the toughest perps with the most expensive mouthpieces.

There is no comparison to Fitz. No way the perps and mouthpieces in this case can prepare based on previous experience because they have never in their lives encountered anyone like Fitzgerald.

You have seen him work… He does not even need to charge perps to bring them down… Miller, she was perp, Woodward – look at his career… They are lucky they are just witnesses. So is Vnovak.

The tele-cocooning MSM continue to lie to America while young boys still die on their leaders battlefield of democracy…..I’d love to buy them for what they’re worth and sell them for what they think they’re worth….,

“2. The infamous Hadley e-mail. Here’s how it could have turned up after Luskin found out that Rove may have discussed Plame with Cooper.”

But WHY would they look AGAIN in the first place? Or would that be the second place? ; )

Also, emails have two sides, the sender and the receiver (Rove AND Hadley). Which came first (to Fitz), the chicken or the egg???

Jane,
thanks by the way for slogging through the dreck, day after tireless day.
(and occasionally picking up the phone ;)

mess with Valley girl – get one of these:

http://www.urbandictionary.com…..=pimp+slap

I don’t mind reposts when they are salient, but the courtesy is to label them as reposts.

Thanks!

“You can believe Rove forgot part of the conversation, but not all of it.

Yea, yea, that’s the ticket, Rove’s audiographic memory ears forgot what he heard.

Frank–the computer search parameters problem was the first explanation for why the Hadley email was discovered so late–and while it is a somewhat reasonable defense–it still strikes me as sloppy lawyer work.

But if you believe VandeHei–and maybe we shouldn’t–if the conversation with Viveca is in Jan/Feb 2004, why don’t you search the email for Cooper then? Why do you wait 6 months?

The last 2 posts from “Frank” haven’t been me.

“I am trying to figure out if the feds and Fitz. knew about the Hadley email and just sort of watched as Rove perjured himself.”

Good point. If you take a look at Abramoff, the feds have every email he ever sent it looks like.

More thoughts:

1. I don’t think–based on what I know so far–that this Novak has done anything wrong. She’s certainly no Miller/Woodward/Russert/Bob Novak, who were up to their asses in this and not telling us. She was reporting on the story, so we knew she was talking to people involved. Thus far, I’ve seen nothing to indicate that she got any info and withheld it from her readers to protect the corrupt, which is what all the rest of stenographers did. She seems to have been dragged into this by Luskin, and we’re not entirely sure why. I find the most recent scenario entirely plausible: Luskin told her Rove had nothing to do with it, and V Novak told him she’d heard something different. She was probably baiting him to see what he’d say. I’m not convinced that she was ever truly certain that Rove was Cooper’s source. She may have just been making an educated (and accurate) guess. I see nothing wrong with this, and if she writes a “What I Told the Grand Jury” piece, a la Matt Cooper, I’ll be totally satisfied her role in this.

2. The infamous Hadley e-mail. Here’s how it could have turned up after Luskin found out that Rove may have discussed Plame with Cooper: Previous searches of the e-mail probably were text searches for things like “Wilson”, “Plame”, “CIA”, “uranium”, and “Niger”. In other words, they were searching through e-mails based on subject matter. When Luskin found out Rove may have talked to Cooper about Plame, he had them search the e-mails for “Cooper”, and that’s when this e-mail came up.

3. The Rove/Cooper call. Matt Cooper’s first-person account of his Grand Jury testimony said that the GJ was very focused on whether or not the Rove/Cooper call started with welfare reform and shifted to Plame or if it was all about Plame. Rove’s story is that he and Cooper were playing phone tag for info on welfare reform and that Cooper finally called, they talked about welfare reform, and then they changed topics, and he (Rove) betrayed Plame. Cooper says that they were playing phone tag for info on welfare reform and that Cooper finally called, and all he and Rove talked about was Wilson and Plame. At first, I thought this was a minor discrepancy between the stories, and certainly not enough to build a perjury case on. Now, I’m not so sure. I think Rove told the GJ that he talked to Cooper about welfare reform and just forgot that they had discussed Wilson Plame. I could almost believe that, but then Cooper said that they never talked about welfare reform at all. You can believe Rove forgot part of the conversation, but not all of it.

dave

i kinda like that
takeing some issue with a prior comment about rover being slick
he’s not slick – he sure as hell plays dirty, but not that slick
one area where the repubs have been very successful is the bait and switch
a vote to give the president authority to react quickly to a clear and present threat becomes a vote for war
this administration turned their first big lie in response to 9-11
the claims that the intel community was hamstrung by checks and balances, when what really happened is that Condi dropped the ball, being more worried about the Russians and Chinese than a couple hundred muslims sipping tea in caves
in a sane world, Condi would have been posted as Ambassador to Snakeistan
instead we had ashcroft’s color wheel spun untill america threw up her arms and said
’strip our rights , but make us secure’
typically we got the wrong half of that bargain
(end rant)
where was i going? …oh yeah
Fitz
has not even smelled the kool aid
and is not going to get snookered
slow, steady (infuriatingly so for those who have waited for justice 5 years now) and deadly on target
when Fitz strikes , it will be good, and it will stick
and, as observed before
I do not think Karl Rove is end game
he is hired help
despicable, but ultimately not the most important player

i expect , in the end, to celebrate
Big Time
and all the little players in the MSM will be swept off their islands by the tsunami

Frank Rich makes a salient point there at the end of his piece: Bob Woodward should send a bill to the White House for his fine propaganda efforts. No reason that Armstrong Williams and some Iraqi newspapers should get all the money.

Fairness demands that Woodward receive some of that fine “journalism” cash.

You’re welcome, Me.

Goodnight friends and thanks again.
Zennurse has a busy day at the hospice tomorrow, now, play nice, OK?

;-)
z

The story isn’t intended as an actual defense. Rather, if Fitzgerald doesn’t cross all his tees when indicting Rove, Luskin and backers go on the offensive and file a prosecutorial misconduct charge accusing him of not pursuing their V. Novack wild goose chase seriously.”

—-

that’s a good concept. the one quasi problem for the Luskin0Rove side(s) of this goose chase is that it puts Luskin’s behavior under the spotlight since he’s in the middle of it. Lawyers are generally loathe for all sort so good reasons to have the judge and jury suddenly judging their behavior in the so called operative facts. so if it’s a goose chase, it’s a particularly risky one

Valley Girl: HAH! I missed that.

They’re on to us, Jane.

“The story isn’t intended as an actual defense. Rather, if Fitzgerald doesn’t cross all his tees when indicting Rove, Luskin and backers go on the offensive and file a prosecutorial misconduct charge accusing him of not pursuing their V. Novack wild goose chase seriously.”

I think that’s it also. Now let’s revisit the title of todays WashPo article…

“Rove Team Cites Warning From Reporter”

Also note that the only on the record comments from Time in the article are from Jim Kelly, Time’s managing editor.

Sorry I just read thru all the comments so I didn’t get into all the Corn stuff. I also think this means maybe I am going to be shot–I have a 2 year old that sufficiently punishes me daily and limits me in my ability to unravel the Plame affair via the 14 blogs I read.

On Grampa’s analysis, VaneHei’s “stenography” says that Rove was asked about Cooper in his first grand jury appearance so he didn’t omit, he lied.

I don’t get the Viveca/Luskin friendship b/c I think the new timeframe in the VandeHei article screws Luskin and Rove. So my assumption is Viveca is Vandehei’s “(o)ne person familiar with the case,” an incredibly annoying description of an anonymous source b/c it tells us nothing about their slant–it also describes about 100,000 liberal bloggers. VandeHei also clearly says Viveca and Luskin were friends in contradiction to Corn. Now I realize Corn says that is mis-reporting but if I’m right and Viveca is the source that doesn’t really square with Corn’s report.

So how did Luskin think her testimony would help him?

Jane – point well taken. I’m not familiar enough with Viveca’s reporting to know whether this is what she does regularly, or even in her reporting on the Plame affair.

However, to those who say every piece of information needs to be reported, I submit that it can’t be done. It is the nature of the beast that some information will be included, some left out, and we see the story through the reporter’s eyes. I haven’t seen any evidence that Viveca slanted her reporting or left out crucial facts that should have been disclosed. I also think it’s possible to criticize particular actions without saying she is bad, on their side, never to be trusted, etc. (you haven’t done that, but others have). I’m just arguing to cut her some slack, and wait until the facts come out.

I hate to leave in the middle of a conversation, but I’m being summoned. Bye.

I am trying to figure out if the feds and Fitz. knew about the Hadley email and just sort of watched as Rove perjured himself.

—-

if so , hopefully Fitz did something or allowed something to happen to prevent Rover from being able to blunder around for months and then still be able to successfully invoke the recantation defense.

to repeat a question to the more knowledgeable, how certain are we that the Novak Luskin chat happened feb 2004 or before? is this just info from the undisclosed source of the day or more?

thanks

I meant Amen to Jane.

I love Trex cereal myself. Think I’ll have a bowl.

I heart ValleyGirl as well.
Huge contributions and intellect.
Also nice to see David E.
rw back tomorrow maybe?

Grampa,
I read your post in the last thread and again in this one, but was too busy trying to read all of the other posts to tell you I thought it well thought out and plausible.

Would be interested in hearing your thoughts re why the “gold bars” issue is not as simple as it seems).

Also, are you connected to GrandmaJ?

Prosecutorial misconduct? If you look up the word “ethics” in the dictionary, you will find a photo of Patrick Fitzgerald. He is uncorruptible and a true public servant.

First, from the other thread… Thank you Zennurse for the Rich article. I refuse to pay for the Times, especially when the support people like Judy Kneepads and David Brook.. but I really really miss Rich.

Now, back to the comments.

Pachacutec | 12.03.05 – 6:56 pm

Check the timing. Check the posts at the same time. Are you and Jane fraternal twins separated at birth or what? Personally, I prefer Grape Nuts, but Trex Cereal does have a good bouquet.
-

nope no crowd control problems here

Two thoughts not only from left field but deep in the bleachers: 1. prosecutorial misconduct; and, 2. the Libby defense. Rove and the whole White House bunch seem to excel at getting back at people — being passive isn’t their strong suite. So Rove pushes Luskin to come up with something to attack Fitzgerald directly, Between them and their associated think tanks, they hit on the idea of a story to cover Rove’s possible perjury indictment. The story isn’t intended as an actual defense. Rather, if Fitzgerald doesn’t cross all his tees when indicting Rove, Luskin and backers go on the offensive and file a prosecutorial misconduct charge accusing him of not pursuing their V. Novack wild goose chase seriously. Doesn’t really matter if the misconduct charge squares with reality . The important thing is it will be directly aimed at Fitzgerald and bog him down in paperwork defending himself. Problem is — Fitzgerald is crossing his tees by bringing V. Novack in for questioning. Sort of been there done that before game. But drag the matter before a commission under the thumb of Rove’s friend and crossing tees may not matter. The misconduct charge becomes an under the table excuse to attack back by the Bushies. So while the V. Novack matter may in substance be nothing more than a tempest in a teapot, it has a second purpose as well. It supports the Libby defense — “we heard it from reporters.” While this makes absolutely not sense in the actual context of Rove forgetting his mention to Cooper of Plame, it does reinforce the idea that Rove, like Libby, were on the receiving end of information from reporters and simply passed along what they had heard. Sells well to the uninformed and the Rove partisans.

“The Times Select firewall is porous.”

LOL Same deal with salon.com. If you find something from a google or Yahoo search from them and click on it, you get the “sign up for a free trial” thing. If you click on the “cached” part (link), it shows the entire article. ; )

Amen.

Okay here is the deal. Corn gets his info from Viveca’s hubby. Now does Viveca necessarily tell hubby she is out having drinks with Luskin. Not necessarily (depending on what the relationship really is about).

So Corn may be telling it straight, as far as what his “close” source (hubby) is telling him, and hubby may be thinking (or hoping) he is getting the straight scoop from Viveca.

Who knows?

What we need is a Viveca-hubby-Corn-Luskin Blog to keep track of all this :)

Whew, Ok Frank, it just helps not to forget the trusty ole [/snark] tag around here, especially on such a violent post.

If that’s your blog Frank, then I used that last post in a letter to the media awhile back. I copied it off the comments here.

I will forgive if you send out letters in the email campaign:

http://fusioner.proboards60.co…..1131129004

If you can write like that, you can send hard hitting letters ;)

Maybe shot while giggling and handcuffed to the bed.

The Times Select firewall is porous. To read columns by Rich, Krugman, Dowd, Herbert, you can find full reprints (after a brief time lag) at http://www.truthout.org/index.htm

Shez | 12.03.05 – 6:50 pm

Just popped open a can of Miller Lite myself.
-

Oh yeah, and remember when everyone came running here for comfort after this post?:

[D]uring the press conference last Friday, Fitzgerald sent out the vibes of a fellow who was close to the end of the endeavor not someone about to start a new chapter. A TV commentator I know informs me today that a friend of his who is close to Fitzgerald says Fitzgerald’s done.

Everyone was completely demoralized by that “friend of a friend of a friend” journalism. And I wrote this in response:

I will leave you with the words of Tommy Corrigan, one of Patrick Fitzgerald’s best friends from the NYPD who has known him for the past 11 years. I asked him point blank yesterday if he thought Fitzgerald was done. Quite emphatically, without any hesitation at all, he said “No. It’s not over for him until the last bell is rung.”

No chit-chat amongst anonymous friend, just legwork where you pick up the phone and ask someone who would know. You decide which one you want.

I think jane’s criticism of Vovak stems from her perception that V’s behavior was not unlike other members of the DC press corps.

It remains to be seen whether her perception is accurate. Too early to tell.

One intriguing facet to me is Vovak’s and Time’s response to events concerning Rover from Jan 2004 forward knowing as they did that he was Matt Cooper’s original source for the story he wrote in July 2003. They would have needed some new trigger in order to publish it. We can think of plenty, but maybe Time’s lawyers wouldn’t permit it. But, that doesn’t negate the fact that they knew.

I think they all thought, including Rover, that the First Amendment firewall would save and protect them. Rover’s actions, and maybe Luskin’s, are compatible with this assumption. I think if we test all the things that happened against this assumption, including the timing of events, we get a lot closer to seeing what matters when. The other critical assumption that turned out to be detrimental to their legal health was that Ashcroft would ultimately shut down the investigation. Some really key chickens were hatched in those early days that are coming home to roost.

When I am trying to figure out the significance of events, I remind myself that what counts is the legal significance and whether Fitzy can prove XYZ in court beyond a reasonable doubt.

So I’m wondering if VNovak’s testimony helps him to prove that Rover acted to conceal that his conversation with Matt occurred before 7/14/03. He told the FBI in Oct 2003 (& maybe Luskin, too) that he only spoke to reporters about Valerie after Novak’s column, i.e. after it was in the public domain. So, even if VNovak said she heard that Rover talked to Cooper, since Cooper published after Novakula did, her revelation doesn’t threaten his cover story. Thus, it’s no big deal to either Rover or Luskin, unless she emphasized that it was prior to 7/14. That’s the question that Jimmy should ask her the next time he chats with her.

What screws Rover is the email evidence (and of course Matt’s testimony) that his conversation was actually prior to Novak’s column. This is Fitzy’s mission to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

(Page 2 of 2)

Near the book’s end, Mr. Woodward writes of some “troubling” tips from three sources “that the intelligence on W.M.D. was not as conclusive as the C.I.A. and the administration had suggested” and of how he helped push a Pincus story saying much the same into print just before the invasion. (It appeared on Page 17.) But Mr. Woodward never seriously investigates others’ suspicions that the White House might have deliberately suppressed or ignored evidence that would contradict George Tenet’s “slam-dunk” case for Saddam’s W.M.D.’s. “Plan of Attack” gives greatest weight instead to the White House spin that any hyped intelligence was an innocent error or solely the result of the ineptitude of Mr. Tenet and the C.I.A.

Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby are omnipresent in the narrative, and Mr. Woodward says now that his notes show he had questions for them back then about “yellowcake” uranium and “Joe Wilson’s wife.” But the leak case – indeed Valerie Wilson herself – is never mentioned in the 400-plus pages, even though it had exploded more than six months before he completed the book. That’s the most damning omission of all and suggests the real motive for his failure to share what he did know about this case with either his editor or his readers. If you assume, as Mr. Woodward apparently did against mounting evidence to the contrary, that the White House acted in good faith when purveying its claims of imminent doomsday and pre-9/11 Qaeda-Saddam collaborations, then there’s no White House wrongdoing that needs to be covered up. So why would anyone in the administration try to do something nasty to silence a whistle-blower like Joseph Wilson? The West Wing was merely gossiping idly about the guy, Mr. Woodward now says, in perhaps an unconscious echo of the Karl Rove defense strategy.

Joan Didion was among the first to point out that Mr. Woodward’s passive notion of journalistic neutrality is easily manipulated by his sources. He flatters those who give him the most access by upholding their version of events. Hence Mary Matalin, the former Cheney flack who helped shape WHIG’s war propaganda, rushed to defend Mr. Woodward last week. Asked by Howard Kurtz of The Post why “an administration not known for being fond of the press put so much effort into cooperating with Woodward,” Ms. Matalin responded that he does “an extraordinary job” and that “it’s in the White House’s interest to have a neutral source writing the history of the way Bush makes decisions.” You bet it is. Sounds as if she’s read Didion as well as Machiavelli.

In an analysis of Mr. Woodward written for The Huffington Post, Nora Ephron likens him to Theodore H. White, who invented the modern “inside” Washington book with “The Making of the President 1960.” White eventually became such an insider himself that in “The Making of the President 1972,” he missed Watergate, the story broken under his (and much of the press’s) nose by Woodward and Bernstein. “They were outsiders,” Ms. Ephron writes of those then-lowly beat reporters, “and their lack of top-level access was probably their greatest asset.”

INDEED it’s reporters who didn’t have top-level access to the likes of Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney who have gotten the Iraq story right. In the new book “Feet to the Fire: The Media After 9/11,” Kristina Borjesson interviews some of them, including Jonathan Landay of Knight Ridder, who heard early on from a low-level source that “the vice president is lying” and produced a story headlined “Lack of Hard Evidence of Iraqi Weapons Worries Top U.S. Officials” on Sept. 6, 2002. That was two days before administration officials fanned out on the Sunday-morning talk shows to point ominously at the now-discredited front-page Times story about Saddam’s aluminum tubes. Warren Strobel, a frequent reportorial collaborator with Mr. Landay at Knight Ridder, tells Ms. Borjesson, “The most surprising thing to us was we had the field to ourselves for so long in terms of writing stuff that was critical or questioning the administration’s case for war.”

Such critical stories – including those at The Post and The Times that were too often relegated to Page 17 – did not get traction until the failure to find W.M.D.’s and the Wilson affair made America take a second look. Now that the country has awakened to that history, it will take more to shock it than the latest revelation that the Defense Department has been paying Iraqi newspapers to print its propaganda. Thanks in large part to the case Mr. Woodward found so inconsequential, everyone knows that much of the American press did just the same before the war – and, unlike those Iraqi newspapers or, say, Armstrong Williams, did so gratis.

Frank, so you want them shot while giggling?

Jane: break out some trex cereal.

You know where to apply it.

frank sez: press ‘core’ . . .

me3 sez: press ‘corp’ . . .

volvo sez: press ‘corpse’ . . .

i say : all dead to me — wayward, swiller, corn, vvack, novacul . . . F them all.

msm = part of the problem ( not the solution)

;-)

By FRANK RICH
Published: December 4, 2005

WHEN “all of the facts come out in this case,” Bob Woodward told Terry Gross on NPR in July, “it’s going to be laughable because the consequences are not that great.”
Who’s laughing now?

Why Mr. Woodward took more than two years to tell his editor that he had his own personal Deep Throat in the Wilson affair is a mystery best tackled by combatants in the Washington Post newsroom. (Been there, done that here at The Times.) Mr. Woodward says he wanted to avoid a subpoena, but he first learned that Joseph Wilson’s wife was in the C.I.A. in mid-June 2003, more than six months before Patrick Fitzgerald or subpoenas entered the picture. Never mind. Far more disturbing is Mr. Woodward’s utter failure to recognize the import of the story that fell into his lap so long ago.

The reporter who with Carl Bernstein turned a “third-rate burglary” into a key for unlocking the true character of the Nixon White House still can’t quite believe that a Washington leak story unworthy of his attention has somehow become the drip-drip-drip exposing the debacle of Iraq. “I don’t know how this is about the buildup to the war, the Valerie Plame Wilson issue,” he said on “Larry King Live” on the eve of the Scooter Libby indictment. Everyone else does. Largely because of the revelations prompted by the marathon Fitzgerald investigation, a majority of Americans now believe that the Bush administration deliberately misled the country into war. The case’s consequences for journalism have been nearly as traumatic, and not just because of the subpoenas. The Wilson story has ruthlessly exposed the credulousness with which most (though not all) of the press bought and disseminated the White House line that any delay in invading Iraq would bring nuclear Armageddon.

“W.M.D. – I got it totally wrong,” Judy Miller said, with no exaggeration, before leaving The Times. The Woodward affair, for all its superficial similarities to the Miller drama, offers an even wider window onto the White House flimflams and the press’s role in enabling them. Mr. Woodward knows more about the internal workings of this presidency than any other reporter. He has been granted access to all its top officials, including lengthy interviews with the president himself, to produce two Bush best sellers since 9/11. But he was gamed anyway by the White House, which exploited his special stature to the fullest for its own propagandistic ends.

Mr. Woodward, to his credit, is not guilty of hyping Saddam’s W.M.D.’s. And his books did contain valuable news: of the Wolfowitz axis’ early push to take on Iraq, of the president’s messianic view of himself as God’s chosen warrior, of the Powell-Rumsfeld conflicts that led to the war’s catastrophic execution. Yet to reread these Woodward books today, especially the second, the 2004 “Plan of Attack,” is to understand just how slickly his lofty sources deflected him from the big picture, of which the Wilson case is just one small, if illuminating, piece.

In her famous takedown of Mr. Woodward for The New York Review of Books in 1996, Joan Didion wrote that what he “chooses to leave unrecorded, or what he apparently does not think to elicit, is in many ways more instructive than what he commits to paper.” She was referring to his account of Hillary Clinton’s health care fiasco in his book “The Agenda,” but her words also fit his account of the path to war in Iraq. This time, however, there is much more at stake than there was in Hillarycare.

What remains unrecorded in “Plan of Attack” is any inkling of the disinformation campaign built to gin up this war. While Mr. Woodward tells us about the controversial posturing of Douglas Feith, the former under secretary of defense for policy, there’s only an incidental, even dismissive allusion to Mr. Feith’s Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group. That was the secret intelligence unit established at the Pentagon to “prove” Iraq-Qaeda connections, which Vice President Dick Cheney then would trumpet in arenas like “Meet the Press.” Mr. Woodward mentions in passing the White House Iraq Group, convened to market the war, but ignores the direct correlation between WHIG’s inception and the accelerating hysteria in the Bush-Cheney-Rice warnings about Saddam’s impending mushroom clouds in the late summer and fall of 2002. This story was broken by Barton Gellman and Walter Pincus in Mr. Woodward’s own paper eight months before “Plan of Attack” was published.

next post

Grampa, I think your analysis is excellent – logical and highly plausible.

Just so you all know where I’m coming from. I think my Blog Statement says it quite nicely:

Former Libertarian against torture. Defeating Republicans at AMOST all costs.

And I never said anyone should be shot seriously.

My husband, formerly in private practice with a DC law firm that defends high profile politicos, says that Luskin should have pored through every piece of paper of Rove’s, particularly something easily searchable like his email, prior to his first grand jury appearance.

I am trying to figure out if the feds and Fitz. knew about the Hadley email and just sort of watched as Rove perjured himself. According to press reports, Fitz helped Judy and Scooter recover their memories about their June meeting with the visitor logs from the Old Executive office building. (Judy denies this but we can’t really believe her.)

Also, VandeHei’s new timeframe makes the discovery by Luskin of the email in the Fall of 2004 just make no sense. He and pal Viveca are talking in Jan/Feb 2004–so 6 months later he has an epiphany that we better check Karl’s email?!

Assuming that Corn fact-checks before going to print, this turnabout indicates Viveca (or Luskin) contacted him and said something like, “Hey, I think I might get into trouble if it’s said I’m a friend of Luskin. Can you retract that quick before I go into talk with the US Attorney this coming week?”

And Corn obliges.

And that’s kind of what bugs me about this whole back-scratching circle jerk we’re seeing. I hope that if I’m ever in trouble, I can get my car-pool buddies to write glowing exonerations of me in the national media.

“Oh, he/she’s not a bad person. Why, my kids go to their kids’ same orthodontist and they wanted me to tell you that they have nothing to hide.”

Who’s next? Bob Novak’s college roommate’s heart surgeon’s wife?

If nothing else, Plamegate has pried my eyes open to the incestuousness of the people running the national media. THEY are the real cocktail weenies.

This must be a great place, else why would all of us be spending our Saturday night staring at a computer screen, trying to speed-read and type at the same time?

i for one stopped frequentine Members Only clubs a few years back

there’s no requirement here to post any comment at all. sometimes it’s better to lurk and be thought an ignorant fool than to hastily post and have it confirmed…

cathy–I just pulled up DailyKos.

Well said, Jane.

The attraction to FDL is that it is analytical. Speculation is clearly labeled as such, and the issues at hand are clearly shown so that the reader can understand the full story.

No matter what political leaning a journalist or blogger or anyone has, if they are leaving key bits of information out only because they would weaken their argument or bring to question the authorÂ’s journalistic integrity, they have none of respect. And isnÂ’t that what got us into the damned war in the first place?

At FDL we don’t just get told what we want to be told, we are told lots of bits of information with clearly labeled hypotheses and supporting facts that strengthen or weaken those hypothesises. It truly allows for anyone to challenge or support the ideas mentioned.

Thank you everyone for what you do here.

I can’t get Daily Kos again. Is anyone else having this problem?

Hi Jane,

Sure there’s plenty to get gray whenever you do business with someone. If I spend hundreds of friendly hours with Microsoft lawyers, hang out with some of them at a company party in the Jimi Hendrix museum, yet never see them outside a work context, am I a “friend” of theirs? Or not?

When David Corn says V.Novak and Lushkin weren’t “friends,” it’s simply not definitive. And I’m not inclined to take David Corn’s word for anything. Rather, it’s a fundamental professional dynamic I’m pointing out.

Blythetdm- Sure, but if no one bothers reading you might as well be talking to the air.

And thanks for the encouraging words from you other FDLers, who contribute great things to the discussions, and make this such a great place to be.
-

Well this fucking does it, I’m opening a can ‘o water now, (Bud Lite).

LOL The Blog Police forgot on purpose to erase a cookie monster?

[O]nce a site starts to get 200+ comments an hour it gets very hard to moderate, or even carry on a conversation.

Frank, once a post starts to get 200+ comments an hour, it gets very hard to post a comment if you have to read the entire thread, first.

Oh… David Corn is a known double agent.

Don’t trust him even as far as you could throw him… Worse than sneaky.

Shez | 12.03.05 – 6:41 pm

OMG. I am humbled by your kind words! Thanks for your backup, Shez, as you are one of our more astute commenters. Sheesh, you routinely blow us away! xxooVG
-

Move along, nothing to see here.

Jane: Oh fuck it. Why do I even waste my breath.

Jane, you do a fantastic job, don’t give up!!! And don’t get down!!! We won’t curl up in balls in the trenches if you hold the front line.

Valley Girl, you are awesome… 100% support from Me ;)

Val Gal:

Get down Valley Girl! I like it. “Are you the blog police, or what?” How sweet it is. You go girl!

Shez | 12.03.05 – 6:34 pm |

Exactly my point, Shez….
Thank you.

I’m not so sure it’s a bubble their in as much as doing what’s easiest for the most money and prestige.

Surely that is part of the lure of going into the bubble and becoming corrupted by a false leader… But it’s only part.

Frank–Is it wise to suggest that Valley Girl should be shot? If we here are not up to your high literary standards, it’s a shame I see no reason for your personal attack on Valley Girl. I have read her many previous comments and I have great respect for her.

Valley Girl- Good idea! No one expects the blog police.

Corn may be on “our side” but he’s sneaky and I don’t like sneaky. He’s dripping the info out just to keep people listening to his bloviating, I told you so attitude. He’s also in bed with his “Pajamas” on, and that, to me, is despicable. I agree with Jane on this one, I think Novak should have come clean. She could have moved the investigation along but chose to be in with the in crowd. That’s the sneaky thing again and if you read back, it’s what many of these threads and comments decry. I don’t see a difference between her and Woody at all.

JMO

z

David Corn is not to be trusted from here to the door.

Please quote me on that.

OMG, it was our Valley Girl, a Goddess? One of our more astute commentators? Sheesh, she routinely blows us away!

Frank, I hear A. Coulter has a baseball bat she’ll lend you. ;)

this blog’s comments have virtually doubled in the month or two i have been reading them
it becomes laborious, and i most likely have added more words than though myself
but, for the most part everyone has something to valid to say
as someone else observed, you even get a mor substantive species of troll
this is jane, redd and loren’s space, and any rules/directives they care to lay down are OK by me
but I think things work awfully well here
I spend an inordinate amount of my time here, but I would not characterize it as wasted.
i also have a personal thing about content over form
so long as the content continues to be vital, the exchanges well thought out and minds continue to be open,
fdl will be the model for blogs to come

Frank: Yes, actually, it IS just you. Now along and blogwhore elsewhere.

Ta.

Does anyone want Frank Rich’s tomorrow on Booby? Please zennurse, post it here if you would ;)

Me3–

I’m not so sure it’s a bubble their in as much as doing what’s easiest for the most money and prestige. If they did what was right, they would have to fight tooth and nail to get a story and the truth. If they did what was easiest, they get an easy to write story, access to all the sources, and lots of money.

Very few journalists stick to their principles. And those journalists are working blogs for little or no money and very little prestige.

David Corn is also a Fox News channel contributor, to use his own words.

David Corn is one of the one good guys among the DC press corpse. Let’s not forget that, ok?

Right. So sorry, I forgot. Anything anyone on “our side” does is okay, even if they’re engaging in the same non-critical “friend of a friend of a friend” DC journalist/source cushiness that I complain about on this blog every fucking day, the situation that is responsible for…

Oh fuck it. Why do I even waste my breath.

Frank | Homepage | 12.03.05 – 5:53 pm

In the last thread I noticed that at least one person posted a long comment after saying that s/he didn’t have time to read the thread before posting. Such people should be shot. :) or at least discouraged.

It was my comment: http://www.haloscan.com/commen…..30/#180643

I actually said “Sorry if this has been posted before. I haven’t had time to catch up on all of the comments. ” Perhaps I should have been more explict by saying that I haven’t had time to read *all* of the comments on *all* of the threads since the last time I was at FDL, late last evening.

So shoot me! But check it out with Jane first, and see if she agrees.

Are you the blog police, or what?
-

Yep Carrie. Otherwise they get a taste of this at 5:05 pm:

http://www.haloscan.com/commen…..30/#180627

Thanks, Shez.

I’m not looking for praise (well, I am, but . . .), but this is a really great group, and I’m very interested in your reactions. When I feels like a tree falling in the forest, I like a reality check.

I think we’re sometimes quick to lump everyone in the enemy’s camp (lawyers, reporters, etc.), which makes our camp feel a bit small. I’m trying to save my rage for the real enemy.

Carrie- Thanks, but that was true of Billmon too, once a site starts to get 200+ comments an hour it gets very hard to moderate, or even carry on a conversation. Maybe its just me tho. No one else seems concerned.

Maureen Dowd yesterday-

Re Michael Ware, reporter embedded, reporting Bush’s lie:

” He also told Mr. Cooper: “I have had a very senior officer here in Baghdad say to me that there’s never going to be a point where these guys will be able to stand up against the insurgency on their own.”

Mr. Ware recalled that in a battle two weeks ago, he saw an Iraqi security officer put down his weapon and curl up into a ball when he was under attack. “I have seen that on – on many, many occasions,” he said.

Curling up in a ball. Good National Strategy for Victory. “

I have Select till end of Dec. Does anyone want Frank Rich’s tomorrow on Booby? Or have you already found it?

As late as November 28, 2005, David Corn wrote an article discussing Viveca Novak and never bothered to mention that he and VNovak were personal friends. No mention that he has known her for 20 years.

Corn is also the one who stated that Viveca and Robert Novak are not related. Do we know this for sure, since Corn is not very forthcoming?

Corn only divulged that 20-year friendship information after others revealed it. How’s that for diclosure ethics?

David Corn is one of the one good guys among the DC press corpse. Let’s not forget that, ok?

–

Anyone who was anyone KNEW that Karl and Scooter were responsible for the leak. No one was telling the public. The press core didn’t get mad when Scottie lied in their faces and told them that it was ‘ridiculous’ to think Karl or Scooter was involved.

Yeah… See the press corp has been in the bubble world… Drawn out of reality by the effects of BushCo psychosis.

Bush has a mentality that must be very close to Jim Jones (I am serious)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Jones

Cindy Sheehan met with Bush, she got a hug… She felt better, he was a compassionate man who grieved and felt her pain…

And then like a cult survivor… She woke up and realized she had been touched by a psychopath… And she got very angry at having been used by the man, and she proceeded to stalk him and point fingers at what he really is.

The press corp must be feeling unease as reality gets closer to breaking thru the bubble… And the events in the real world that have transpired while they were all fawning and adoring the new American age and Rapture Man…

Hard to rationalize… Illegal war of agression, war crimes, secret prisons, torture, white phosphorus… It’s starkly and dramatically different than the feel good bubble world they have reported.

It’s much, much worse than the Wizard of Oz as Swopa portrayed it… It’s a lot closer to Jonestown, and it will become a national Jonestown unless it is stopped.

“but I agree with Jane, blogs are where all the stuff the MSM forget or neglect to tell us eventually comes out.”

P, and scoop them! *applauds Jane* again.

Frank, when you combine the intellect of the hostesses and the regular posters here, trolls do not stand a chance.
They probably feel too intimidated to post and their shoot and hide methods wouldn’t work here, the babysitting’s too intense.
I wouldn’t worry about that.
Sorry I jumped all over you, but I would hate for this site to turn into a “members only club”.

Re: D. Corn and V. Novak: Hamsher

Hopefully David Corn is not carrying water for the VeeVakster as Nora Ephron did for Boob Woodward on the HuffPo. If you are somehow trying to mitigate her possible misdeeds, or protect your pal Ms. Novak, or attempting to sugar-coat another reporters mess, Mr. Corn, and it turns out she is but another kisser of the powerful D.C. posteriors, and a sell-out imitation journalist, then you will no longer be on my reading itinerary.

I would argue that David Corn is not any better of a journalist than either Novak, Woodward, either Miller or the majority of the talking head journalegos.

Sure he tries to disclose his relationship with V.Novak and her husband, but he does not give reason why he believes his anonymous sources are “completely trustworthy” or, as NYTimes reporters are now required to do, tell us why if they are so trustworthy and independent why they are being granted anonymity.

Are there any journalists out there that can report the whole story?

MSM is great if they could get there act together and be journalists as opposed to pundits or stenographers, but I agree with Jane, blogs are where all the stuff the MSM forget or neglect to tell us eventually comes out.

OK Grampa, thought so. We love your well laid out analyses. :)

And as recently as yesterday, David Corn wrote that Viveca Novak and Corn were friends.

Nothing like washing dirty footprints just before VNovak goes in to talk to Fitzgerald under oath this coming week.

First, it’s natural for work and friendship to get gray, and V.Novak’s reaction is perfectly plausible as Corn relates it. It’s human nature when among friends, right or wrong.

MarcLord — maybe you better read Corn again. He says they weren’t friends at all. So nothing to get gray, right?

Again I say, the VNovak story is a red herring thrown out there by Luskin as a last ditch effort to muddy the waters. No need to impugn her character.

Whatever her role, it has to be the case that Fitz must have the background facts on the e-mail and Cooper-Rove contacts. His thoroughness requires simply that he get from VNovak her side of the story so as to leve no loose ends out there.

Carrie- re Lurkers. I know and I am generally one of them too.

I ‘whine’ about this because I am concerned, I don’t want this to become like the Atrios comment threads. I watched it happen at Bilmon and I don’t want it to happen here.

Other people here have their hobbie horses and I think I am entitled to mine.

I’m not proposing that they make commenting impossible. Just arguing that they may want to tighten their policies a bit, as the site becomes more popular.

the 2004 Presidential election was quite close: the fact that Rove and Libby and many others were ratting out undercover CIA officers would not have helped Bush/Cheney/Satan/2004 one whit. The all-too-quiet reporters helped throw an important election…

http://fusioner.proboards60.co…..1131129004

Oh ^^^ Don’t Forget ^^^ Letters!!

David Corn wrote this latest article obviously after talking to his friend Viveca. (He admits they are friends.) Corn then corrects his previous articles stating that Viveca and Luskin are friends. Why? Vivica obviously contacted him. Assuming that Corn fact-checks before going to print, this turnabout indicates Viveca (or Luskin) contacted him and said something like, “Hey, I think I might get into trouble if it’s said I’m a friend of Luskin. Can you retract that quick before I go into talk with the US Attorney this coming week?”

And Corn obliges.

grandpa:. Viveca: I don’t think that what she did is that terrible.

—-

i sort of agree. given the story du jour, what did she do wrong? So what if she went on TV and discussed the mess without mentioning her Luskin session? did she disparage the Fitz investigation like Woody? then maybe she was wrong. but otherwise he was just her source. protecting sources still has some degree of honor in the profession.

the key it seems to me is When the big talk occurred. Are we certain it was Feb 2004 or beforee? It would have been helpful if Corn, the Novak mouthpiece. had told us but he was silent. The source cited in Jane’s article is the ever ubiquitous source close to the investigation.

so, for those of you really on top of the timelines here, how certain are we that the conversation was feb 2004?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavor_Aid

Flavor Aid was the drink mix used to carry the cyanide in Jonestown.

Grampa- I can. I’m understanding better why Jane feels as she does (I think)

You just described the (almost) whole problem with the press core in a nutshell. Anyone who was anyone KNEW that Karl and Scooter were responsible for the leak. No one was telling the public. The press core didn’t get mad when Scottie lied in their faces and told them that it was ‘ridiculous’ to think Karl or Scooter was involved. They only got mad when it became obvious to the public that they had been lied to.

They are all untrustworthy.

Shez — Thanks. Yes, I meant Downie.

You know what Frank,
there are a lot of us here that are lurkers, who don’t feel that they contribute much for whatever reason but sometimes get enough courage up to occasionnaly post, however naive the question or idea brought might be. I’ve found the regular commenters very helpful in explaining complex matters to the rest of us. Isn’t this one of the reasons why there are sites like FDL and the blogosphere as a whole?
I’m asking that you knock it off with the restrictions whine….you mentioned the same thing last night.
http://www.haloscan.com/commen…..71/#180097

Personally, I think the article on Novak presents a plausible explanation of what happens that is consistent with what we know about the nature of her reporting and writing. I hesitate to rush to judgment about her role in this.

karen allen – Not quite, but close. What they tell us is what they want to believe/hope.

There is this weird psychosis associated with BushCo… The bubble world where “they make reality” and they somehow think that if they can make people believe it… It’s true.

It’s a social disease, and you see it in cults… Like the Jim Jones set where they ended up drinking artificially flavored cyanide to prevent reality from the inevitable break thru. It was not Kool-aid, but the term has been appropriately applied to the gooper set who suffers from the effects of this psychosis.

The interesting thing about this psychosis, is that in order to draw people out of reality, and into the bubble world, the people who are trying to make converts truly have to “believe” because if they don’t believe psychologically, they are not nearly as effective.

“the WaPo editor (Kelly?) said that WaPo reporters were free to disclose Woodward’s secret source if they could find out who that was.”

Grampa, Jim Kelly is TIME editor. Did you mean Leonard Downie Jr. the WaPo editor?

And this is about the fourth time that I’ve pushed this view defending Viveca Novak and have gotten no response so far. Just google her, take a read through her articles, and tell me I’m crazy.

karen — I can’t imagine her going on TV news and saying: “I was interviewing Rove’s lawyer, and passed on a rumor to him that my colleague, Matt Cooper, had been told by Rove that Wilson’s wife works for the CIA. He sipped his martini, and said ‘That’s interesting.’”

That’s not news. She’s working on a story, but nothing comes of it. So what?

Grampa: sorry I did not comment when I read that post earlier. I find it well laid out, logical and plausible.

The consensus seems to me to be that Vovak’s story, assuming we finally have some sense of what it will be, does not incriminate Rove per se, but to the extent that it casts doubt on Rove’s presumed argument that he had no means through which to jog his memory until the email “appreared,” its net effect is neutral or slightly negative to Rove.

Furthermore, while I probably place a little more liklihood on the possibility that Luskin would sit on the email (in violation of his duty as court officer) than you do, I really have little doubt that Luskin did whatever possible to be sure that any scrubbing for evidence was as minimal and sloppy as possible. He did not see to it that i’s were dotted and t’s crossed.

Geez Jane,

I think it’s hasty to brand V. Novak as just another weak-willed stenographer. Reasons? First, it’s natural for work and friendship to get gray, and V.Novak’s reaction is perfectly plausible as Corn relates it. It’s human nature when among friends, right or wrong.

Second, Time’s legal team probably wouldn’t have cared even if she had disclosed her Lushkin meeting in Feb-04, because they had to prepare for the worst case (and billing their hourly rate). They didn’t know what the other side knew, and Novak’s misstep, if that’s what it was, is unlikely to have been materially important to legal and PR functions. They just would’ve told her to keep quiet about it and wait for the Cooper case to shake out.

As for being an inveterate gossip, well…the woman is a reporter, after all, and depending on who’s throwing the party, she might be in good company. Yours truly included. So I’d counsel to keep an open mind on this one.

Grandpa- I read it. It seems reasonable, but I wasn’t moved to reply.

Im not quite getting Jane’s hostility to Ms Novak. I don’t follow the MSM but I keep hearing that she has written a number of unfavorable, but no favorable stories about the Bush administration.

Maybe Jane should amplify why Ms Novak is untrustworthy. (other than that she works for the MSM and let fall a piece of information we would prefer she hadn’t)

Grampa–Viveca is a TIME reporter. She also makes appearances on TV News shows. During that time, when she discussed this mess, she never saw fit to reveal that she spoke with Luskin or what she told him. She is just like Miller and Woodward, in that she makes comments and doesn’t reveal her involvement in the affair.

according to completely trustworthy sources close to Viveca Novak

i.e. her husband?

Corn tells us only what his wishes to tell us. Just as Judy Miller and Woodward and most others. They think we are children, and they will tell us only what they see fit to tell us.

I’m sorry to do this, but I’m going to repeat a long comment from two threads back, partly because it’s on point, and partly because I put some effort into it and would like people to see it (I DID read through the comments, and saw only one response). If this strikes you as a waste of bandwidth, let me know.

I know I’m swimming against the tide here, but I have a different view. Here goes.

1. Viveca: I don’t think that what she did is that terrible. She passed on a RUMOR to Luskin — something it would have been irresponsible to report publicly, because she probably couldn’t support it with two sources of her own. She did it specifically to test Luskin’s assertion that Rove had nothing to fear. She wanted Luskin’s reaction. As to whether she revealed a confidential source, she didn’t, because she didn’t know. Just two weeks ago, the WaPo editor (Kelly?) said that WaPo reporters were free to disclose Woodward’s secret source if they could find out who that was. So why is it wrong for Novak to pass on a rumor in hopes of getting some information out of Luskin.

2. Did Luskin tell his client? Of course he did. He would be remiss if he failed to follow up on this information. But Luskin didn’t give Rove a “fact” that Rove was then obligated to pass on to Fitzgerald. He told Rove that the buzz around the WaPo newsroom is that Cooper’s source was Rove. This information does not change Rove’s obligation to testify truthfully as to what he knows, or the advisability of keeping quiet as to what he does not know.

Either Luskin knew about Cooper or he didn’t. If he knew (because Rove told him), and if Rove had not yet testified, then Luskin should not have allowed Rove to go before the grand jury and lie. But maybe Luskin didn’t know, either because Rove forgot or because Rove withheld that information from his lawyer. Luskin’s obligation, at that point, is to try to figure out whether the rumor is true. He asks his client. If Rove says “I don’t recall any such discussion,” it would be inappropriate for Luskin to advise him to testify about a conversation he can’t remember.

3. The email: Even if Rove told Luskin he didn’t remember talking to Cooper, Luskin would not have given up. He would want to track down any evidence relevant to such a discussion. It stands to reason that he would, as reported, take a closer look at the emails. I can’t explain why the email didn’t turn up the first time around. I find it interesting that one report said Luskin asked the White House document clerks to recheck, while another report said Luskin went through the emails himself. I also can’t explain why it took so long. If Rove was holding back from his lawyer, that could explain some of the delay. I know Emptywheel, Norskflamethrower and others disagree with me here, but I have a hard time accepting that Luskin would intentionally withhold a clearly responsive document. It’s just not worth it. (At some point I’d like to get into the gold bars discussion — it’s not as simple as it seems).

4. Rove’s testimony: Chances are, Rove never testified that the Cooper interview did not take place. He just omitted it. Even after he heard the rumor circulating in the WaPo newsroom, chances are he said he simply did not recall. After he “found” the email, he probably allowed as how the interview must have taken place, but he would have been foolish to attempt to describe it in detail. He probably said, “it’s possible we talked about Wilson’s wife.” Folks, he would have been bobbing and weaving in that grand jury room, but he’s smart enough not to get caught in a flat out contradiction if at all possible. It’s hard to get nailed on perjury if you keep answering “I don’t recall.”

5. So where does this leave us? I believe that the Viveca Novak – Luskin discussion, by itself, doesn’t help, and it doesn’t hurt. A consistent story can be constructed to show that Rove forgot, and then remembered, his talk with Cooper. A consistent story can also be constructed to show that he lied to investigators, the grand jury, his lawyer, or all of them. But Fitzgerald is going in with more than just this Viveca Novak story. As someone said, it’s just a sideshow. Fitzgerald will have assembled a wealth of other facts and statements that, taken together, make Rove’s lying inescapable.
Grampa | 12.03.05 – 2:21 pm | #

I’m going to reserve judgment on V. Novak until she testifies. I’m more interested in what Rove and Luskin knew and when they knew it. My best guess is that Rove had hidden the Cooper information from Luskin up until this point.

If Luskin is doing so, he must resign as Rove’s lawyer.

Nope, Luskin will not resign. If he gets in any more trouble, Rove will claim he needs a mouthpiece with different expertise and he will release Luskin and hire someone else.

Ohh… And don’t be confused. There were people lauding FDL back there… Some said Me2 Me2

and well… I altered my username…

Me3

GrandmaJ–Plus, Viveca Novak has a husband who is an unidentified labor lawyer.

GrandmaJ:
Further confirmation of the incestuousness of the Washington press corps and their intimacy with the powerbrokers.

In the last thread I noticed that at least one person posted a long comment after saying that s/he didn’t have time to read the thread before posting. Such people should be shot. :) or at least discouraged.

Im taking it as evidence that firedoglake needs to take some measures to reduce the number of posters here.

Were they drinking Kool Aid?

With all those righteous journalists vouching for each other, who is going to be the last man standing for the truth?

David Corn who has a friend and colleague named, Viveca, who uses Luskin as a source, who has Rove as a client, who is trying to slide from under Fitz’ net of “gotcha”, … The beads on this necklace of horror just keeps going.

Fitz is just sitting back (well, actually he is pretty busy, but enjoying the sideshow) watching all the pretty little worms wiggle. One of them will wiggle off and fall in his lap.

Mostly US army officers are smart. There’s always one exception I suppose. Jesus weeping Christ.

He has a unique, outside of the box idea to get the Iraqi Army trained up to the proper standards to fight the insurgency on its own. Instead of using the MITT model, where small teams are embedded into Iraqi battalions to provide assistance, he would transplant the staff of a Marine battalion and graft it onto an Iraqi battalion. The staffs would team up, man for man, and act as advisers down to the company level, in the areas where the Iraqi military needs it most: logistics, heavy weapons support and air support. When finished, the embedded staff would leave the equipment behind for the Iraqi Army to carry on the fight.

full story here
dubhaltach | 12.03.05 – 3:31 pm | #

I found this really funny as I imagine you intended. Those poor REMFs.

On the other hand the US does have a surplus of staff officers.

“That’s the most galling thing about RoveCo. They were so slick, ruthless and effective at taking over this country — how could they have been so frikkin’ inept when it came to taking over Iraq??”
obsessed | Homepage | 12.03.05 – 3:08 pm | #

The difference is that we Americans are pussies.

Maybe what David meant is that Luskin was one of Vivac’s long time sources… of drinks.

I’m amazed Luskin didn’t resign a whole lot earlier. Imagine, all that education and experience, and he’s still stupid.

My guess is that Rove’s ass is already fried, and Luskin is trying to save himself here.

If Luskin is doing so, he must resign as Rove’s lawyer.

Model Rules of Professional Conduct, as passed by the American Bar Association, House of Delegates February 5, 2002 and amended in August 2002.

Rule 1.7 Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

(a) . . . a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:
. . .
(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited . . . by a personal interest of the lawyer.

I realize that discussion is moving quickly, but let me draw attention to this:

Yahoo! Fitz!