Thanks – Redd. It appears to me anyway that Fitzy went out of his way to give Rove some ropes. Maybe I am completely wrong about Fitzy but we will see.

Jess — trying to catch up on comments, but I wanted to respond to your question on whether it is normal for someone to go back for four dips at the testimony well for a G/J. The short answer is “no,” but that is for a regular G/J. Fitz uses his juries as a prosecutorial and investigative tool, rather than just a straight indictment mechanism, so the usual rules on testimony don’t necessarily apply here.

Someone did a superb diary on DKos a few months ago (I wish I could remember who) that contained some comments from a couple of former Federal prosecutors on using a grand jury as an investigative jury — and they were truly illuminating in terms of explaning the difference. If I can find the diary (or if anyone else has it saved and will do so as well), I’ll post a link for your to read.

Suffice it to say that an investigative body uses the requirements of being under oath differently than simply bringing in an investigator to make the case and then indict. Being under oath is useful as an additional tool at ferreting out the facts — the threat of a perjury indictment tends to do that with most witnesses. In Rove’s case, only time is going to tell us what Fitz has, but I truly do not think he’d be bringing back the G/J for more evidentiary presentation if he didn’t have some further evidence on someone — whether it is Rove or someone else, though, it’s tough to tell from teh outside.

Shez:

I am not a rightwing nut. I am pointing out the fact Fizt has gone out of his way to grant Rove’s request to come back to GJ 4 times, 4 times , in order to recant his lies. That’s a fact. WHY ? Can you explain why Fitz allowed Rove recant his lies 4 times? I understand we Dems have elevated Fitzy to Saint status so criticism of him means being a rightwing nut hah ?

What if Judy Miller testified in 2004 and Fitz closed the case then? We would never found out about Ms Viv, do we?

Something is not right here.

Norske, Thanks for smacking down Jess for us, he pulls this crap that Fitz ‘failed’ everytime when he shows up. What utter bullshit nonsense, the whole White House and all the wingnuts are terrified of Fitz as they damn well should be. As far as I’m concerned Fitz comes off as the Sword of St. Michael personified.

Then we have the passive aggressive Erroll who slides in twice in the last couple of days and attempts to start off with praises but deliberately ends with slamming all Dems as weak. I call bullshit again, how transparent. To that I ask what the hell is HE doing against this regime? What? They are fascists you say and managed to steal all the power? What? The MSN is their paid shills so we get no truth about how hard the Dems try and are thwarted at every turn? Apparently he is the weak one as I don’t consider myself weak for one second and I know of NO Dems who think of themselves in that light either.

We must pounce on these blatant rightwing talking points as soon as we notice them and run them out of town. Grab the tar and feathers and join me.

Thanks, Norske. You were a bit hard on me a few days ago, but I held my tongue, hoping to win you over. Looks like I’m making progress. :>)

Grampa,

You are now officially “Honorary Gampa Emeritus” for my grandkidz…not only is your logic and ability to disinfect the facts from the shit-spin powerful but you describe the legal topography of this mess in three dimensions so even us old history majors majors ken read the map.

Thanx, I hope your analysis of things to date holds up.

thanks for the analysis and the lovely artwork. It is nice to see it again, but I don’t think that’s the penitent. I think that’s the nightlight. http://www.artrenewal.org/asp/…..sp?id=5619

i’ll slip back to lurking now.

Anonymous post mentioning Gibbon was me. Sorry.

J. Thomason

“And I do think Prof. Brown’s insight with respect to the need to irrationally celebrate surplus value is significant here.”

Right om!

I have sometimes thought, upon seeing the flotsam and jetsam rise to the surface after this wreckage of state, that I am hearing Gibbon’s ornate narration of events from “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.” But the pleasure of the expression is perhaps small consolation for the fact that one finds oneself a character in the drama!

RE: ccmask | 12.11.05 – 2:07 pm

I hear ya.

Cash could have been used and that trail could run cold quickly. However, odds are somebody likely used their American Express Business Gold Card.

Tidy records equals happy accountants!

I think the Rove/Hadley email was written long after the date on it, to give Rove some cover. Yes, I know it’s supposed to be impossible to plant an email in the White House system. But I have yet to see confirmation that the email was found on the White House server. It might have been sent from Rove’s personal computer to Hadley’s personal computer, thus explaining away the failed White House search. Changing computer clocks would at least give the surface appearance that the email is legit, but looking at the routing info would reveal the truth. There is one reason — and I think it’s a compelling one — why I believe the email rings false: If Cooper’s testimony is true, welfare reform was not discussed in that Cooper/Rove phone call. Yet, Rove would have us believe he hung up and then immediately sent Hadley an email about the conversation — one in which he lies to Hadley about what was discussed. Why would he have done that? Think about the illogic of his lying to Hadley about the topic, and then think about how purposeful Rove was in setting that false scene (one that would be meaningless to Hadley, but which would hold some meaning to Fitz if he could be convinced it’s true).

There is another reason why Rove’s recantation will not be effective: recantation must be complete. The truth cannot dribble out (”rolling disclosure”) when and as the earlier statements are challenged. As analyzed by Anonymous Liberal, Rove’s October 2004 testimony admitted that he had a conversation with Cooper — he had to; his email to Hadley proved it — but he may not have admitted that he talked about Plame. The NY Times reported only that he said “it was possible that the
subject of Mr. Wilson’s trip had come up.” It took another year — AFTER Cooper’s detailed email to his editor was leaked, and AFTER Cooper testified before the grand jury — for Rove to go back to the grand jury and explain again what he told Cooper. And we still don’t know how much he left out.

Recantation is available to insure that the grand jury hears the truth. It is not a mechanism by which a defendant can adjust his lies to avoid prosecution.

New thread.

I’m using my patented Wilson New Thread Detector

The voice: And if there isn’t a receipte from plastic, then it means that Luskin paid cash.

Want to nail down the dates of Luskin and Vivack?

Two questions….

Who picked up the bar tab?

Tab paid $Paper$ or “Plastic”?

20 years in the tax bidness tells me that “Plastic” – a credit card – was used, and that somebody( Vivack, Time Inc., Luskin or his firm) deducted the meetings as an “entertainment expense” on a 2004 tax return.

Follow the money/paper trail.

Why didn’t Luskin want VNovak to write about her testimony?

Probably because it’s true.

Viv wrote that once she knew Luskin was representing Rove, she “began spending a little more time than usual with Luskin as I tried to keep track of the investigation.” Tried?

You’re doing a heckuva job, Viv!

I confess with the the Volunteers not bowl bound this year I have been spinning. Many of you may have noticed this in this very thread.

I must recant though with regard part of what I have posted today.

I have consulted my Maker and do not find Mr. Fitzgerald’s pursuit of justice in this matter futile, far from it.

I first was drawn to firedoglake (I would think with a name like this I can be excused several apocaylptic asides) by the diligence and insight with which the understanding of the details of this matter of the politically motivated exposure of a covert CIA agent has been pursued.

These lights have not faded though I must confess my reason buffeted about as it has been by the media in this matter has given way to my faith that Fitzgerald is qualified and dedicated to finding the truth.

All this notwithstanding talent alone did not save Coach Fulmer and the Vols this year nor their previous won loss record against the Buck Eyes.

I additionally will concede the fact that the Mt. Union Raiders in some spare likelihood and surely with respect to football more often than not ruled the Kenyon Lords.

I must note though that the culture of corruption remains a serious problem in DC and a grave threat to our democracy. And I do think Prof. Brown’s insight with respect to the need to irrationally celebrate surplus value is significant here. I was hopeful that the New Age had in fact arrived with the eroticization of the White House by President Clinton our great Quetzecoatl, but alas a kind of authoritarian theocracy has yet emerged.

Finally I have been somewhat crestfallen that the redacted 8 pages apparently did not contain some great revelation of the real world cost of this outing of Ms. Plame as I had so proudly predicted in my righteous public speculation. Perhaps this is another reason I have regressed to faith albeit in the light of fire.

Perhaps I should just go off and consult the beatitudes and pray that God is as advertised. I should note finally that some of my 40 something friends do maintain Foghat in yet a kind of earnest awe and would use yet use the phrase “kick-ass” in the most solemn contexts. They would mark these attitudes as badges of their unfettered maturity.

Why didn’t Luskin want VNovak to write about her testimony? Was he afraid of something she may have wrote or said to Fitz? Or was it just a ploy?

Anyone else notice that the entire Bubble Boy article in Newsweek today was nothing but quotes by un-named sources. Whenever Bush & Rove are involved people will not give their opinions publicly for fear of retribution. In this case, it was a 5-page article of anonymous quotes.

Why should the Plame matter be any different? It must have to do with Bush also. Maybe Karl took the call from Cooper while he was in the Oval Office……..

josh

yeah, she may be coordinating this with Lusking. Or they may have made an “agreement.” He told her what was going on, and she told him what was going on at Time. As I suggested above, either this conversation took place in May, or Vivnovka almost certainly ALSO told Luskin that Cooper was the one and only Time reporter who had received a leak. Pretty valuable info, if you’re a defense lawyer. In which case Vivnovka probably got taken, because the information she was offering was a lot more valuable than the spin she was getting.

I’m going to throw in with pollyusa and p.lukasiak.

The question (actually it was probably a statement from Fritz) that went to Luskin during indictment week was that the timing of the October recant and the found e-mail was too weird vis-a-vis Cooper. Luskin made up the prompting story and gave a summer/fall date for the Novak conversation. There were probably a lot of other excupatory items Luskin provided in general (common knowledge and hence the FBI interviews with the neighbors).

Fitz almost surely has the e-mail search dates in hand. Luskin isn’t going to be able to paw through Rove’s e-mail without, at the very least, notification to the WH e-mail receiving parties.

The search probably came late when the Cooper shoe looked to be sure to drop. Fitz obviously has a March date in mind due to some activity which we haven’t seen yet. I think Fitz has things circumscribed around the March event and the October e-mail production and is willing to let Luskin/Rove pick their poison.

Cozumel and Josh W. – Just my opinion – but I think Vivnak’s story has a ring of truth to it. Her confessions have, after all, probably destroyed, or seriously damaged, her career. Witnesses frequently don’t remember dates, or confuse them.

People generally lie to protect themselves. I very much question whether Vivnak would lie protect a “friend” who has thrust her into the middle of criminal investigation and likely caused her to lose her job and professional reputation.

Vivnak might have a good idea of the date of the conversation at issue, but doesn’t want to swear to it unless she’s 100% certain because there are potentially serious implications. If you’re not sure of a critical date, you certainly shouldn’t swear to it.

A one hour deposition can easily be summed up in a few paragraphs. Asking precise questions and getting precise answers is very time-consuming.

Maybe a bit late to comment on BlueMeme’s comment:

Not to defend the indefensible, but the 5am/5pm thing actually makes sense if she keeps her calendar in MS Outlook. If you enter an event as 5am, you might not see it if you page through your calendar in the 1-day view set in default mode.

but . . . why not use Outlook to search for the keyword: Luskin ? Then it finds all appointments.

Prof

First, ReddHedd — long, thoughtful, well reasoned comments that go to the heart of the matter cannot be too long.

Next — Ms Novak’s “I can’t remember the date” story just doesn’t wash. Think about it. If it was May, that was when Cooper’s subpeona was announced. Can you really believe that she would have just had a conversation with Luskin who says that it was “important”, and then immediately sees Cooper subpeona’d, and doesn’t remember that connection? I don’t have access to Lexis, but I am certain that Luskin was making noise at the time of the announcment — if that had been right after (or right around) the time that Ms Novak had knifed Cooper wouldn’t she have remembered that?

Note that she was working on the Plame story. This was her job, it wasn’t some off-hand conversation.

And if the conversation was in March, it would have had to have been astonishing to her that Luskin was talking about Cooper long before it was publically known that he was an alleged leak-ee.

No, it just doesn’t wash. Come clean Vivaca — it’s your only hope.

Thad Beier

There’s a read at Daily Kos with Mary Mapes, author of a new book about George Bush and his National Guard issues.

V Novak writes about what she told Fitzgerald at her unsworn sit down with him and her attorney Schuelke:

“At that point I had found calendar entries showing that Luskin and I had met in January and in May. Since I couldn’t remember exactly how the conversation had developed, I wasn’t sure. I guessed it was more likely May.”

Did she tell Fitzgerald that she was guessing? Unlikely he would let a guess stand as her answer, as it just makes any followup worthless.

Did her attorney Schuelke not know the answer in advance? He should have. It would be a pretty sorry excuse that he relied only on his client’s review of her records rather than having a thorough scouring done by a data mining expert. A lawyer needs to do more before letting a client sit down with the USA, even if not under oath. It’s still part of a criminal investigation. A client should not be allowed to dig their own holes. And, not knowing the answer on what the clientÂ’s own records reveal is a very large hole.

Or, is NovakÂ’s writing here just sloppy or purposely incomplete?

Lucky you – the Beatles led the British invasion the year I graduated.

Its even.

With sprawl and all it probably part of Columbus at this point.

Gambier – how close to Columbus? That may be what saves it.

Norman O. Brown was all the rave my freshman year and the Stones.

And yes Gambier is unique.

Josh W,

“I’m a criminal defense lawyer, so let me run this by you folks–what if V. Novak is lying about all of this”

Entirely possible. I would think at minimum, Fitz asked Novak who told her about Cooper and when.

I still floored by the fact that Novak’s article, which is three minute read, is a synopsis of 1 1/2 hours of her testimony.

J Thomason – are they the only ones? I remember back in the day that Kenyon and Mount were both in the OAC. Gambier is a great little college town.

My father thinks I went to an elitist college. All I can say is that I did not choose this nick name, even as exploitive of the aristrocrcy as it may be.

Here’s another thought:

The significance of the Viveca story is not that it provides Rove protection against a perjury charge, but that it provides Rove and Luskin some cover for the charge that they intentionally withheld the Hadley email.

In my mind, that email remains the fly in the ointment. It’s the one thing that could get Luskin in trouble, if not criminally, then at least professionally. No matter when the Viveca conversation took place, it just looks bad to have documentary evidence surface in October 2004 showing that your client’s February testimony was false. It smells of an ongoing cover up.

Even if we take everything Viveca said as truth, and even if Luskin’s reported “surprise” was genuine (when he heard Rove had tipped Cooper), we still need an explanation as to why that email was not produced when it was first requested, and how it came to be found right around the time Cooper was subpoenaed regarding his source for the Plame story.

And what other Lords are there?

I am Plameaholic. And it’s all FDL’s fault.
Since I don’t accept responsibility for my addiction, I may never recover.
America needs a 12 step program (Fitzmas)

This last memory malfunction has given me a headache for the first time.

OH, boy….I never went to journalism school but if someone here has could you please explain to me whether they teach ethics anymore? It seems to me it is becoming clearer and clearer that after 911 the media just decided to throw away the rule book and just help the administration do whatever it wanted. So now as Fitz is finally holding people to the rule of law Rove et. al. are simply burning those who helped them. So I have no tears for VNovack and her career, she made her own bed, but I fear for our pathetic 4th Estate….no wonder we are in the sorry place we are in…..

Szabo

Here is something else that backs up p.lukasiak’s theory.

Viveca also has this from her 1st talk with Fitz on 11/10/05. Fitz asked her about meetings with Luskin into the fall of 2004.

He asked how often Luskin and I met during the period from fall 2003 to fall 2004 (about five times), when, where and so forth. I had calendar entries that helped but weren’t entirely reliable.
TIME 12/11/05

Viveca says “about five times“. It seems she is not sure of how many. It’s not clear if she told Fitz about five times in her 1st interview or if she has added that information in her article for clarity. Here are the Luskin meetings she knew of during her 1st visit with Fitz.

October 2003
January 2004
May 2004

add the March 2004 meeting after Fitz asked her to look for more meeting dates.

J Thomason – The Kenyon Lords?

Question: how likely is it that this whole Vivak-Luskin convo was made up out of whole cloth by both of them to try and bail out Rove. Who knows what future pipe dreams of exclusive “access” she’s been promised in exchange for playing along. This whole thing smells bad.

Jess,
I am not a lawyer either so I defer with the professional job evaluations to those who are…so jest chill out and calm down with the “Fitz failed” crap. There are gunna be numerous false statements, purgery, obstruction and conspiracy charges in the next week ta 10 days. AND when this whole nightmare is over, the corporate media will never be the same.

“sooners”

Some folks hereabouts don’t much care for the name sooners. It has something to do with ripping off land from early American Indians. Yes…I cop to being biased. I’m an Okie and there are Indians in my family. Cherokee to be precise.

I’m a criminal defense lawyer, so let me run this by you folks–what if V. Novak is lying about all of this, as a favor to Luskin? (how close are they?); I imagine Fitz is looking at the actions of Novak to determine if she is being truthful, and it appears that she told no one about this conversation with Luskin who would confim this conversation (not her editors for sure). And is it believable that she would tell no one and keep no record of it? Let’s assume that its a close call if Novak is lying-what about the failure of Rove/Luskin to report this knowledge to Fitz before Oct. 04 about a conversation in March/May 04? The only thing I’ll say as an attorney, if you’re going to lie than at a minimum you must be a better liar than the other side, and thats one area that Rove is good at–lying. You never lie without being able to prove the lie-directly and leave nothing to chance. Has Rove/Luskin achieved this–we’ll see…….

If “boomer” and “sooner” are taken what shall we who are bent on homesteding in Iraq call the scholar atheletes moving out intermurally from the inevitable land grant university.

In the “for what it’s worth” dept….

A simple (and possibly worthless) explanation.
Right before the Libby indictment Luskin tells Fitz about the V-Novak conversation and indicates (thru deception or wishful thinking) a date sometime during the Fall.

Fitz later has Luskin put his “money where his mouth is” by deposing Luskin under oath, where Luskin reveals the “correct” March date.

Fitz, to make sure that he won’t get blindsided, asks V-Novak in for an informal chat. She doesn’t confirm the March meeting, so Fitz follows up with V-Novak under oath, where some additional searching does unearth the March meeting.

This gives ZERO help to Rove (if correct). It’s just Fitz tidying up.

rwcole —

I think all “sooners” were “boomers”, but not all “boomers” were “sooners”.

“Boomers” were anyone who showed up for the Oklahoma land rush “boom” — “Sooners” were the large sub-set that jumped the gun, and staked a claim before the official opening of the land rush.

Think baby “boom” and baby “bust”.

Read the Time article. Love the quote from Fitzgerald “remove the chicken bone without disturbing the body.” There must be a few people walking around with missing bones after conversations with Fitzgerald!

Up here in Canada, we know the difference between January and May – just in the choice of outdoor footwear. Can’t she remember the weather or what she had on her feet as they were walking to the car?

But I would have to read and study the statute and related law to be able to make any comment.

Come on, justwondering, that didn’t stop me. :>)

Grampa, I think what you’re saying in that regard sounds very well-reasoned (as always). But I would have to read and study the statute and related law to be able to make any comment. I’m not sure what distinctions apply in terms of sworn statements vs. grand jury testimony vs. trial testimony (if any).

And some “sooners” were boomers?

And have the the Raiders yet cast just over the hill for the true test:
an epic gridiron contest against the mighty Lords.

sooners were the folks that participated in the land rushes in formerly Indian Territory, now Oklahoma….some enterprising folks snuck across the starting line early, hence the name ’sooners’

Who among us would behave any differently if we were treated nightly to a spread of Tanqueray, prime rib, fresh steamed asparagus and cocktail shrimp all on the tab of MZM, Inc. and the like. Shoot HealthSouth for that matter. And I am not sure the rich fare is the not end of it (immunity (including and grips) for Andean and Turkish diplomats, available suites at the Watergate, ambitious interns, etc.

I am sure though that an access conscioius reporter is not entirely insulated from these influences. And the sly beasts who feed so richly together surely know their benefactors prefer to remain…I think you get it.

And upon reflection I am not so sure afterall that I can remain charitable with respect to the Dutch Apple Pancake recipes. The Russians I have spoken with concerning the sharing of ideas in the context of a repressive goverment inform me that they finally took their politics to the kitchen.

Clearly the Dutch are Democratic, Liberal and economically savvy, in any event I think Thomas Hobbes was clear on this matter: the sovereign can not diet the masses.

Thoughts:

V Novak: If I were her editor, I’d be pretty pissed at her right now. Actually, I would have fired her already. As merely one of her readers, I just wish she’d kept better notes. She called bullshit on Luskin’s spin and inadvertantly tipped him off. Note that she never says that she KNEW Rove was a Cooper source. She could easily have been bluffing Luskin. But now she can’t tell us WHEN she did this, even though the conversation clearly made a strong impression on her.

Luskin: I think he’s looking at obstruction charges. The fact that Fitz deposed him at all is huge. The fact that he’s not happy with Novak suggests that she didn’t help him out much. I think he’s looking at a charge for withholding the Hadley e-mail.

Rove: I still say he’s dead in the water. It now looks like he was lying through his teeth to his own lawyer. From a Rovian world-view, this makes sense: If your lawyer, who has access to all of your phone-logs and e-mails, can’t catch you in a lie, it’s unlikely the prosecutor will. Rove was probably using Luskin as a stand-in for Fitz. I’ll bet he figured that if he could lie to Luskin, he could lie to Fitz. Oops.

Time Magazine: So far, their reporters are the only ones who come clean about their role in this mess. And Viveca is on leave, because they didn’t like what she had to say. They’re the most trust-worthy news source, in this respect.

justwondering – thanks. Do you agree that the judge would decide whether to bar the perjury charge; that Rove has the burden of proving the falsity would not be exposed; and that the standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence?

IMHO, the smoking gun in the Plame matter is the fact that a number of journalists heard about her status as a WMD operative from Bush administration sources. It strains credulity to think that this was coincidence.

can you spell c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y?

Ducks is a perfectly good name. And what are Sooners? (Apart from potential Duck feed.)

ReddHedd,

Vandehei put the time at which Luskin searched for and found the meeting as follows:

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
WaPo 12/03/05

p.lukasiak,

I think you may have something here. You could be right about Luskin telling Fitz he talked with Viveca in the fall. Viveca does say that Fitz asked her to look at other dates {pural} beyond the 2 she originally offered up.

Fitzgerald had asked that I check a couple of dates in my calendar for meetings with Luskin
12/11/05 TIME

If they did talk in the fall of 2004, Viveca doesn’t mention it. Maybe because she is sure that the conversation where she told Luskin about Cooper was in the Jan or May meetings she originally told Fitz about on 11/10/05.

In this other TIME article out today, they specifically put it that the conversation where Viveca told Luskin happened in the 1st half of the year.

a conversation Novak had had over drinks with Luskin in the first half of last year
Other 12/11/05 TIME article

If, as you posit, Fitz asked Luskin to produce his calendar, that would also explain where Fitz got the March date as well.

Clearly, all this CYA activitices were/are orchestrated by Rove, not his lawyer. Rove told Luskin what happened and how Luskin can help him avoid serious charges ie obstruction and perjury.

Personally, Fitz got played. If Fitz just indicted all of them for lying and perjury then told every reporters that they will be called as witnesses at the trials, he would have gottten what he wanted from the beginning.

I am no lawyer but Fitz has failed to do his job. If you read his PressC again when he said he tried to avoid calling all reporters but instead only selective few. No, Fitzy you failed. I don’t know Fitzy failed because he did not know DC or he failed because he did not want to indict unless he was 100% sure or maybe Fizty failed because he knew the investigation could bring down a government so he took extra careful steps.

Very disappointing after reading Viv’s account. Rove will get off easily with a minor charge of lying , that’s it. Viv is trying not to pin point the dates in order to help Rove and Luskin. The investigation from beginning is all about dates. When did the leak start, before or after Novakula’s piece? When did the WH and the staff learn of Plame’s ID etc…

Boomer Sooner

:)

Just trying to tease out one thread of VNovak’s really bad article, but do you think that she meant that her search for the Luskin appointment had been entered as 5am and not 5pm, or do you think that she meant that the appointment itself had been entered at wrong time?

And why would she search — in either an electronic or paper calendar — for the TIME of the meeting and not the NAME of the person with whom the meeting was held?

This little imprecise piece of writing by VNovak — as part of an article rife with imprecision — leads me to believe that there’s very little truth in her Time magazine account.

I am Plameaholic. And it’s all FDL’s fault.
Since I don’t accept responsibility for my addiction, I may never recover.
America needs a 12 step program (Fitzmas)

This last memory malfunction has given me a headache for the first time.

Kharma – cool picture. The wolves really are howling, aren’t they?

“Normally, no perjury prosecution should be undertaken after a solicited recantation, even if the defendant was technically ineligible under Section 1623(d).”

Grampa, it seems to me that the above is a guideline, but whether there has been a waiver, as a matter of law, would depend on what the case law actually says. In addition, was the recantation “solicited”? In this case it appears that Rove proposed giving further testimony rather than being “solicited” to do so.

(Litigator – but no criminal law experience.)

rw – as an antidote to all the Duck talk, I should note that the Mount Union Purple Raiders return to the Stagg Bowl (Division III championship game) for the 8th time in 10 years.

I must admit that when I was at MUC, purple was not a cool color and the football team sucked.

Seems to me that we have an epidemic curse of alzheimers running around DC. WTF is up with everyone waiting till they get caught to come forward (calling Bob Woodward)?
What if Bill said “Oh, I forgot about the blowjob, there are so many in my daily schedule that I have just forgotten about it.”? I think, if you have an inadequate memory, you aren’t the sort that I want in my government. Er…I mean MY GOVERNMENT.
auto transport

Norske–Yeah tough about the gophers– and yeah it’s the draw- that’s what I said above. (actually I only brought the subject up as an antidote to pancake recipes).

Here’s something I’m wondering about.

“In October 2003, as we each made our way through a glass of wine, he asked me what I was working on. I told him I was trying to get a handle on the Valerie Plame leak investigation. “Well,” he said, “you’re sitting next to Karl Rove’s lawyer.” I was genuinely surprised, since Luskin’s liberal sympathies were no secret, and here he was representing the man known to many Democrats as the other side’s Evil Genius. I began spending a little more time than usual with Luskin as I tried to keep track of the investigation.”

Here VNovak tells us she was spending more time with Luskin to keep track of the investigation. So how believable is it that this extra time she spent with Luskin because of an investigation was never noted in any way?

Surely he was now a source, and anything a source says might be an extra little bit of a jigsaw that might be able to be pieced together with something else further down the line.

This spending extra time because of the investigation but not noting anything that passed in those meetings doesn’t really square with me.

http://www.latimes.com/news/op…..commentary

IRAQ: The U.S. invasion has boomeranged, creating a different deadly threat.

I’d like to look at this from the point of view of the prosecutor. Fitz would not indict Rove for perjury simply because something Rove said was untrue. Fitz needs, and probably has, evidence that Rove knew it was untrue. This evidence could include the Hadley email, testimony from Ralston, and perhaps testimony from others who spoke with Rove about his interview with Cooper. That’s what it would take to bring a successful prosecution against Rove for perjury, whether or not Rove attempts to recant.

Section 1623(d) operates as a bar, not a defense, to prosecution for perjury before the grand jury. That means that the conditions of section 1623(d) must be demonstrated before trial. Redd, please help me out here, but it is my understanding that Rove would first need to file a motion to dismiss the perjury count, and would then come forward with evidence to show that, at the time Rove offered to recant his false testimony, it had “not become manifest that the such falsity has been or will be exposed.” It would be Rove’s burden to show that this condition was met, probably by a preponderance of the evidence. A judge would decide whether to allow the count to stand, not a jury. If the count is allowed to stand, recantation would not be a defense against the perjury count, although it might go to the question of Rove’s intent to deceive.

One interesting point about section 1623(d): it speaks to the timing of the recantation, not the reasons for the recantation. In other words, the it is not enough to show that Rove had an innocent reason for recanting; it must be shown that, at the time he offered to recant (October 2004?), Cooper’s source was not likely to be exposed. I haven’t looked at any case law under this statute, so it it quite possible that the courts look at the reasons for the recantation as well as at the timing.

So the question is, will any of this information about Viveca matter? Is it enough to cause a judge to throw out the charge of perjury before the grand jury? Is it really even evidence tending to show that, as of October 2004, Cooper’s source was not going to be exposed? I don’t see that happening, particularly in light of other evidence that may be forthcoming in a perjury trial.

I do have one concern, however, that Fitz’s decision to allow Rove to recant may itself bar the prosecution for perjury. The DOJ Criminal Resource Manual provides the following Practice Tip:

“If, however, the prosecutor specifically allows a witness to “straighten out” testimony, the government may be estopped from challenging a witness’s eligibility to recant. Normally, no perjury prosecution should be undertaken after a solicited recantation, even if the defendant was technically ineligible under Section 1623(d).”

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eous…..m01751.htm

If that tip is valid, it doesn’t mean Fitz made a mistake. As I’ve said several times before, Fitz’s goal is not to trap Rove in a lie, but to find the truth. He may have plenty of other evidence against Rove, so that he does not worry about recantation. It is more important to Fitz to get Rove to tell the truth so that the investigation can reach a just resolution.

My caveat: although I am an attorney, I don’t practice criminal law; I’m not even a litigator. This advice is worth what you paid for it.

Quit whinnin’ about er nicknames…how’d ya like ta holler fer the “Gophers”. It ain’t the nickname, it’s the draw, number a tickets they bring with ‘em and their (miserable) history in post season. That’s why I mentioned talent…

The Ducks and Beavers are the two coolest mascot names in college sports!

In Colorado, we have the Buffaloes and Rams and Miners and Pioneers and other normal names like that — Ducks and Beavers rule!!!

Free Topeka corn field Foghat concert may not be necessary.

Is this like weird or what. The Honda Odyssey commercial on CBS telecast of Colts v. Panthers featured “Slow Ride”. Its all coming together.

Wow, what a legacy for VivNovack. Telling her good friend Luskin about the ‘rumors’ at the Times. I am not getting my hopes up for an indictment of him however. L.O’Donnel land TalkLeft have mentioned Rove now possibly gets off. Ugh.

How many times did it take to get Gotti behind bars? Quite a few if a remember.

I am just not getting my hopes up. Fitz will do what is right in time. his time, not our ours. [sigh]

rwcole,

Re: “my meeting with Novak jogged my client’s memory”

We don’t know that Luskin said or did anything to give Fitz a “possible” inroad to attorney/client privilege but I can’t imagine that he did. He’s a smart guy and there’s more than one way to skin a cat.

Norske—The fighting Ducks have only one loss- that to USC- the number one team in the nation–in that game the Fighting Ducks led at halftime.

A curse on both your houses!

Ducks – It’s an East Coast bias. Cal was snubbed last year.

Ohio—”the name”

Well- it has more to do with the number of east coast vs west coast sportswriters- and the size of the teevee audience from Notre Dame and Penn State et al-

But actually- the ducks shot themselves in the foot with the name- literally-

They were born “The Webfoots”- because of the agreeable climate in Eugene–but some sportswriters some time ago changed it to “Ducks” and a contract with Disney for the use of “Donald” for the mascot sunk the name.

Still- we’re better off than out upstate rivals- “The Beavers”.

“…I’ve been trying to think of something to help Ducks, but nothing yet.”

Talent would help.

I still think that Luskin’s disclosure of the Vivnak conversation was a last ditch gambit made at a time when nobody (in the broader world) knew how Fitz’s indictments would be received. Luskin disclosed it at the last minute because he know that Fitz was busy issuing his indictments and wouldn’t have time to check out the story before the grand jury expired.

Rove didn’t know who he was dealing with and probably believed he could turn the spin in his favor after the Libby perjury indictment (no underlying crime, blah, blah, blah). If only Rove could delay his indictment he might be able to come out unscathed. However, when Fitz came out with that most excellent “speaking” indictment, any potential spin was defused. It was too clear that Libby had lied repeatedly and deliberately.

The gambit didn’t work. Now Fitz is finding out the truth, and it’s not good for Rove.

mayan wrote:

These are ruthless, entirely immoral/amoral, sociopathic individuals who are currently in power. They will do anything and everything, without the slightest worry about morality and ethics, in order to maintain power and wealth. They have been waiting and buying their power for 20 years and god knows who they’ve had to “shut up” to ensure that their hands are white-knuckled around the reins. In other words, while many of us have been hard-wired to “play fair” – these guys could give a shit about the rules.

Actually, they’ve been at if for more than 40 years — the hit on JFK was probably carried out by assets from Operation 40, the CIA Miami station group that was tasked with killing Castro. Both Porter Goss and Poppy Bush are reported to be members of Operation 40. By killing JFK, the way was cleared to escalate the war in Vietnam — which offered commie-killing satisfaction for the wing nuts, war profiteering for the military-industrial-complex Halliburton precursors, and opened the door for the divide-and-conquer the Democrats strategy of the Nixon GOP.

With an Oedipal sociopath dimbulb in the person of Junior Bush, the excellent adventure in Iraq and a domestic enemies list was entirely predictable. But the Mayberry Machiavelli’s made one crucial mistake — they fucked with the Company, which led to Fitz the Relentless.

Come to think of it, that’s the fatal mistake Nixon made, too . . .

What I know for a fact is that high-priced, high reputation lawyers will lie. They will lie to judges. They will lie to lawyers on the other side. They will lie to just about anybody they choose to.

Clients may be encouraged to tell the truth, but their lawyers will lie whenever they want. I have seen this. I have experienced it.

And, we know that Luskin lies, because he has been caught in a lie. And it is almost impossible (it is impossible) to believe that Luskin has not lied to Fitzgerald:

Hey, Patrick, I know how it is over at DOJ. I’m an old hand. Guys like you and me have to stick together. By the way, I just want you to know that_____________. where the blank is a lie.

I guarantee he has lied to Fitzgerald. Guaranteed. He wouldn’t be Rove’s attorney if he were incapable of lying to Fitzgerald.

Now, the questions are:

1) Did Fitzgerald ever fall for it? I suspect he did.

2) Is it going to result in Rove walking? Fitzgerald wouldn’t be talking to a GJ if he weren’t going down the indictment path. On the other hand, he is grinding exceedingly fine.

rw – did you ever consider that it might have something to do with the name?

I’ll grant you that Buckeyes is a pretty strange moniker, as well. But when they shorten it to Bucks it picks up all sorts of clout.

I’ve been trying to think of something to help Ducks, but nothing yet. Maybe someone else has an idea?

i thought Novak’s article was a pretty poor piece of writing for a big time, professional journalist.

that’s because it wasn’t journalism. it was cover your ass spin and probably full of lies we will never know… again, being confronted with the march meeting under oath is revealing. if we are still using poker metaphors, fitz just surprised the table with a large bet when all the other players thought he would check or fold… maybe i’m too cynical, but i refuse to believe in the faulty memories excuses or the bad search parameters excuses… when i read one, sirens go off…

M3,

“Silenced the Rove spin machine??? LOL”

You betcha…this phase is over, the bad guys are ready ta cash in and are already plannin’ the response to the main event. We won’t hear anythin from antbody from here on unless it’s from Fitz…either more testimony or charges, and my money is on charges. THEN the bad stuff hits the windmaker.

I can see it now: Free Foghat concert open to all US Citizens in a Topeka corn field on Dec. 31, 2005. Facilities provided for 300 million including 20 million deep fried turkeys, no mustard shall remain in stock or store and unlimited egg nog. During encore performance of “Slow Ride” all are called to toss their Xmas tree on bonfire, cut, live, tinsel, plastic, paper, etc. then stand back and hold lighter high in the air. Those in the glow of bonfire shall be free to disrobe.

Those who fear the cold may watch the Liberty Bowl (Tulsa v. Freson State) on ESPN2 and snack on butter pop corn. Outsiders can continue to study maps of Africa looking for new frontier opportunities to pursue in 2006. Only engineers working on prototype single residence hydrogen fuel cells and political philosophers who advocate free secular democracies will be required to stay at work.

Regrettably but necessarily all will be required to perform New Years Eve duties sober.

Justice requires sacrifice.,

Indictments should be forthcomming freely thereafter. War crime trials as well. On Dec. 20, 2012 the new fire can then be lit with impunity atop the pyramid at Teotihuacan.

puzzled
make that a former “big time, professional journalist”

Vivak — who can’t search her Covey planner for anything that occurs before 8 am. Are people in DC just naturally document challenged

Nah. They’re all very disciplined and principled.

Everything that happens 5pm-to-5am stays in 5pm-to-5am.

On principle.

Which makes me wonder about the time of the missing email…

Just–It should have been the Fiesta Bowl–the Fighting Ducks finished fifth in the nation–and are being supplanted in the BCS bowls by teams with worse records–the fascism of the american sports community strikes the Fighting Ducks yet again!

I was hoping for a Fiesta Bowl, but Ohio State will probably crush the Irish.

Here’s the thing about Hadley’s email and Fitzgerald. When he gets the email and reads it, do you think his reaction is, ” Thanks, you might have just saved me from a big mistake” or “What possible explanation do you have for bringing this forward now?” I think the spin that has tried to suggest the first reaction is way off the mark where subsequent events, to me, suggest the second.

EW: “So it is plausible that Karl has been lying the whole time.”

LMAO – understatement of the year, and we are in Decemeber.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..estigation

In an e-mail, Luskin declined to comment.

Silenced Rove’s spin machine??? LOL… Luskin has run out of spin!!!!

Just–Thanks– Redd has made some comments here in the past about the privelege issue and Luskin- but that was before the the most recent revelations- perhaps she will share her view of the extent of the compromise of privelege that Luskin has made– he HAS- as I understand it- given testimony to the investigation.

oops – issue may be more complicated.

I agree with Greg Mitchell’s (Editor & Publisher) take on Vivak–that she must be a particularly lame investigative reporter.

I also have to think she was either the dumbest, kissass to access reporter in DC (next to Woodward) to hire an atty & chat with Fitz about her “reporting” without telling her editors.

Mostly, if I were Matt Cooper I’d bitchslap her from DC to Bethesda. Cooper was facing jail for not revealing his source. Not only does she reveal the source for him, notice whom she tells?

She tells Rove’s lawyer that Rove is Cooper’s source. The lawyer tells her how significant that fact is while “walking” (is that what they call it these days?) her to her car. Yet, she can’t be bothered to tell Cooper about this before he kisses his family good bye & packs his tooth brush. Bitch!

PS: David Corn, save me your justifications.

rwcole, I’m an attorney and regularly deal with privilege issues in the civll context. In civil cases what you’re saying is correct. The attorney is the agent of the client and can waive the privilege to the extent disclosure has been made to a third party.

However, there may be some special rules that apply in criminal cases because of 5th amendment considerations. I don’t know about that. I suspect the issue it may be more complicated.

Sharing recipes is about as good as it gets in terms of sharing food online.

This all began because Luskin thought that Novak’s story would be exculpatory. Then she talks to Fitzgerald informally and something puts Fitzgerald on alert so that he wants her story as part of an indictment. This surprises her (and Luskin). Until then, she thinks that she can hide anything that happens from her editors as part of her friendship with Luskin (which she has probably disclosed at some point to them since 1996). Luskin didn’t necessarily “throw her under the bus” since he thought/hoped that her testimony got Rove off the hook. My conclusion is that it’s 99% that Rove is getting indicted based on the fact that Fitzgerald took her testimony under oath. There is no reason to do that unless he is preparing the indictment right now (maybe before the end of the year). Now Novak is unlikely to work for Time again, but if Rove wasn’t going to be indicted then there was no reason to have her testimony under oath, and if her testimony wasn’t under oath then there was no reason for her editors to know about how seriously she had already messed up.

Vivak — who can’t search her Covey planner for anything that occurs before 8 am. Are people in DC just naturally document challenged

—–

lol, good one!

i thought Novak’s article was a pretty poor piece of writing for a big time, professional journalist.

OtherWA — Yeah, we were in the same general zone. My only caveat on what you wrote was a milder version of what emptywheel wrote — that, standing alone, Luskin’s conversation in March OR May of 2004 was not “definitive” evidence that Luskin knew as a fact that Rove was Cooper’s source. But again, given his acknowledgement that Vivak’s information was “important,” it’s really impossible to defend his categorical public statement 14 or 16 months later that Rove was NOT Cooper’s source. It takes a gold bars blind lawyer to reconcile the two — and note that Luskin was fined for taking the gold bars, as he may well be held to account for his apparent comfort with taking irreconcilable positions here.

Or maybe it’s not impossible, it just takes the peculiarly selective memory of some defense lawyers as Jeralyn illustrated this morning by her argument that it appeared exculpatory on perjury for Rove to come forward with the Hadley email FIVE MONTHS after the latest possible timing of the Vivak conversation. This by ignoring the fact that Rove’s coming forward immediately followed by two days the District Court’s contempt finding for Cooper . C’mon, Jeralyn — finding a trout in the milk is not exculpatory.

Yes, the Washington DC Press Corp are all whores, and always have been. It’s always been the price for access to the powerful, and they’ve always been willing to pay it.

Case in point: JFK. Reporters kept secret not only his womanizing – which wasn’t anyone’s business but Jackie’s, anyway. However, the press also hid the fact that one of JFK’s mistresses was sleeping with a Mafia Don at the same time; and they knew about JFK’s Addison’s disease. These latter items are harder to justify as “no one’s business.”

Case in pont 2: “Woodstein.” Woodward and Bernstein were *not part of the WH press corp* when they pursued and broke the Watergate story. Then, as now, the WH press corp wanted nothing to do with a story that might upset their access apple cart.

I think the biggest disservice Watergate did to journalism in the long run was make people think the WH press corp was about heroically uncovering abuses of power. That’s led to some unrealistic expectations. The WH press corp will only uncover abuses of power when there is no penalty for doing so, AND when someone else has already led the way, AND when doing so won’t damage their long-cultivated sources.

Those are a lot of hoops to jump through before a reporter will “do the right thing.”

From TalkLeft…

“Bottom line: Karl Rove’s chances of escaping a charge of perjury before the grand jury increase. But, I believe he’s still on the hook for lying to federal investigators before the grand jury was convened in October, 2003 when he failed to tell them about his July 8, telephone conference with reporter Bob Novak when he reportedly said, after Novak told him all about Wilson’s wife, “I heard that tool.”

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/013377.html

The Hedd-Redd makes some awfully good points in her mini-dissertation on V. Novak’s non-explanations in her Time piece. Particularly the lack of any “solid factual detail on precise dates and items discussed”. And most importantly her belief in “Fitz not buying it.” It’s just too much to swallow that a significant number of principals involved in the Plame case have such failing memories and recollections. Rove (with the photo-memory), Libby, Novak, Woodward, and on and on, have all it seems, succumbed some sort of recall failure syndrome.

Speculatory though it may be, it appears Fitz is just being a typical prosecutor involved in a conspiracy of phony memory failures. He’s frying the minnows, with the ultimate objective of roasting the hugh tuna, Cheney. And if Cheney was in the loop on the outing of Plame, then almost by definition, so was Bush.

karen — the eggs will do the work, puff up the milk and flour just as they do in a souffle. Granted, a souffle also depends on the beaten egg whites for volume, but a pannukakku doesn’t get that fluffy. It’s more like a custard with a crusty bottom, a dense middle and a thinner custardy upper layer.

I’ve never made a dutch pancake– but the fighting Ducks are in the Holiday Bowl!

Thanks Delphyne. We need food for the soul and for the body.

bush’s jaw — spoken like a journo who gets a lot of anonymously sourced tips.

The importance of the who-initiated-the-call-to-whom could be the difference between innocent regular quarterly meetings with a source and obstruction of justice.

Maybe that’s the problem with many DC journos these days; they genuinely don’t see that they are tools of an administration that excels in propaganda, hence journos don’t see their role in the corresponding obstruction of justice.

Nah. Thinking more about the Jimmy-Jeff Gannon situation, I don’t buy that. A substantive amount of the press is complicit.

Rayne–Right about real butter. I use unsalted butter. But no baking powder?

Dutch babies – I haven’t had them in years. Here’s one recipe – I always like apricot jam mixed with a bit of brandy as a filling.

Dutch Baby Pancake

Note from Cheri:
A Dutch Baby Pancake is an impressive, yet easy to make, way to start your morning. It puffs up big and fluffy. The traditional topping for this pancake is nothing more than a squeeze of lemon juice and some confectioner’s sugar. Depending on my mood, I also use syrup or jams.

1/2 cup all purpose flour
2 T sugar
1/4 tsp. salt
2 eggs
1 tsp. vegetable or canola oil
1/2 cup milk
1/4 tsp. cinnamon
1/8 tsp. nutmeg
1 tsp. vanilla extract
2 tsp. butter

Makes 1 large pancake (serves 2)

Pre-heat oven to 425°F.

Mix dry ingredients together, set aside. Whisk remaining ingredients together. Gradually beat dry ingredients into egg mixture until smooth.

Wrap handle of a medium non-stick skillet with foil. Melt butter in skillet and coat evenly. Pour batter into skillet and bake for 20 minutes. Reduce heat to 350°F and bake for an additional 3-5 minutes or until puffed and golden brown. Carefully remove pancake from skillet, cut in half, sprinkle with lemon and confectioner’s sugar if desired and serve.

©2005 FabulousFoods.com

Good food in which to indulge oneself while reading this blog – which, in itself, is great food for the soul, psyche and political muse within.

Karen A., Prof, Redd: As long as words get parsed here, is a Dutch pancake analogous to a German one (also baked, puffed, etc.)? If so, page 192, Vegetarian Epicure. Includes apple filling….

Just a reality check in the midst of the TurdBlossuming miasma…

These are ruthless, entirely immoral/amoral, sociopathic individuals who are currently in power. They will do anything and everything, without the slightest worry about morality and ethics, in order to maintain power and wealth. They have been waiting and buying their power for 20 years and god knows who they’ve had to “shut up” to ensure that their hands are white-knuckled around the reins. In other words, while many of us have been hard-wired to “play fair” – these guys could give a shit about the rules.

That said, I do not have the slightest hesitation in believing that Rove was instrumental in outting Plame. I have no doubt that Cheney and his gang were instrumental in working up a strategy to besmirch Wilson and smear Plame for good measure.

I also have no doubt that they will use every cent they have taken from the American public treasury and every weapon of shadow and fog that they have aggrandized in order to make this go away.

There are days when I’m up about it and days when I’m down about it. But I have no doubt that Fitzgerald is the real thing and when things seem slow or off with this investigation, I take solace in the Abromoff thang.

Sorry about the rant but it’s so easy to get drowned in the details.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..12069.html

WaPo staff seek to undermine Froomkin :((

Prof — German Apple Pancake at AllRecipes (a.k.a. Dutch Baby):

http://brunch.allrecipes.com/az/GrmnpplPnck.asp

We make something quite similar in my family (the Finn side), called a pannakakku; I serve it with honey and peaches. The following link has a recipe that is very similar to mine (I don’t use baking powder) and a yummy photo:

http://www.axis-of-aevil.net/a…..ve_ti.html

Same link also includes a recipe of a German apple pancake (Dutch baby).

Important: use real butter. Heat the skillet or dutch oven in the oven, melting the butter in the pan. Pour atter into this melted butter. This is essential to a crispy brown bottom.

What “egregious” said…

All the petition-signing in the world won’t do a damn unless we address the FACT that the bad guys have stolen the last two national elections. This is the base we start from, a busted democracy and a bought-and-paid for media. What, in the name of all that’s holy, does one DO?

Personally, I’m delighted by all the petitions. I sign every damn one that comes into my email box, entering my name in the Mother of All Evil Databases, what the hell. I have also voted early and often, as the saying goes, every chance I get for the last FORTY YEARS, and look what we’ve got [sigh].

My own adaption to Die Neue Amerikanische Ordnung will probably be depression, drug addiction, and a lonely, miserable existence. Then again, maybe I’ll actually find my cabin on the mountaintop, get high on clean air and sunshine, and write inspiring, enlightened prose to lift the hearts and minds of all who follow after. (Halfway there, teetering on the knife-edge: life is short and oh so fragile, and we always forget.)

Meanwhile, what a valuable blog! Thank you Redd and Jane…

damn, damn. very intriguing stuff. i think grandpa and redd are on the mark…

but doesn’t it seem fitz has another “gotcha” notch in his belt? vivak clearly didn’t mention the march meeting in her initial interview with fitz, then was confronted with it later under oath. oops! that’s never a good sign when you’re busted, you know, lying to the feds! :sigh: all this makes me think vivak is just another beltway-water-bearer-hack. in this second act of age of aquarius, big surprise…

still, the big question for me is how did fitz find out a meeting took place in march? the busboy?

OOOPPPS!!!

Citation: Norman O. Brown, Dionysus in 1990.

Viveca’s case represents the emergence of yet another journalist with direct and significant active involvement in the Plame saga who did not come forward to her editors until forced by outside forces.

What can we do?

I believe that we can accomplish a great deal to bring out the truth if we put the right pressure on the right people immediately.

We must demand that every editor of every major news publication and the directors of every televised news programs do the following:

1. Publicly state that they are hereby requiring all of the employees/journalists who report to them to immediately report any involvement with the Plame saga that may have, or could be perceived to have, any impact on their ability to cover it objectively.

2. State that any reporter who fails to do so and is found later to have any such involvement will be summarily fired and never find employment with the organization again.

3. State that any reporter from any other organization who fails to do so will never be employed at their publication.

4. State that any reporter who comes forward now will be given the benefit of the doubt and a reasonable amount of forgiveness and leniency.

In other words, the onus must be on the editors to get their reporters to tell the truth about potentially compromising involvement in the Plame case. And if the editors are unwilling to apply this pressure, it is no wonder that the reporters are keeping mum. There is no penalty for holding out as long as possible.

So now, we, the American people, must come forward and demand accountability of the editors themselves. Write letters, use whatever resources available to you.

This approach is not a panacea, but it is definitely a first step in the direction of bringing out the truth and counteracting biased reporting from a media which has been negligent in policing itself.

Any other thoughts on how to provide pressure on editors that will move downward to individual reporters would be greatly appreciated.

Reddhedd and Prof–Yes, the Dutch Baby is a puffed pancake, filled with spiced apples. Here’s a link to a good recipe:

http://www.bbonline.com/recipe…..cipe1.html

Steady Eddie, that’s what I was getting at in my earlier post upthread, but didn’t explain as well as you did.

I’d forgotten about the gold bars as payment. Luskin has an intersting definition of “ethical responsibility,” doesn’t he? It’s becoming clearer why Rove hired him.

*who called whom to set up the Oct 2003 glass of wine at the Cafe Deluxe*

who cares? reporters meet and cultivate sources over long periods. Vivak got to know Luskin in 96. reporters can meet with a source 10 times to trade information, and not have a story until the 11th meeting.

there is nothing unusual/sinister about meeting with sources.

Vivak can’t possibly know what Rove has testified to or plan to testify during her meetings with Luskin. Luskin threw her under the bus in October 05 by telling Fitzgerald.

You guys just selectively rail against access journalism. How do we know that Rove changed his grand jury testimony? Someone leaked to a reporter. A lot of facts in this case came from anonymous sources.

Hand clap. The point is that at this juncture everybody gets a role of Shakesperean proportions replete with cocktails, access, the “I don’t remember” defense and at least some reasonable doubt with respect to what the definition of “is” is:

“In The Accursed Share Bataille gets away from the traditional Marxist sequence of modes of production. The human sacrifices of Aztecs, Islamic Jihad, Tibetan Monasteries of Buddhist contemplation, as well as potlatch, are all seen as alternative ways of obeying the imperative social need to squander wealth….

“The human race is facing the problem of consumption in a new way, a way that forces us to ask in a new way the question, what do human beings really want….

“The new truth that cannot be avoided is the advent of the spendthrift masses, the advent of the new era designated in Finnegan’s Wake by the letters HCE: Here Comes Everybody. It is a truth promoted by socialist idealogy (the “mass line”) and capitalist reality….

“His producers are they not his consumers?” (Finnegan’s Wake) “Here Comes Everybody” (FW) means the human race is getting ready to discard the (childish, Oedipal) game whereby the mass of Slaves left the mystery (the burden, the guilt) of surplus consumption to their Masters. It would be something new in world history, something like an apocalyptic novelty, if our social and economic arrangements came to reflect a collective concensus that we are all members of one body with a collective problem of surplus production and surplus consumption. There is no other way out of the flagrant maldistribution, and the futile quest for justice.”

The camel’s nose I am afraid is already into the tent. Therefore, frequent campfires, share your food and be kind to animals.

rwcole,

I see your point, I stand confused! LOL

Coz

Not an attorney either- but if Luskin is going to use the meeting with “my meeting with Novak jogged my client’s memory” defense–then he will have to testify- not only about the meeting- but about the subsequent conversations with Rove in which his memory was jogged–he can’t put himself into the picture and then back himself out at will.

Attorneys can jeopardize attorney/client privelege- and becoming a witness would seem to be a sure way.

Prof — are you looking for a puffed pancake recipe? I have a lovely one that I make with some cinnamon apples as a topper. I’ll hunt up the recipe and post it when I get the time.

Amazing that reporters are supposed to go to jail to protect even law-breaking sources, but these same sources will burn them in a NY minute as soon as it suits their purposes.

I wonder when reporters will figure out that they aren’t legitimate participants in the big party, after all? They’re only invited as long as they’re useful. Too bad.

rwcole,

“Coz–No–Luskin has made himself a witness-”

Yes, he made himself a potential witness but only in the context of his conversations with Novak or anything else (excluding any conversations with Rove).

Disclaimer: I’m not an attorney. ; )

In addition to of course RH, Paul luk.’s comment above has it as usual. One thing no one here has mentioned today is that Luskin’s first mention of the timing of the key conversation with Vivak was “summer or early fall”, the latter clearly meant to suggest a timely search for and turning over of the Hadley email (contents changed or not). “Summer” was quite likely a stretch to cover the May conversation, which one would assume Luskin had kept better track of than Vivak.

What’s happened here is not only that the Rover defense of timely email search and disclosure has clearly failed, but also that Luskin is likely now to be in trouble as well.

When emptywheel wrote it is technically possible that Luskin did not know when he opened his big mouth [in July 2005] that Rove had told Cooper, the only way (after his Vivak conversation of a year earlier) that could be even technically true is a determined, willful, even culpable ignorance by Luskin. I’m sure Rove has been lying to him about many things all along. But at a certain point, Luskin became an attorney who failed to pursue information based solely on his client’s assurances, and in facts trumpeted and spun those assurances publicly, when he had himself confessed he was long before given serious, credible reason to doubt them (per Vivak this morning, his parting words to Vivak after hearing her Cooper comments were “Thank you. This is important.”). Luskin either had found the truth and has been lying about it to everyone else — which constitutes obstruction — or made a conscious and professionally irresponsible if not unethical decision (had an obligation to try to find out) to keep himself from exploring any evidence that could expose the clear contradiction between what he was saying publicly and what he acknowledged to Vivak was “important” information that undercut those public words.

Sorry for the convoluted thoughts. This is at very best for Luskin, the same sense of professional responsibility that led him to think taking pay in gold bars and Swiss bank transfers from an indicted money launderer was just fine so long as he did what he asserted was “due diligence”. This is a new meaning of the word and professional concept of diligence.

Sorry to be totally OT as well as late-threading, but I just gotta know from karen allen:

Dutch Baby pancakes

Karen, baby, will you be posting the recipe? Among other things, that will save tripping down the hill to the local pancake house when I need that particular fix.

Prof

Good God. Are all journos covering anything in DC nothing but access whores?

I’m re-reading the TIME article for the 3rd time now. One question persists: who called whom to set up the Oct 2003 glass of wine at the Cafe Deluxe?

Was Rover already manipulating the press at that time, keeping in mind that the election could hinge on dragging this out for a year?

Chickenbone’s career is over. Touching that she gets the irony.

Jack– the deep fried meatloaf is juicier.

Incidentally, EW, great point about a “Cooper problem” not being a likely topic of conversation until May 2004, after Cooper had been indicted (since the TIME piece on Plame had multiple authors).

Setting the scene, from a WaPo 1996 review of Cafe Deluxe:

“When it’s crowded it has a buzz, a burbling of conversation…”

On the menu: grilled meatloaf.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..deluxe.htm

Coz–No–Luskin has made himself a witness- and those conversations with his client are relevant to the “defense”–he must submit himself to testimony and to cross examination- he has waived some part of his privelege–just how much would have to be decided by a judge. (at least that’s my read)–would love to hear from Redd on this issue.

Just finished puzzling through the same mess at Needlenose, with much the same conclusion as ReddHedd — this only makes sense as a short-lived effort to postpone Rove’s indictment. And for the sake of that minor accomplishment, Luskin was happy to torch his “friend” Novak’s career. Oh, well.

Perhaps this chain of events really did give Fitz pause this past October. Whereas before hearing this story, Fitz thought he had a nice perjury charge against Rove, afterwards he realized he could make a good case for obstruction of justice.

ROFL, Grampa. That would be sweet. :)

“If there is an indictment- and this thing goes to court- then Luskin would have to testify–he would be crossexamined- he would, I suppose, be forced to testify about his conversations with his client regarding the Novak discussion- and that could lead down a very slippery slope.”

Fitz can’t go there. Any conversations between Rove/Luskin are protected (attorney/client).

“…if he lied about the date of the meeting with Novak – he’s in it up to his eyeballs”

Is there an echo in here…Luskin has been balls out for some time tryin ta stall or derail charges against Rove…this is their endgame for this phase anyway. Try and stop it here and if they can’t, plea it out and wait fer pardons. Luskin must already have the money in retainer and knows he’s gunna retire after this one anyways…he has not been very careful about puttin the priviledge in jepordy, I think that’s his get outta jail card.

*In my mind a reporter actively working a story, even when speaking with a friend who is also a source, might want to pick up a handy device I like to call a microcassette recorder and log in a few thoughts after meetings, just to be certain that factual detail is accurate for later reporting. Call me crazy.*

Novak would keep track of any information Luskin might give her. But she wouldn’t try to keep track of their actual meetings, time and date. She didn’t expect to be subpaened. How would she know that the actual time and a date of her drinks with Luskin be important?

Reporters generally don’t note the time and date of their meetings with sources — they keep track of the information told to them by the sources. She didn’t take notes in those meetings with Luskin so that he could speak freely.

In early 2004, no one really knows where Fitz was heading.

with all due respect to Me3
i am not advocating that we
just “roll over and give up”.

my question to you guys is
to think ahead a few steps.
how can we solve the upcoming
problems of pardons and vote
fraud in the 2006 election?

otherwise false optimism
leaves us sounding like the
president’s victory speech.

finally, as to action, i am
involved in investigating
the vote fraud issue among
others. i think we can agree
to disagree about some things
without the personal attacks,
ok?

Psychology, karma, what does it all mean?

I fully understand about the perils of defeatism, but I also think some of us need to get a little farther out in front of the wave and have a little more compassion for those who already are. (You might need a meal and a safe place to spend the night, after all.)

hope so, norske, but wouldn’t be surprised if it doesn’t just stop there.

If it gets people’s attentions and we throw the bums out in 2006 and 2008 it will be worth it.

Would be so much better to brand GOP as the official party of treason and war crimes, however…

“…proactively catch one of them in yet another yet another instance of misleading or false testomomy.”

Absolutely right on!! This is where Fitz’s at right now, consolidating and expanding the purgery and obstruction charges. When Luskin and Rove finally stop talkin’ ‘cuz of hypoxia from all the spinnin they been doin’, Fitz will bring the hammer down and end this phase of this mess…the obstruction/purgery phase. When the purgery and obstruction charges come down, then we get real and this slow Kabuki will turn inta a frantic Flaminco and we will get pleas and final espionage and conspiracy charges within months (maybe weeks).

If Luskin gets caught up in an indictment conspiring with Rove, would Bush pardon Luskin too? heh.
.

Redd pretty much sums up the whole mess: dross. No kidding.

Would be ironic if Luskin- a dem- ends up goin to jail in order to save Rove’s ass.

If he lied about the date of the meeting with Novak- he’s in it up to his eyeballs.

If there is an indictment- and this thing goes to court- then Luskin would have to testify–he would be crossexamined- he would, I suppose, be forced to testify about his conversations with his client regarding the Novak discussion- and that could lead down a very slippery slope.

Can’t remember ever hearing about a case where the defense attorney is a witness for their own client– pretty strange.

Suppose Rover would be forced to get another attorney- but that still doesn’t remove the problem- Luskin is still a witness and someone will have to figure out exactly how to limit his testimony..to retain attorney/client privelege–if he and Rove were conspiring to obstruct justice- a pretty good bet-then he may also be a co-defendant.

Emptywheel, I sort of agree with you. Would Rove lie to his lawyer? In a NY minute!

My thinking is that there’s no effin way a defense atty with ANY experience would be that gullible. Luskin suspected or knew Rove was lying, but he may not have known what the whole truth was. And he wasn’t supposed to ask.

My guess is that Luskin told Fitzgerald during the pre-indictment week that the conversation with Vivak took place in the fall of 2004 — here is the key passage

I didn’t find out until this fall that, according to Luskin, my remark led him to do an intensive search for evidence that Rove and Matt had talked. That’s how Luskin says he found the e-mail Rove wrote to Stephen Hadley

I doubt that FitzG would have trashed his Rove indictment based on the idea that it took from May to October for a new search to find the Rove-Hadley email. Only if Luskin had told FitzG something like “Listen, Karl had no memory of talking to Cooper—when another Time reporter told me tin the fall of 2004 that the skuttlebutt at Time was that my client was Cooper’s source, we immediately took the steps necessary to determine if this was true.”

As to FitzG’s inside source, my best guess is that when Luskin’s recollection of the time conflicted with Vivak’s, FitzG told Luskin to produce his calendar….

Not to defend the indefensible, but the 5am/5pm thing actually makes sense if she keeps her calendar in MS Outlook. If you enter an event as 5am, you might not see it if you page through your calendar in the 1-day view set in default mode.

That said, the Woodwardesque “I didn’t tell my editors because I didn’t want to get in trouble” defense is pathetic. Do you have to be a sociopath to be in the D.C. press corpse? Almost makes me nostalgic for the good old days of Judith Miller….

Well at a minimum- we have a pretty interesting legal case unfolding- where the defense attorney will be called as a witness- and where he may a target of an investigation… just keeps getting interestinger and interestinger.

What if Luskin takes the fifth?

Alvord

Yeah, that makes sense.

froggermarch

Fitz probably thought that by having both Vivnovka and Luskin testify, he would discredit Luskin’s claims. Remember, he’s not going to present testimony that helps Rove here. So there’s no reason to depose Luskin unless he thinks it will hurt Rove.

VN: I hired a lawyer, Hank Schuelke, but I didn’t tell anyone at TIME.

What??? That’s got to be one of the dumbest things a reporter could do in that situation. Like it or not, she was part of the story at that point, and had to tell her editor. No wonder she’s on a leave of absence.

looks more to me that chimpy is getting a “free pass” on some pretty serious treason, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. If all we ever talk about is the leak, it is a major victory for chimpy’s gang — especially if we never tet to those BEHIND this administration that actually make it all happen.

Not saying anything is wrong here — perhaps nailing people on the leak will be the first step in looking at the larger picture.

I am not optomistic, but am grateful that SOMETHING is happening and that chimpy no longer has the confidence and support of America.

One more thing. THe March/May discrepancy may be critically important. Assuming that Rove’s October 2004 testimony was his third (as usually presented), he appeared again sometime between February and October. Perhaps after this Luskin conversation. In other words, Rove may well have testified he didn’t talk to Cooper between the time Vivnovka talked to Luskin and the time Luskin produced the email.

OtherWA

I know that sounds incredible. But I got convinced by a thread the other day that Rove needs to keep Luskin in the dark about this, otherwise Luskin will be required to counsel him not to lie. So it is plausible that Karl has been lying the whole time.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the fact that Fitz came back to Viv to interview her under oath “for a grand jury” tells me that Fitz, at least, thinks her testimony helps the prosecution more than the defense. The GJ is, after all, a prosecutorial tool. It seems to me Fita’s pursuit of this is either to at least undermine Luskin or Rove’s credibility by viv-isectioning a last minute line of defense or to more proactively catch one of them in yet another instance of misleading or false testimony.

“Jaysus, she was talking to the guy who’s supposed to be Bush’s Brain! “

Of course, I meant to write “she was talking to the PERSON WHO REPRESENTS THE GUY who’s supposed to be Bush’s Brain!”

How about this for an explanation. Rove lied to Luskin even after Luskin told him about his conversation with Vivak. Rove kept on lying right up until the point where Cooper was subpoened. At that point Rove engineered the discovery of the email. If the email was discovered after the Cooper subpoena, this seems to me to be the most logical explanation.

I think you have something there, Redd. Perhaps this chain of events really did give Fitz pause this past October. Whereas before hearing this story, Fitz thought he had a nice perjury charge against Rove, afterwards he realized he could make a good case for obstruction of justice. The phone logs, the email, the changing stories all suggest that the obstruction is continuing. Fitz would not normally have an opportunity to question Luskin on matters involving Luskin’s interaction with Rove. Fitz might have postponed the indictment because he expected to get more dirt.

So VivicaK didn’t take notes during her “meetings” with Luskin because she was afraid he wouldn’t be forthcoming?

Then what, pray tell, stopped her from recording the dates, times, and contents of these meetings once she was in the cab on the way home or in her home?

Jaysus, she was talking to the guy who’s supposed to be Bush’s Brain!

Did the importance of that slip her mind, or was she just lazy? She’s a reporter for chrissake! What could be more important than recording those meetings?

Why should I read anything by any reporter for newspapers or magazines? They seem to be more in love with access than with journalism.

A pox on their houses.

I learn more here than I do from reading the NYTimes, WaPo, etc.

Good work ReddHedd.

Right on, Redd.

Apart from all the diversion, it still looks like Rove/Luskin sat on information that at the time they weren’t sure would be needed for recantation or not. I’d think, when good faith is genuine, if you come across information that impacts a potential perjury charge, you don’t walk or skip to the Special Council, you RUN to make it known.

Just as a reminder of the kind of info Fitz evidently has that implicates Rove, recall this gem from page 8 of Libby’s indictment:

“On or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White House (“Official A”) who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which WilsonÂ’s wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in WilsonÂ’s trip. LIBBY was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about WilsonÂ’s wife. “

Faulty memory my foot.
.

Emptywheel, good point. Luskin may have believed *cough* that Rove spoke to Cooper, but not about Valerie Wilson. *cough*

Maybe.

egregious you are of course correct. It’s hopeless, we should just roll over and give up…

Whatisthematterwityadude???

Go up to that top link, sign the diebold petition, sign the no pardon petition… And while you are at it… Send a strong letter to the press and tell them to stop promoting propaganda.

Defeatists in war time have no place here.

“Nor why Luskin kept this quiet until the last hour…”

That is what nails Rove, I think. If this was so helpful, Luskin would have mentioned it *at the time he found and turned over the email!*

REDD,

“But Fitz wouldn’t be asking about a specific date area, tipping his hand with a potential witness who was likely to report the questioning, without having something in hand that supported what he was asking. And my guess is that something has come from testimony from someone inside.”

Could that “someone inside” be Luskin?

OtherWA

Good point, but not necessarily definitive. Remember, Rove probably hasn’t told Luskin the full extent of his guilt. And the email doesn’t specify that Rove told Cooper of Plame’s identity. So it is technically possible that Luskin did not know when he opened his big mouth that Rove had told Cooper.

Redd: It’s not long, it’s thorough, and appropriately so.

So Luskin knows sometime in 2004 that Rove was Cooper’s source, but in July 2005, still claims to the press that he doesn’t know who Cooper’s protecting but it’s not his client. This declaration led Cooper and his lawyer to believe they were given a waiver and to go ahead and testify to the GJ.

Is Luskin a complete fucking idiot, or did he ratfuck his traitor client on purpose?

My favorite painting!

One reason why Vivnovka may not have told her editors?

Well, if it’s as possible she told Luskin in March as in May, then Luskin’s comment, “Karl doesn’t have a Cooper problem. He was not a source for Matt” is not necessarily a response to the May Cooper subpoena. Well. how else would Luskin know that Cooper was the one reporter at Time to have received the Wilson leak?

Very good question. But it strongly suggests that Vivnovka had ALREADY told Luskin who at Time was the leakee, and Luskin capitalized on that by denying Rove was the leaker.

Fitzmas present for MSMers;

http://tinyurl.com/r9lc

where is the end game for
the good guys?

libby and rove can be
pardoned.

republicans keep their
stranglehold on power
through crooked voting
machines.

so how does this end well?

Oh, and sorry this is so damned long.

This is a lot of thinking out loud for me. I’ve re-read the Vivak article again and I swear it reads so badly to me. But nothing in it clears Rover in my mind, other than simply giving Fitz a “pause” to clear out the dross. Which I suppose serves a political purpose, but doesn’t do much on the criminal end unless a large trail of “ifs” was met.

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

^^^ Media Campaign ^^^

Please send letters to the MSM and demand honest reporting.