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 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.

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

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

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

That pansy banned me for making him look stupid.

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.

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.