Coorection…

Rove’s story is that he believed that he and Cooper did not speak about Wilson’s wife… only about Welfare reform… until he found the Hadley e-mail.

I think it makes sense that Luskin is arguing the earlier date.

I think Rove’s argument goes like this.

“I knew Cooper thought he had a conversation with me when I first went before the Grand Jury because Luskin told me so. I signed my waiver of confidentiality and said to the grand jury that I never talked to him about Wilson’s wife before the Novak article came out, because that is what I believed at the time. I had a memory of a conversation about Welfare Reform, but no memory of a conversation about Wilson’s wife. That is why I authorized my attorney to say that Cooper was not going to jail because of me. When it became clear that my testimony was going to conflict with Cooper, I went through my files to see if there was anything which could back up my memory. And then we found my e-mail to Hadley. When we found it I instructed my attorney to bring it to the U.S. Attorney’s attention immediately.”

The key here is the conversation about Welfare reform. Cooper’s insistence that there was no conversation about Welfare reform during his chat with Rove on July 10, 2003, makes it seem as though Rove was providing cover for the substance of the conversation at the time that he sent the e-mail to Hadley. I agree Rove is desparate, but his only play is that he believed that he and Cooper did not speak until he found the Hadley e-mail.

By the way, Fitzgerald will likely point out that he found this e-mail within days of learning that Cooper had sent an e-mail to his editors at Time Magazine. This really screws Rove. First, Rove at that moment knows that it is not just his word against Cooper’s. Second, the contents of the Cooper e-mail, sure makes it look like Rove knows what he is saying is important AND the revelation of the existence and contents of the e-mail makes any recantation damned near impossible because Rove – at the moment of revelation – knows that his perjury will be found out.

My response:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/10/19554/869

Oh and by the way, under Title 18, Section 793–failing to Report a negligent disclosure is a seperate violation. If Rove violated this statute, he would be legally obligated to report it to his superiors. That would be Andy Card and/or George Bush.

In such a situation, the next question would be: What actions did they take or fail to take?

I agree with Quicksilver and have said so before. Now, that Rover and Luskin are hell bent to prove they didn’t lie, they swear under oath that Rove did leak Plame’s identity to someone not entitled to receive it. What would make my Fitz-Mas is not a Perjury, Obsturction or Lying to Investigators indictment (although that would be the bow on my Fitzmas Gift)–but charges under Title 18, Sections 793 and 794.

Not that anyone is paying attention here anymore, but to add one thing: Jane’s theory depends on the reliability of TIME’s report that Fitzgerald’s subpoena for Novak named May 2004 as the start date for conversations of interest. I’ve already mentioned that there are rumors of TIME folks unsympathetic to Novak being sources for the Dec. 2 NYT story. The other thing to recall is that the NY Observer reported a few days ago that the TIME story appeared without much help from Novak, and seemingly not with her best interests at heart. So it may be less implausible than it seems that TIME would not have direct access to Novak’s subpoena, at least when writing that article. And/or maybe someone heard Novak say something about a May 2004 conversation, which may be when she believes it took place, and mistakenly thought the subpoena specified May 2004 as the starting date. Or maybe TIME got confused, and the subpoena just identifies May 2004 as the date of one relevant conversation, not necessarily the first.

I know this blog has a big lovefest with Tom Maguire of JustOneMinute but check out this thread to see what a loser Maguire

http://justoneminute.typepad.c…..l#comments

That pansy banned me for making him look stupid.

Yeah but Jane, what difference does it make, really, which version is true? Even if the conversation happened before Cooper’s testimony, Rove would still have been tipped off, and would reasonably have anticipated a Cooper appearance spilling the beans. You dont really think Rove would have rested content without worrying about Cooper blowing his cover until actually finding out that Cooper was going to testify?

This way, Rove can *claim* as follows: that Vivac made an inadvertent comment to Luskin that Rove didnt think anything of (she could have just been flexing her muscles) until AFTER Cooper’s testimony, at which time he (or Luskin) realized that he needed to look into any potential evidence of statements he may have made but doesnt remember. Then they pull out the Hadley email, which could easily have been altered after the fact. Plus, this way it doesnt LOOK LIKE Rove changed his story as a result of being tipped off by Vivac- it makes it more logically plausible that he just didnt remember the (original) Cooper conversation (which the Hadley email “shows” was innocent and harmless) until Cooper was forced to testify. This last point is crucial because it calls into question a very suspicious-looking timeline, resulting in what Luskin probably feels (hopes) is a lack of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

it is both fun and instructive to read these comments. but as a non-lawyer – you can think of me as a juror if you wish-

i dont see any clear line of reasoning here at all. furthermore, i dont see that this novak info in its totality is especially uselful in helping me understand what rove did or did not do that the govt has alleged

interesting as it is, this set of comments, and indeed , virtually all the comments i’ve read about the novak/luskin testimony , are like an eddy current in a river– a more or less circle that keeps endlessly meandering round and round.

were i a juror i think i would say:

rove has an obligation to testify truthfully under oath. he has been shown, lets say, to have a remarkable memory. this, the charges against him, is a central, and very seriuous problem for his job and reputation. he has a motive to lie.

what have you, defense lawyer, got that is credible to me which says that what appears to be a lie is not? oh yeah? who cares when you met with novak.

why i shoudl care at all if novak spoke with luskin in january, may, september. the issue is rove’s credibility and the presection has presented x1,x2, and x3 examples of dissembling.

i suspect what is being argued here is being argued from the fear that fitzgerald may not indict.

at this point there either aren’t enough (publicly available)connected facts to permit connecting them together. or there really is no inherent connectedlness to be discovered, i.e., its another rovian misdirection.

but anyway it’s fun to read. and beats another bad movie all to hell.

I’m breaking out in a rash…..!!!!!

There seems to be a consensus that Rove et al are fighting things in the court of public opinion as well as in the courtroom. I agree–this is, after all, what they do–but I don’t think they’re doing a very good job. Anonymous sources are one thing, but none of the key players is making on-the-record statements about this whole mess. They just look like they’re stonewalling. (Because that’s exactly what they’re doing.)

As for trying to make Fitz and his crew look like Keystone Kops, I agree that they’re trying to do so, but I can’t understand why. This strategy only works if you keep making wild accusations, and your opponent keeps denying them. It’s standard Rove procedure, but it doesn’t work at all if the target simply ignores you and doesn’t bother denying the wild accusations. I doubt you’ll make much headway with potential jurors, either. My biggest impression of Fitz came from, well, Fitz himself. That press conference was strong enough that any preconceptions I had about him really didn’t matter.

Jane, emptywheel,

The third source of leaks, I suspect, is TIME folks unsympathetic to Novak. The execrable Deborah Orin said as much regarding the Dec. 2 NYT story, which she said she was hearing was not true, and in this regard she is likely to be carrying Luskin’s water, so that may be reliable info from her, for once.

If that’s so, I wonder whether TIME’s original report that the subpoena applied to May 2004 and later is reliable. Do we have this info from any other source?

Very nicely argued, QuickSilver. Very plausible speculation, and the point about Cooper’s special importance is a valuable one.

If this is the case, it should have been explained to Fitzgerald (and the grand jury) when it happened, which was over a year ago. Instead, it conveniently came up just as the grand jury was expiring. per Frank Probst

good point!
puzzled | 12.09.05 – 2:24 pm | #

It’s a Rovian move, the last minute misdirection.

Luskin is defending Rove in the court of public opinion as well as the grand jury. What Luskin spins in the press doesn’t really affect Fitzgerald’s case. There are people leaking to defend Vivak. It’s clear as mud.

What the hell did rove testify to the GJ in Feb 2004? Did he or did he not testify he talked with Matt Cooper?

If he didn’t , then he

I agree with EPU in the new thread: Good post Quick Silver, please repost it there for us for the ones who have moved on from this thread.

There’s a new thread; wear your robe.

Good reminder about the forest, QS.

Remember the “other things” that Luskin threw at Fitz at the last minute. They were contained with the whole Viv Novak line in a porcelein device known as a kitchen sink. To what legal end? Very little, it seems. So why the obfuscation? GWB. Rove’s only real audience is the President. As long as he can convince W–and that’s not exactly playing bridge with a master–that he’s out of legal range of Fitz, he keeps his job, his power and what little bit of ammunition he has to trade favors, raise money and fight another day.

Sometimes the best answers are the simplest. This doesn’t seem to make any sense because it doesn’t–to anyone in the world except George and Barbara’s little boy.

Is this Luskin/Vivnovka drama all about Rove’s recovered memory? Or is Fitz contemplating other charges?

To my mind, the reason Matt Cooper wasn’t offered a waiver by Rove may well have been because Luskin/Rove was tipped off (by Viveca Novak, wittingly or unwittingly) to the existence of internal Time e-mail.

Remember, other journalists who received the leak apparently got waivers from Rove and never had to defend suppoenas, or go to prison on First Amendment principle… For those reporters, Rove used his standard “oh, I did tell him, but I heard it first myself from another journalist” defense. It’s apparent that in leaking to Robert Novak, Rove used this alibi with investigators (at least in some of his initial questioning).

But Cooper was a different case than other journalists, for one very good reason: there was independent and verifiable confirmation of Rove’s leak to him, and the internal Time e-mail is fairly clear that Rove knew the material was sensitive and embargoed, not just a matter of journalistic gossip. The revelation that Valerie Wilson worked as a WMD analyst at the CIA was, as Matt Cooper memorably put it, part of a “War on Wilson.”

I think Fitz is trying to demolish Luskin’s timeline for several reasons, and not merely to fix details about the timing of the recovered Hadley e-mail and Rove’s recovered memory. Take a step back and look at the big picture: this case is about Rove’s state of mind (and knowledge of Plame’s status) back in July 2003, and speaks directly to Rove’s motive and premeditation in leaking to Robert Novak. That’s why Cooper’s testimony has always been important — it is an independent confirmation of Rove’s knowledge of his own wrongdoing (”Things will be declassified soon”, “I’ve probably said too much”, etc).

No doubt Fitz asked whether Viveca Novak tipped Rove/Luskin to the specific contents of the internal Time e-mail, and is exploring the possibility that Rove’s defense/delay strategy was constructed around that tip. If Team Rove did get that tip about e-mail, they would know that Cooper and Time could under no circumstances be granted a waiver unlike other news organizations. Team Rove knew that only a legal challenge and Supreme Court appeal would buy time (and re-election) for BushCo. And poor Matt Cooper got roped to Judith Miller…

Matt Cooper was subpoenaed in May 2004, which is important for all the critical timing issues. That’s what this leakfest and who-said-what-when is probably all about, to my mind, and not so much the timing of the Hadley e-mail discovery.

So just keep an open mind here about other possible charges, and look at the big picture. I think this Luskin/Vivnovka testimony is about much more than the Hadley e-mail. Digby is right: Fitz was hardly given “pause” in October. I’ll bet Fitz delayed indicting Rove only because he saw an opportunity to use Luskin’s dilatory spin to make an even stronger case against Rove….

Fitzgerald didn’t indict Rove in October for reasons of his own.

Fitz’s reasons are really simple. He had not vetted out all the evidence yet. Fitz is completely obsessive about discovery. Every rock turned over and dug under, every corner vacuumed. He has this thing about needing to know _everything_ that leads him to work slowly, and completely develop evidence.

As a result, he is never surprised in court.

He works one perp at a time… Gets everything he can (which is everything), then moves his focus over to the next perp in line. He may gather evidence on multiple perps at once… But he only works indictments in consecutive order.

Luskin/Rove are known liars. It’s hard to say who lies to the greater degree or more frequently. Luskin told the press that Rove never talked to Cooper… Is it Luskin’s lie or Rove’s lie? Well… They are both in over their head, cause Fitz hates liars of all shapes and colors.

It was Luskin who went public and said he presented evidence to Fitz that “gave him pause” – To be honest, don’t believe Luskin as far as you can throw him. And people who are spending hours of time dissecting his spin, are really just digging into a wastebasket of throw away statements… Lies, designed to manipulate the press and pollute a potential jury pool.

The only straight shooter, including the press… Is Patrick Fitzgerald… We are just going to have to sit back and wait. I guarantee if he sat down with a new GJ he will come out when everything else is lied about and spun and tell us the truth on paper that will hold up in a court of law. It’s that simple.

J. Thomason,
Yes indeedee; I think you would be referring to Slothrop’s trip down the toilet at the Roseland Ballroom in searchof his harmonica while Charlie Parker blew the hell out of ‘Cherokee.’ It is an apt metaphor for this endeavor.

Actually I alluded to Finnegan’s Wake initially hoping to drive the blog toward Gravity’s Rainbow which was getting some play at D Kos at the time. “Hand Clap” indeed!!

It seems that, once again, the collective plamogosphere’s verdict is: “Bullshit!”

new thread(monk, no panda)

Arb-
I was a little afeared that that term might offend but hoped that my overall smart-aleckness (not to mention my Gaelophile nom de guerre and invocation of the holy Jimmy Connolly) might have made it clear that the use of an otherwise pejorative term was meant truly in an affectionate way. (Which is why I struck my initial ‘bogtrotter’ reference.) That said, I hereby renounce use of that epithet (or any cognate ones, like the earthy slur above). In short, no harm meant and am genuinely sorry for offending you or anyone else.

arbogast: yeah, I missed that. Not quite. . . right, that.

How about this:

Luskin is an incompetant hack and this “defense” is really just a bunch of misdirection and confusion. All it was designed to do was to postpone the indictment so it wasn’t at the same time as libby’s.

For proof this is accurate, just read any of a dozen blog posts and see if anyone gets any idea of how this “new information” helps Rove.

Luskin is just not that much smarter than everyone who has been following this case with the obsessiveness bordering on mania(myself included). What he has managed to do is akin to saying, “but the car he was in during that drug deal was aqua, not blue!”

Brilliant! We will be seeing the rove frog march soon enough.

This is all beginning to tie together. Gravity’s Rainbow does contain references to plumbing issues at frat parties in Cambridge allegedly attended by JFK, ne c’est pas?

Welcome back, Monk. I hope all goes well. Absolutely superior graphics.

the sainted JFK donated money to Joe McCarthy’s campaign and ducked on voting to censure TailGunner Joe.

I’m with Frisco and Altoid on the Rove non-indictment. That is, I’ve never understood why we should have to buy Luskin’s spin on why Fitz “held off”. I don’t think it’s impossible that Fitz was forced at the last minute to hold off doing what he otherwise would have done, but I see no reason why we have to assume that was the case.

January 2004 or May 2004?

Maybe a credit card record of the bar tab?

Though they were probably too schnockered to remember how they paid or who was buying, Fitz, have a look/see. But you probably did that already.

So I take it this is the key then: hand clap, woody, V-2 attack.

You know, I don’t get ruffled by just about anything that people write here in the Peanut Gallery (Buffalo Bob died recently I believe, recently as in within the past few years).

But…

“Mick Pantheon” is not a phrase that I am really and truly enthused about.

Now, I am not slow to criticize the Irish. My own grandfather, God rest his soul, was a supporter of Joe McCarthy (unbelievable, but true), but voted for John Kennedy, because he was Irish. So the Irish are not without their problems.

And, frankly, my quarter Irish (my grandfather was the only one) is of probably no interest or importance to anyone on earth.

But I hope and pray, Sebastian, that the blessed prosecutor himself is not reading these comments, because if he is, you may have just tipped the old boy over the edge to just about be getting angry, if you know what I mean.

I also believe that Fitzgerald did not intend to indict Rove in October along with Libby, nor do I believe the info that Luskin gave him made him “pause.” Luskin and Rove did not know what Fitzgerald was going to do, so sent their spin to make it look like Rove dodged the bullet at the last minute. Fitzgerald will indict when he’s ready to proceed.

Digby: glad you’re here! Close that panda window!

Altoid – Good point.

I gotta admit that none of this makes any sense to me, but it sure is a kick to read everyone’s theories here. Majorly inquisitive minds going on here.

Personally, it all sounds like the Chewbacca defense to me.

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

^^ Send Letters, Sign Petitions ^^

And please… Spread this link around to the left… This is a very important part of fighting this machine.

Altoid | 12.09.05 – 2:27 pm |

A fair point.

Digby seems to be saying what Grampa has been saying, unless I’m missing something.

Everything seems to be predicated on the idea that Luskin galloped in on his charger at the last minute in October and got his boy a miraculous reprieve. I never believed that. It clearly came from Luskin himself and I think is part of the Rove effort to make this all so confused that everybody gets sick of it and the public will feel sorry for ol’ Karl when the time comes.

His defense is to make this investigation look like the Keystone Kops.

Fitzgerald didn’t indict Rove in October for reasons of his own. He might have had all he needed, or he might not. He might have learned new things, or he might not (in the case of VN he probably did). We just don’t know because Fitzgerald isn’t trying to smear his targets with leaks.

This guy Luskin, though, seems to be a piece of work. If I remember what I’ve read about him, he likes to try cases more in the press than in court. He’s clearly where most of the “information” we’re getting is coming from.

So it’s interesting to try to work out the VNovak stuff, but I wouldn’t be thinking it has much to do with why Fitzgerald didn’t indict Rove back in October.

It might be that all Fitz really wanted was to set the rats scurrying, and that this story is nothing more substantive than the scratching noises and little flashes of reflected rats’-eye light you see when that happens.

If this is the case, it should have been explained to Fitzgerald (and the grand jury) when it happened, which was over a year ago. Instead, it conveniently came up just as the grand jury was expiring. per Frank Probst

——

good point!

welcome back, monk.

and to rw.

Thanks for getting it, Digby.

Monk, it’s great to see you back here!

Good signs of life, you’ve been missed.

Your Fan,

z

ROFL Monk! You’ve done it again you seer you. I about inhaled my whole cig. Mwha hahahaaa

I’m with EPU, I have a hard time believing there is some Luskin/Rover plot to deceive. I think Rove is playing games with the truth, but I can’t buy Luskin putting his career on the line. He’s a little strange (Gold Bars) but he’s not a criminal.

I’m also not on board with Rove pulling off the “Oops, I forgot” defense. The law folk will comment please, but Tove is known for his photographic memory, it has been written about and commented upon over time. Can Fitz use evidence of this fantastic memory to attack the “I forgot defense”? And the time between remembering and reporting to Fitz is a real problem for me, too.

No answers, Fitz has those, just a million speculative questions.

BTW. Another issue – touched on by some – There is nothing plausible about the story, and at the end of the day, no matter how good or creative it may seem, Fitz and the GJ are going to have to find it credible (and that is assuming the whole affaire has any meaning in any of this, which I don’t believe).

Swopa touches on this. Why would a conversation with Vvak make Luskin search through the emails again. There is no causal or logical connection there. It is as if Luskin said – oh, there was a full moon last night, I really should check out the emails to see if Rover had a conversation with Matt Cooper. None of it makes sense if you deconstruct what supposedly happened. Of course, we only know what is in the MSM, a lot of which is contradictory (which should also be a big red flag), but whatever MSM version you want to choose, the story has no credibility in its relation to Rover’s innocence or guilt, which is the issue here.

adam — yours is the only theory that makes sense out of this whole mess.

emptywheel — I think you are right, there are three leakers, and VandeHei et. al. deserve a good kicking for not being clearer about at least the motives of their sources when they’re putting forward so many conflicting statements.

Source 1 — NYT Dec. 2 article, that puts the date as “summer or early fall” 2004.

Source 2 — WaPo Dec. 3 article, that puts the date prior to Rove’s testimony in Feb. 2004.

Source 3 — WaPo Dec. 9 article, that says the date according to Vivac friendly sources is March or May 2004.

My point is that if Luskin is Source 2 VandeHei deserves a double good kicking for not realizing this is virtually impossible due to the fact that Fitz’s request, based on Luskin’s assertions, was for testimony after May 2004. Which also means that the only likely source for a Luskin leak is Source 1.

I’ve always assumed that Vivac was Source 2, given the details of the encounter. And source 3? Who fucking knows.

“hey, I have this great defense. I had a conversation with this Time reporter in January, 2004 that will explain everything.”

WAG alert (wild ass guess)

Luskin’s problem was “explaining” Rover’s recanting previous testimony, that he never spoke to Cooper. I speculate that in initial conversations with Fitz, Luskin offered his Viveca “conversation(s)” up as the “event” that caused Rover’s sudden remembering so that he could recant. This lie caused Fitz to interview Viveca for the first time and he learned that the timing of their conversation(s) did not support the timeline of Rover’s recanting. When Fitz brought this inconsistency to Luskin’s attention, probably around the day of Libby’s indictment, Luskin lies to Fitz and says, “oh no, you misheard me, I meant my ‘conversation(s)’ with Viveca were simply the ‘event’ that led me to review Rover’s emails at $900/hr. It was ‘discovering’ the Hadley email that really was the “event” that led to Rover’s recovered memory of his conversation with Cooper, not my ‘conversation(s)’ with Viveca.”

Fitz’s reply to Luskin’s “rolling disclosure” is an invitation to last Friday’s deposition, so that Boobie could not invent any more versions and so that he could try to mousetrap Boobie.

Fitz being careful wanted to spend a lot of time evaluating Viveca as a witness. Then he mousetrapped, I mean interviewed, Luskin last Friday. Once he had Luskin’s testimony, he went back and got Vivica on the record in a deposition.

Boobie is not “leaking” for himself any more and he is not leaking for Rover either. The silence is deafening.

This whole excuse, from information that we know to be true, is just ridiculous on it’s face. I’m certain that Fitz, in his own little way, is offended by this straw man they drug in front of him.

It certainly offends me.

On another note…

Things are sputtering back to life over at the Dartboard.

In fact, we came into posession of Luskin’s original story he was going to go with about the Luskin/Novak meeting.

http://darted.blogspot.com/200…..ginal.html

-Monk

Yes the goat roping, which happened while they said they were busy, out picking up 100 yards of flight line. ;)

Any theory presented here that has Luskin knowingly lying or fabricating evidence on behalf of Rover is off the mark. Of course that is IMO, but it is still the really wrong way to bet.

I gotta agree that Armando’s Unified Field Theory of Luskin’s putative defense just doesn’t make any sense. As far as I can tell, it boils down to this — Luskin sez, I was tipped to the possiblity of a Rove leak to Cooper early on but Karl, he stuck to his guns in saying that he just didn’t recall no conversation with Cooper; so, if you (Fitz) are thinking he changed his story only after it became clear that Cooper was going to testify about conversations with Rove, you’re all wet, cuz we already knew.
Leaving to one side the fact that this really stinks as an exculpatory counter-narrative (actually it just plain stinks as a narrative), this iteration of the putative defense not only puts Luskin in the role of a fact witness, but also puts into issue Luskin-Rove conversations that are otherwise privileged. The first part is folly and the second is stupefying folly.
I can’t say as I can get my head around a version of this story that does look exculpatory, but I just don’tthink that theory makes sense on any level.
It is, of course, possible that some such kooky theory is exctly what Luskin has in mind, and that this is nothing more than another bout of (somewhat effective, you gotta admit) slow-down ball. (Or, to use Jane’s felicitous phrase, just a long goat-roping expedition.) The propaganda value to Rove of not being indicted side-by-side with Libby, alone, might have been incentive enough to peddle any old wacky horseshit (not to mention the value of hanging around to run the WH jus’ a little bit longer). But for my lights I think it beyond stupid to play that way with any serious prosecutor — let alone the now fully Mythic Fitz (soon to join James Connolly, Padaric Paerse, Cuchulain, Finn MacCool, and the Great Brass-Balled Bull of Cooley in the Mick Pantheon).

Slothrop — the “mystery stimulus” in GRAVITY’S RAINBOW was a hand clap.

Not that it’s going to help.

;->

Redd, doesn’t my theory work? Rove is not recanting—he’s REMEMBERING. The tip from Vovak, which preceded his erroneous testimony, is proof that he wasn’t perjuring himself. What happened is that he didn’t remember at all. The fact he testified to not remembering the Cooper conversation after the Vovak tip proves that—ahem, sort of. He’s not recanting; he’s remembering after the email is found.

This is the converse of Rove’s political theory. Recall that he likes to attack his opponent’s strength. Applied to him, it means he leads with weakness—strongly!
It’s a “big lie” variant: the juror thinks, “Surely he’s not audacious enough to tell such a brazen lie. He must be telling the truth, unlikely as it seems. “

It’s obvious that Luskin told Fitz that the first conversation took place in May 2004. It’s the only reasonable explanation unless Fitzgerald’s secretary made a really bad clerical error on the subpoena and I doubt that.

Parse the wording of the “person” close to the case: “the conversation was not the event that led Rove to change his testimony.”

Ok. They have been claiming it was the e-mail that led Rove to change his testimony. Luskin is saying that he didn’t tell Rove about the conversation with Novak until he had located the Hadley e-mail or that the addled, prematurely senile Rove just didn’t believe it until he saw the convenient e-mail in black and white. The statement may be technically correct, but it’s bullshit nonetheless. The catalyzing event in Luskin’s little tale is still the Novak conversation that allegedly led him to spend months personally searching through e-mails to find the documentary proof that would convince his confused, alzheimers patient of a client that he needed to tell the prosecutor that he’d made a mistake in his earlier testimony.

Remember, Luskin was the guy who said on the record that “Rove never told Matt Cooper Valerie Plame’s name,” which is technically true. He referred to her as “Wilson’s wife.”

This is just Luskinesque press spin which they seem to be extremely eager to swallow and regurgitate without comment over and over again.

.

I can only guess that Luskin is saying: “see, Rove was aware that Cooper was saying he talked to him before he testified to the gj, but he didn’t say anything because he truly and honestly didn’t remember it. His memory was only refreshed when I found that dang email X months later”

In other words, Luskin may be saying that even though he knew his testimony would be contradicted, Rove stuck to his allegedly honest recollection.

Other than that, I’m stumped.

It’s perfectly exculpatory, don’t you see?
marky | 12.09.05 – 1:45 pm | #
———————————————————–
Nope. My guess is that the Viveca Novak ploy was a last ditch effort to avoid indictment. But suppose, just for the sheer amusement of it, that it’s true: Novak told Luskin that Rove was Cooper’s source, Luskin told Rove, they went back to the e-mails, found the smoking gun, and then Rove valiantly came forward to testify in an effort to clear his good name. If this is the case, it should have been explained to Fitzgerald (and the grand jury) when it happened, which was over a year ago. Instead, it conveniently came up just as the grand jury was expiring. Fitz is making sure all of his i’s are dotted and his t’s are crossed. Rove is a sitting duck. Luskin may even be guilty of obstruction (and/or perjury, depending on what he said under oath). Fitz clearly isn’t buying any of this crap, and I can’t imagine he has much good will left for Rove or Luskin. If Libby’s looking for a deal, now would be a good time to ask. Still waiting for Viveca Novak’s side of the story.

Fitz is dancing around the outside of the scandal. Like Ken Starr, Fitz seeks a small issue he can magnify to keep attention off of the real crime. In Starr’s case, it was the blue dress and Oval Office Orals that distracted from the far more serious issue of CIA drug running during Iran-Contra. In Fitz’s case, the real scandal is the forged Niger documents and the lies used to send this nation to war. That is a scandal that could and probably should bring down the entire US Government, as the Constitution does not explicitly authorize the government to engage in such lying to the people. So, Fitz needs a distraction; a minor crime with which to mask the greater crime.

What I still don’t quite get is how putting the date of the Luskin-Vinovak conversation in January, i.i. earlier than the date Vinvak gave (May) somehow could help Rove’s case. Except maybe in the press, by confusing the hell out of everybody. Anyone?

I would add that it’s a Trojan Horse defense. It had to have been planned in advance. Luskin would have to be a true criminal to have done it. I absolutely do not understand why CokeHead and his pals can find people everywhere who will stick their balls/tits in a wringer at the drop of a hat.

from last thread–the notion that it’s all too much for Bush and he’s drinking again. I know this has probably been said many times, many ways, but does it matter if our fearless leader is on a dry drunk or a drunk drunk?–either way he’s fully equipped with a panoply of enablers….

“I realize this may be arguing the fine points to the ultimate boredom of many readers …”

Never, Jane!! That’s what we all love you guys for….

arbogast

Combine your theory and mine and we might be getting somewhere.

Rove needed a reason to explain why he only remembered the Cooper stuff AFTER Cooper had published his story in mid-July 2005 (I’m fairly sure the offer to testify came after Cooper’s TIme piece). So he used Vivnovka. And Fitz said, BS! So Luskin said, “oh, you’re confused. It was me talking to Vivnovka, not Karl. And you’re confused about the date.”

arbogast | 12.09.05 – 1:53 pm

Interesting. Methinks we need another legal opinion!

Fitz is missing.

Exactly.

The wait is such sweet suffering.

I don’t think Fitz was caused “pause” by Luskin on the 25th of Oct. ‘05.

I think Fitz had NO intention of indiciting Rove on F-mas One 10/28 while he was still working on the info Ralston gave him about the logging of calls into the WH.

Doesn’t the time-line of the Ralston testimonies suggest that Fitz was far from done with Karlie that Fitzmas day?

I’d guess Fitz intended all along to indict Libby only on the first day of F-mas — as per his Ryan investigation indict-one-sweat-all strategy.

I lost track of the whole thing.

Last I recall, Lawrence O’Donnell revealed that someone’s source was Karl Rove — I think it was the July 4th weekend — and since that time, it’s been like trying to get through a damned Pynchon novel or something.

My general sense of it is: the White House is fucked and it’s only a matter of time before they all get their comeuppance in whatever form that takes.

Here’s one more thought. We’ve all bought the spin that the Vivnovka story is one that Luskin fed Fitz on Fitzmas eve. But if Vivnovka was important, wouldn’t Rove have mentioned her in his October 2005 testimony?

Or maybe he did. And he–not Fitzgerald’s confusion–created the impression that he spoke to Vivnovka.

Evil Parallel Universe | 12.09.05 – 1:50 pm There’s a lot of truth in that, and I think it had a good chance to prove right.

Here’s how I see it. Luskin goes into Fitzgerald’s office and says, “Look, you can’t indict my client on account of the conversation I had with Novak.” Fitzgerald says, “That conversation was on _______date. It doesn’t help your client.” Luskin says, “Oh, God, there’s a misunderstanding here! It wasn’t on __________date. It was on ____________date which changes everything.” Fitzgerald says, “Huh?” Luskin says, “Yes, it was on __________date, but perhaps I told you it was on __________date. I’m sorry.”

If the dating of the conversation can be exculpatory, we now have a situation where Luskin’s not Rove’s memory is in play. Luskin has managed to off-load the perjury etc. from his client to himself, but he claims an honest mistake and has never testified under oath.

This would be an absolutely beautiful strategy I believe: have Luskin come up with something that he is clearly lying about but which permits Rove’s story to hang together. Luskin’s lie makes Rove’s testimony honest. But Luskin can have lied to the ceiling without any risk at all because he’s never been under oath.

Does this make sense?

There is another logical possibility — and I mention this without having any new evidence, but just in an attempt to make sense of what is available.

What if V. Novak initially told Luskin that the gossip at Time was that xyz (not Rove) was Cooper’s source. If the conversation was in Feb. 2004, then Luskin can argue that from Rove’s perspective, whatever “minor” conversation he had with Cooper was irrelevant to both participants. Its not perfect, but it sort of justifies Rove not mentioning the conversation at his first GJ appearance.

Or let me put it another way. The FIRST leak about this said the conversations STARTED in May. Not sure if that’s what Vivnovka testified to (perhaps there were earlier conversations, but Cooper didn’t come up?). But that would say the first leak on this came from Vivnovka’s people. Which doesn’t seem to make sense to me–it’d say she was doing the prime leaking, and Luskin was only responding. And that Luskin, in spite of having her telegraph her OWN testimony, testified differently.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong here, but doesn’t the refreshing the recollection defense of the Vivak/Luskin conversation undercut and/or completely negate the recantation defense for perjury? I’m having a great deal of difficulty reconciling the two on legal grounds (perhaps because I have a headache today) and I need to pick other legal brains on this line of thinking. Anyone have any thoughts?

I just don’t see the whole Luskin/Vvak thing as being central to whether Fitz will indict Rover or not. I am sticking with my MSM not liking a vacuum theory, that there is a lot of other evidence we know nothing about (which is a fair assumption), as well as one of the few facts that we do know – that Fitz is meeting with the GJ and the assumption he is not regaling them with baseball stories.

Well, if I deactivate my bullshit detector and my snark squirter, then perhaps grampa’s theory of defsne holds:

Vovak conversation with Luskin in (fill in the date, Feb-May).

Luskin starts to search for evidence as a result. Whew! That took forever, but looky here!

Karl says, “Hot damn, that’s right!.”

Karl goes back to to offer Fitzy the opportunity to update and correct the record.

Well, you say, didn’t Luskin ask Karl if he had spoken with Cooper once he got the word from Vovak?

Um, sorry, that’s priveleged information, and protected in the attorney-client relationship.

It’s all very clear, innit?

All I want for Fitmas is a Rover indictment, A Rove indictment, A Rove indictment.
All I want for Fitzmas is a Rove indictment, and then go after Darth!

Shows you where I’m at!

Fitz is cooking up a new indictmentÂ…

As the story says, this happened on Oct. 27. The day before the Libby indictment.

Smells like victory!

I think marky’s onto something.

Something else I’ve been thinking about is the order of leaks we’ve gotten about this.

We first learn Vivnovka is going to testify in May. IIRC, this seemed to be a Luskin leak–and almost certainly wasn’t a Vivnovka leak (or was it???).

And then the next story says she’s going to testify about a conversation in Fall 2004. Which would seem to work well for Luskin. Right?

But then the most recent VdH (solo) article says she is testifying about January. Which if you believe today’s VdH and Leonning article, is the story Luskin wants you to believe. Not the story Vivnovka will testify to.

It seems to me the way to make sense of this is to figure out who leaked each story to figure out the dates. As I write this, I’m beginning to wonder if there isn’t a THIRD leaker (Luskin, Vivnovka’s people, and someone else) who leaked the Fall story.

Luskin is going to say that he conveyed Novak’s suspicion/friendly declarative statement about Cooper and at that time Rove said “I just flat don’t remember this, Bob. I don’t know what Vivak’s talking about”, or something similar. That’s how he testifies. Only later, when the email is found.. i mean, when Cooper’s testimony is subpoenaed.. does Rove’s memory improve.
It’s perfectly exculpatory, don’t you see?

Genug with the fitzes already!

Fitz!

No, make that Second Fitz!

Um… Make that Third Fitz!

Never mind…..

I think we’re having multiple fitz’s.

fitz!

Iheartjane – Damn you. Damn you to hellllllllllll. :)

Fitz,

By the way, if you find my mind, please let me know. End of snark.

fitz . . .