Which still shouldn’t exclude Gannon and his reporting from further scrutiny. After all, was there any “reporter” more inside than Jeffy?

jess asked a while back why Rove was allowed to go back to the Grand Jury four times to correct former errors. Anyone who’s ever been caught in a lie knows that at a certain point the lies to explain earlier lies become hard to defend under scrutiny. And Fitz scrutinizes.

That is, instead of looking at Rove’s repeat performances as chances for him to clean up, think of them as more rope. My guess is that Rove has been given enough rope and, hopefully, V.Novak and that ilk have only been making their own little nooses.

The conversation date with V. Novak has another significance. She claims she told Luskin that Rove may have been communicating with Cooper. It appears though that Rove is not going to send emails talking on off the record topics to a reporter, they talk on the phone.
So Luskin if tipped off by V Novak should have searched for all emails from Rove to Cooper, not from Rove to Hadley. Novak didn’t mention Hadley so why would Luskin search for Hadley’s name?
If Rove forgot talking to Cooper he would have forgotten emailing Hadley about it so Luskin didn’t get this idea off Rove.
Also Luskin should have requested these emails at some point. He might argue he had them in his office and looked through them all since the search was already done. Then he can explain any delay just by saying he took his time looking.
But it would look odd if he uses the conversation with V Novak to order the emails, but doesn’t ask for specifically the ones to Cooper. If he was concerned he could have ordered these as a separate search for a quick check. There might have only been a few emails to Cooper anyway. Say he did this and found nothing. Why keep looking for emails to other people?
One likely scenario is Luskin knew Rove didn’t discuss anything with Cooper in emails, only phone calls. So his only problem was to make sure Rove didn’t talk about Cooper to anyone. So he wasn’t looking to jog Karl’s memory but to look for incriminating emails to third parties.

Welcome isis2, love your name. Nice post and jump in here with us anytime!

Without a more robust study of the timeline, could it be this simple?

Rove lied to the FBI about being Cooper’s source back when his buddy, John Ashcroft, was running the investigation. Now he’s got a problem: He knows Cooper is going to spill the beans, and he knows about the e-mail. Everyone knows Time leaks like a sieve, so Luskin earns his money by finding a patsy (Novak – it doesn’t matter if she realized it or not) to “jog Karl’s memory” about the e-mail. Four glasses of wine and a little “push back” later, Luskin’s got his alibi.

Pretty smart, if that was his intention.

I’m undecided about whether Vivacuous deserves a’ bitch slap’ or a ‘pimp slap’

Seeing how David Corn functions as her defacto pimp/apologist, maybe he should be compelled to do the ‘honors’.

Andrea Mitchell can administer the ‘bitch’ slap. It takes one to know one.

The MSM presstitute circus is just simply beyond contempt at this point.

I wish enough decent people in this shell of a ‘democracy’ known as America would just stop consuming the vile out-put / put-out of these so called ‘journalists’ and collapse the revenue base of the NYT and WaPo and Time. Just stop buying their godamn tainted garbage at the newsstand and cause the whole lot of MSM publications to financially fail.

It’s the only solution at this point. No more mea culpas, no more half-ass confessions or crock -a -dial tears of remorse.

It’s like that old TV show “Branded” where they cut the buttons off Chuck o’Connor’s uniform and snap his sword in two.

Line up Woodwart and Vivacuous and Chick Coop and Miss Pea Greenspank and cut their press credentials off and break their godamn pens in half.

Is the pen still mightier than the sword???

I think not.

Maybe the blog is mightier than the MSM.
.

Hi, all. First time posting, though I’ve been reading here for a while. I love this site. Well, hasn’t this window into the world of national high stakes journalism been something to see?

What’s especially sick about it is that this whole mess is a win/win situation for the Bush White House… and for other Republicans who choose to follow the model.

If reporters are either complicit or foolish enough to serve as unquestioning mouthpieces for adminstration propaganda… obviously, a win for them. And if these tactics come to light and the failings of individual reporters/publications are exposed… journalism loses whatever credibility it has left.

If the public discounts reports of serious corruption, it’s an even bigger win for them. So much damage, so little time.

Didn’t TIME hire Mike Allen away from the Wash Post to be their WH reporter cause they didn’t think Cooper would be effective anymore?

TIME knew that Allen already had sources and they knew that no one from the WH was going to talk to Cooper once he testified and wrote that article.

“More interesting to me is how Viveca Novak knew CooperÂ’s source. Do they have a bulletin board?”

I wonder about that too. I would imagine any “source” or potential “source” would have “pause” (using Fitz’s term) before saying anything to Cooper from here on or anyone else at TIME for that matter.

“Matt Cooper was merely one of many Time journalists about whom the White House had been subpoenaed in January, 2004. He would not be subpoenaed until May of 2004. Why would they specifically be discussing him amongst all others in March unless Viveca had blabbed a great deal more about her coworker’s interactions with Karl Rove than her story lets on?”

Easy. They knew who Rove leaked to. TheyÂ’d “not found” anything that would finger him, but Luskin was just checking. Once it was out of the bag, they “refound” what they had previously “unfound.” They were focused on Cooper because Cooper was the one they needed to check up on, and they knew it. More interesting to me is how Viveca Novak knew CooperÂ’s source. Do they have a bulletin board?

Hovak’s testimony would sound like: “We did it in January, maybe ..March. Yes, I remember now because I had my orgasm in March. And maybe in May,” then “Each time he would lit me a puff, then all he wanted to talk about was Rove.”

“Luskin played her like a violin.”

Do you mean in the biblical sense?

I think there should also be some Kool-aid punch, just for old times’ sake.

Shez — I’ll pick you up on the way if you want to split the gas and driving!

Your centerpiece should fit in the back of my Honda CR-V, I think, and still leave room for a case of bubbly and luggage. I’d make it a mixed case of blanc de blanc, some asti spumante, maybe a pink bubbly like a rosé champagne — something for every palate.

is it more of the same as the old groove, a hinky sort of tap dance that vaudeville (or the Gong Show) would have taken off the stage long ago?

Will have to catch up on all the prolific comments later. Let me just respond to Redd’s great remark thusly:

Somebody get the hook!

Sad to see NBC chasing after Bush like whores. The ads this weekend have been for Brian Williams following Bush around as Bush delivers yet another “key” speech on Iraq.

Sorry, but short of “Damn, we screwed up big time and Murtha’s ideas are what we should have been doing”, nothing Bush says will cut it.

Edmund | 12.11.05 – 3:42 pm |

Sorry, but short of “I’m putting my daughters on blow job duty at Walter Reed”, nothing Bush says will cut it.

That was supposed to be “we can ALL remember.”

Sonate said:

“Can’t cook unless it’s on a grill.”

Well, Sonate, grilled sausages with the dutch babies and bubbly are wonderfully paired.

And Shez – that centerpiece on a mirror sounds positively smashing.

Let’s do this! And let’s make it a date we can call remember!

pollyusa:

I agree entirely that Fitz had the March date, but it’s also clear that Fitz had another date as well.

I don’t usually post here, but it seemed interesting so I thought I would give it a look. This blog gets referenced at “JustOneMinute” quite a lot.

Well, I don’t really think Fitz has another date. I think he provided several to provent a “maybe, could be” response from Novak, and only one was actually correct. I don’t think he was trying to catch her in a perjury trap, but I do think he wanted confirmation of the actual date of the conversation he got from Luskin without leading her, and now I believe he has it.

Count me on the brunch too! I’m a chef and can drive to Chicago in 3 hours, and I’m partial to champagne. I’ll do the centerpiece of a fancy carved fruit tray on a mirror ringed with dipped chocolate tuxedo strawberries.

Truzenzuzex,

I didn’t know you posted here as well.

I think you misunderstood why I posted the fact that the March date checked out for Viveca.

My point was that Fitz asked her to look for a couple of specific dates and only one checked out.

I agree entirely that Fitz had the March date, but it’s also clear that Fitz had another date as well.

Karen Allen:
Can’t cook unless it’s on a grill. If that’s not operative, I’ll happily help finance part of the “brunch” when you host it. (If you actually live near Chicago, I might be able to attend!!!)
I can opt for food or booz, or whatever is left out after mentioning those two.

The sad thing about all of this is that washington “insiders” knew about all of this from the very beginning. It wasn’t until an objective prosecutor started utrning up stones did this all come out.

New thread (bring your own bubbles and bubbly)

Rayne and Valley Girl–The champagne breakfast: Fun and interesting!

Question for lawyers here:

Is it a standard practice to allow a target like Rove to come back 4 times so he can recant/correct/lie again and again to GJ ?

Why would Fitz go out of his way to grant Rove’s request to testify 4 times and we don’t even know how many times Rove talked to FBI agents.

Darwin — that assumes the owners of media outlets would permit editors to take those steps.

I doubt that certain media outlets would ever permit this kind of ethical enforcement.

karen allen | 12.11.05 – 4:23 pm

I am looking forward to attending your celebratory brunch to toast Fitz.

karen — with $59 round-trip flights from here to Chi-town, I’ll be glad to help you and Delphyne with the brunch.

I’ll even bring a case of bubbly to wash down the Dutch babies and waffles!

Darwin–Even though the publishers will say they didn’t know what their reporters were doing, they are criminally negligent. The could, and should have known. They chose, either directly or indirectly to allow their reporters to run wild with no supervision or oversight.

Valley Girl–You are definitely invited to my pancake/waffle brunch for Patrick Fitzgerald!

Karen Allan, regarding your comment on the culpability of the editors/publishers, I believe that I have one way that we might act to put pressure on the people at the top. I posted it earlier but since you bring it up, here it is:

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.

At no point in that childish TIME article did Viveca express any remorse for the resultant pain that her little conversations and writing have caused Valerie Wilson and her family.

I’ve been reading all of the FDL comments re: Rover, Luskin, etc. since forever. I’m not anything close to being a lawyer, and I’ve had a hard time keeping track of all of the dates in play. But, it seems to me, from my simple minded perspective, that Fitz is trying to cut off Rover’s defense “I heard it from a reporter” on the basis that Rove’s statements about “how I knew what, and when” don’t add up. I just went back and reread the text of Fitz’s press conference when Libby was indicted. To my eye, it looks like it gives a pretty clear game plan for how Rove might come to be indicted. Fitz pays very close attention to dates, and who knew what when, and who told who what, and when. It was definitely worth rereading, when I did so mentally substituting “Rove” for “Libby”, and mentally changing the names of various reporters. My conclusion? Rove is screwed, albeit with a different cast of supporting characters from the MSM. Am I missing something, is this too simple minded? TIA

( Fitz statement at http://www.editorandpublisher……1001392240 )

Maybe Fitzgerald should place a full-page ad in several national newspapers requesting all the other reporters not heretofore known but who were in touch with Rove and the gang on this criminal situation to come forward at this point to talk to him. It might be like cockroaches at the sugar bowl, a lot of scurrying one way or the other.

IMHO, I think the newspapers/magazines are just as criminally culpable as their criminally negligent “kickass” reporters. The employer, the publisher, allowed their employees to run wild with no supervision.

Why people would go along with W:

Our society is just a hair’s breadth away from the culture of the cave man. In the minds of many people, might makes right. We do what we do because we can get way with it. The country with the greatest stockpile of lethal weapons is entitled to assume power over the rest of the world because it can.

Many people either can’t or refuse to place themselves in the shoes of another person, unless that person is someone aligned with their own selfish interests. So we hear an occasional pang of artificial “sympathy” from these people for the loss of our soldiers’ lives, but not a word of sympathy for the lives of the many innocents affected our actions. For far too many people, what we do to other people seems to be completely irrelevant. The only relevant question is whether it’s good for them. The degree of thoughtlessness and selfishness is beyond disgusting, but real.

The problem is that people who believe they are entitled to exercise ascendancy over other people are the ones most likely to ruthlessly grab power. That’s why they have no respect for the Constitution or the rule of law. These are the only things that keep their need, and supposed right, to dominate in check.

Fitz is heroic to me because, within the constricts that the current reality will allow, and in his own small way, he’s trying to impose the rule of law on the same extremely powerful forces that are trying to destroy everything that make us a civilized society.

That’s why Plamegate is more than just a set of incidents and obscure details. It’s about a lot more than whether a law was broken, and by whom. Instead it’s a test of whether we are still a nation of laws, rather than of men.

Thanks Redd and Grandpa (and Jeralyn)

So it looks as if the “recantation”defense won’t work for Rover–he has to go with “I forgot- so it wasn’t perjury”.

new thread

And also take a peek at the DoJ Resource Manual:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eous…..m00845.htm

HTH!

Oh, and for the legal minds out there, take a peek at U.S. v. Moore, 613 F.2d 1029 (1979) for a hint on how the DC Circuit sees things on recantation.

When a few more indictments come down, I will gladly host a pancake/waffle brunch for Patrick Fitzgerald and the FDL bunch in Chicago.

Name the time, Fitz.
karen allen | 12.11.05 – 2:53 pm | #

I would willingly fly out there to help you cook and I am a good cook – not a *kick ass cook* but a good one!

As for the recantation, Jeralyn did a thorough review on recantation earlier, and it is worth a re-read.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/012889.html

Whatever happened to Jeff Gannon and his trick book? Has he been fitted for a special pair of cement shoes? We know he did someone during his sleepovers at the WH. Is there no followup to what the hell that was all about?

I think the only way to sink Dubya below 25% is to truly expose his relationship to a gay hooker into watersports and poo.

Has Gannon been deposed about what he knew? In his interview with Joe Wilson Gannon was apparently asking about a “memo” saying that Plame sent Wilson to Niger. While untrue, this was long before the lie had been circulated. Was it the memo from the airplane flight to Africa?

Please, people, this scandal could be even bigger and better than it already is.

Grampa — you were absolutely correct in the thread below that the multiple appearances by Rove and his ever-morphing story do not lend credence to any claim for recantation based upon fully coming clean. Modifying ones lies only as you feel it necessary to do so to save your own neck, but not fully telling the truth, is NOT correcting the record fully as expected for recantation. And I suspect that Fitz has been looking into that aspect with the G/J and his investigative team as well.

“Why would they specifically be discussing him amongst all others in March unless Viveca had blabbed a great deal more about her coworker’s interactions with Karl Rove than her story lets on?”

Perhaps because Luskin had in his hands a yet-to-be-produced email regarding Rove’s conversion with Cooper and contacting Viveca was his way of determining how widespread knowledge of that double super secret Cooper phone call was should he find it necessary to instruct Rove to change his testimony.

If knowledge of that conversation was confined to only Cooper, Rove, and minimally, Rove’s White House email chat buddies, then relying on the strategy that Cooper’s potential testimony against Rove would be gagged due to his protecting conf’d sources would have worked. Thus, no reason in the world for Rove to recant his false testimony

On the other hand, if a third party had knowledge of that phone conversation (and perhaps to some degree it’s substance), then Cooper going to jail for refusing to ID his source is, at least potentially, moot if the third party should come to light for any reason.

So Luskin has an email from his client that directly contradicts his client’s sworn GJ testimony, an email that he really doesn’t want to produce, and only Cooper’s testimony or a third party revelation would force his hand.

As it turned out, the third party concern wasn’t necessary after all.

puzzled – I HOPE I’m right on that. I’d feel more confident if I could hear from someone who actually knows. Redd?

I agree with sonate at 3:48, thanks Grandpa.

I seriously doubt that a judge would throw out a perjury charge based on recantation.
Grampa

——-

thanks for clarifying that it’s the judge that determines recantation. and Fitz seems to have a very good track record of convincing the judge that have issued orders in this case.

pollyusa:

5. Viveca says only one of the dates Fitz asked for checked out, 3/04.

No surprise for anyone. Luskin certainly knew the exact date and time of the meeting. Any lawyer worth his salt who just had important information disclosed to him about a client in an active case would have gone home and written it all down. Apparently Vivica didn’t feel the same urge, which is a bit surprising to me.

There is no doubt that Fitzgerald knew the exact date of the meeting. He was merely trying to confirm it.

gnipgnop –

Good point about the the possibility of retaliation to those who cooperate with Fitz.

I always thought that Scooter’s letter to Judy clearly contained a veiled physical threat, with its statement urging Judy to “return to work, and life.”

Hmmm… “return to life.” What an interesting comment. It is almost as though Scooter is saying that Judy shouldn’t take her life for granted.

Grampa: I love your analyses!

gnipgnop, I’d wondered about that myself.

I don’t really give a hoot about Viveca. Yes, it looks like she screwed up, but it seems most of them do. The real question to me is whether any of this will help Rove.

As I laid out in the thread below, there are several reasons why Luskin’s conversation with Viveca will not preclude the prosecutor from charging Rove with perjury before the grand jury. Caveat: this is pure legal speculation; I have not done the necessary research to have confidence in this analysis.

1. The Viveca/Luskin conversation does not change the fact that Rove changed his story only after Cooper had been subpoenaed. The perjury statute, on its face, looks at the timing of any recantation, not at the reasons for recantation. The case law may broaden this condition, but the information Viveca passed to Luskin is irrelevant to the language of the statute. Indeed, one could argue that the falsity of Rove’s testimony became manifest to Luskin in part as a result of what he learned from Viveca.

2. It is for Rove, not the government, to prove whether the falsity of his testimony would be exposed at the time he recanted.

3. The decision about whether recantation bars a perjury count will be made by a judge, not the jury.

4. Rove does not avoid the charge simply by raising “reasonable doubt.” A preponderance of the evidence could defeat Rove’s motion to dismiss the perjury count.

5. Once the judge allows the perjury count to stand, recantation is no longer a defense at trial. Evidence of recantation might get to the jury to show that Rove didn’t intend to deceive, but that evidence would have to be weighed along with everything else.

6. Rove’s failure to admit his interview with Cooper was not the only lie he told. As I understand it, after Cooper was subpoenaed, Rove admitted to the grand jury that “it was possible that the subject of Wilson had come up.” After Cooper’s detailed email to his editor was leaked, after Cooper turned over his detailed notes, and after Cooper testified himself before the grand jury, Rove admitted that they might have discussed Plame (after discussing welfare reform). I’m not aware of any time Rove clearly admitted that he had learned about Plame from government sources and then passed that information on to Cooper. Partial recantation is not permitted.

Given that Fits probably has other evidence to indicate that Rove spoke with Cooper and that he remembered speaking with Cooper (e.g., Rove’s email to Hadley, testimony by Ralston, and other contemporaneous testimony), I seriously doubt that a judge would throw out a perjury charge based on recantation.

Tom Maguire writes: “but one might well ask, did Rove’s initial failure to realize that “I heard that, too” was Novak’s confirmation … ?”

Don’t know how important “counter-spin” is, but it was testified that Rove responded to R. Novak as saying, “Oh! You’ve heard about it!” instead of the more uncertain response. This is much more damning than the countless times we’ve heard Rove saying the uncertain “…too.”

Who testified to this? Robert Novak!!! Is he somehow LESS credible to the MSN than King Karl?? Why hasn’t this — and its implications — been given a larger hearing?

gnip:

Bush: Kill the Messenger

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq…..88,00.html

“The public has a right to know whether politicians would seriously consider killing journalists in order to stifle independent or critical voices. In this particular case the family, friends and colleagues of the victim also have a right to justice.”

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: “We are not interested in dignifying something so outlandish and inconceivable with a response.”

The White House said almost the exact same thing about Karl Rove and Scooter Libby in their roles as leakers too. The White House is simply not to be believed about anything. The fact the White House went after the Wilsons also speak volumes when placed in this context.

This administration threatens a free press. Would you be next if you disagreed with Bush or his policy? It’s a good question, because the press has not been forthcoming with the truth about this administration.

Background and comments on this story:

http://www.boomantribune.com/s…../19120/600

Thank you,

“The question that will be answered in the coming year is whether America still believes in George Bush enough to follow.”

Barring some miracle or utterly unforeseen turn of events, the answer is a resounding “No!”.

Basically, everything this Administration has touched has turned into the legislative/administrative version of “Hulk smash!!!”, so why should mucking around with Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security Redux be any different.

Sad to see NBC chasing after Bush like whores. The ads this weekend have been for Brian Williams following Bush around as Bush delivers yet another “key” speech on Iraq.

Sorry, but short of “Damn, we screwed up big time and Murtha’s ideas are what we should have been doing”, nothing Bush says will cut it.

It’s just incredible the damage they’ve done in just a few short years….

One thing I haven’t seen mentioned recently….perhaps not since the odd language used by Scooter in his writing to Judy Miller…is that there may be an element of danger here for some of these people like Vivak….maybe even Woodward. We know Rove, DeLay, and others don’t believe in any morality, see no problem with torture, etc….isn’t it possible that the reporters involved in this case have been threatened with retaliation? Being killed? That certainly could affect one’s memory and judgement.

J. Thomason, thanks for the reminder on the “Constitution is just a piece of paper”. It should be the basis of one of the articles of impeachment. And you are right – breach of the oath.

So, RE: the last paragraph, you just have to wonder what Luskin’s concern was. I need to reread VNovaks article, but:

- Fitz knows what VNovak said
- Luskin likely knows from VNovak what she said to Fitz

So what is it someone doesn’t know? And why would it be important now given the stage of Fitz’s investigation.

Do you suppose there is something in there Rove didn’t know?

considering the political success of his Social Security Plan, I doubt if Americans are willing to further experiment…

.” The question that will be answered in the coming year is whether America still believes in George Bush enough to follow.”

Time Magazine

And the answer is no.

Why would “America” believe in a president whose closest personal advisor and strategist is a man who cares for nothing except winning, whose only operative is cynicism and who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.

Karl Rove? How can a president be deemed worthy or great or forward looking when he’s being advised by a charlatan?

Whorevak doesn’t have any notes on meeting Luskin in her journalist notebook …but how about her trickbook? Maybe her pimp D. Corn has records.

rluskin@pattonboggs.com

“However improbable the odds at this point or modest his short-term goals, aides say, Bush still subscribes to Rove’s long-held dream that his will be the transformational presidency that lays the groundwork for a Republican majority that can endure, as Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition did, for a half-century or more. Once he gets past the midterm elections, Bush plans to introduce a concept that, if anything, is even more ambitious than his failed Social Security plan: a grand overhaul that would include not only that program but Medicare and Medicaid as well. Says strategist McKinnon: “He knows that part of what he brings to the presidency is an ability and commitment to chart a long course under public pressure.” The question that will be answered in the coming year is whether America still believes in George Bush enough to follow.”

Time Magazine

GSD–Where are you today?

Why does VNovak infer there was some kind of confidentiality agreement that would constrain Luskin to mention her to Fitzgerald?

This is almost as odd as the revelation that Luskin did not want Novak to publish her testimony.

Let me just say this. I don’t think that this necessarily points to any intimacy other than that of the “club house journalism” referred to by Jane. The difficulty in unraveling the assumptions in these kinds of arrangements is that they are systemic and implicit. That is not to say that it is not subject to critical inquiry but where has there been any systemic “push back” against the feeding of the beast that is beltway politics. How quickly the exposes of Snow, Clarke, and Wilkerson are marginalized in the buzz of the noise machine which devours integrity daily. Anonymous sourcing consumes accountability and spin becomes a game of intentional misdirection for the sole purpose of avoiding the truth as if the truth is not somehow intrinsically related to the very use of language deeply posited in the gesture of listening. How are these practices not inherently cynical and manipulative?

But there are some glints of hope: Andrew Sullivan comparing the logic of torture to the logic of totalitarianism; and the suggestion of Christopher Hitchen’s that a plan to attack Al Jazeera offices was criminally insane. And these are significant of a sea changes inasmuch as these commentators in times past have been supportive of Bush’s policies. These commentaries do not mince words.

And now there is a report of G. Bush referring to the Constitution as just a piece of paper true. Does this not explicitly show a breach of his oath of office.

Plamegate continues to be important as a vehicle to reveal the utter cyncism of this administration that craves totalitarianism, though ironically it would be loath to admit any consciousness of this.

Perhaps those within the administration who would behave nobly have deferred to the need for Fitzgerald’s investigation to proceed and have aided the pursuit of the truth which is crucial at this time, quietly.

I found the show listed on Yahoo’s TV listings.

On the N. California Fairfax Comcast digital cable system the show is on at 4PM.

“Okay gang, I can find no mention of the timing of the Hardball/MSNBC Traitorgate special on their website.”

I’m 99% sure they tape “Chris Mathews” Sunday show the Friday afternoon or evening prior to Sunday, FWIW.

Mack–Fitzgerald is in Chicago much of the time. Hence, the venue of the brunch.

stacy… It must be something they are putting in the cocktail weenies cause you would think they would stop drinking the kool aid after it has killed 2150+ American’s attending the Victory party and destroyed several reporting careers.

I just don’t get it either. I mean they served Mushroom Rice, and we know that’s a dangerous dish too…

I would quit attending functions where I saw people keeling over from the food like this… It’s downright lethal. No joke.

Reddhedd – The HB special on the Leak case is to be aired twice tonight, 7:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. eastern.

Is Viveca Novak still David Corn’s idea of a “kick ass journalist”? I especially love the part where Fitz reminds her of the March meeting with Luskin which she failed to report to him, saying she “overlooked” it in her date book because she’d “mistakenly” jotted it down at 5:00 AM instead of 5:00PM.

There certainly seems to be all kinds of missing or overlooked memos, dates, and documents of the players in this funny ‘ol case.

the Traitorgate special on M$NBC is at 7pm and repeated at 11pm (EST)

“Okay gang, I can find no mention of the timing of the Hardball/MSNBC Traitorgate special on their website.”

According to my Dish Network on-air programming guide, it starts at 6:00 PM Central Time.

Grandpa—Yeah- and if it’s a place that both frequented regularly- there may be many receipts for times that they were there but not together.

Me3- I saw your comment about David Corn over on HuffPo and his pathetic, unconvincing, dishonest defense of Novak over.

What the hell has he been drinking in lately. I am glad that I am not the only one that is totally floored by Corn’s comments and reaction with respect to Novak- he’s putting his personal friendship or views ahead of his journalistic ethics (or lack thereof).

I am AMAZED that the folks in the MSM dont seem to get how HUGE this is- how their credibility is shot- they are no longer speaking truth to power but just apparently sidling up next to it and getting shitfaced drunk in the process.

karen,
aren’t you in Ohio?

Okay gang, I can find no mention of the timing of the Hardball/MSNBC Traitorgate special on their website. Did some lovely soul make a note of it — and can pass it along to a harried momma who will need to set her blessed Tivo?

In her own shill:

“”Thank you. This is important.”"

“I clung to Luskin’s word”

“I hoped this would turn out to be an insignificant twist in the investigation”

She’s a liar.

re: date of the Luskin/Viveca meeting.

There may be plenty of credit card slips and other evidence of their various meetings. None of that will identify the particular meeting at which they discussed the Rove/Cooper interview.

Experience shows that ending comments of the form “oh, by the way, . . . ” are often the ones that reflect a speaker’s, or author’s, major personal concern, demoting the immediately previous commentary to second rank.

Seen that way, Viv’s “final note” takes on a different hue: she seems to feel the need to justify writing about her conversations with Luskins, and marshalls two such defenses–(1)he already broke our confidentiality by singing to Fitz, and (2) anyway those who testify for grand juries are entitled to publicize their remarks. The latter is quaint indeed, and excessive, as though she thinks that the fact that the grand jury will receive her testimony from Fitz is somehow the equivalent of a mandate, or at least a special permission, to write freely of her conversations. (See the several “Woodward Syndrome” posts at amendmentnine, url above, for more on this rhetorical style, and how “reading it upside down” may yield a truer picture of what is really being said).

So her over-riding concern is that she’s embarrassed to be publicizing the “Luskin Dialogues.” Now why might that be?

Don’t even think code of honor (it’s clear now that thieves have a better one than journalists do). Instead, consider: “Sorry, Don, but that other matter we discussed, damned if it didn’t come up in my testimony too.” Or possibly: “So sorry, I know this contradicts some of your other “statements to the public. Or whatever.

But the point is, there’s where the gold is, in her “final point.” It looks like somebody’s little gray cells will be able to sort this out.

When a few more indictments come down, I will gladly host a pancake/waffle brunch for Patrick Fitzgerald and the FDL bunch in Chicago.

Name the time, Fitz.

For some reason…..When Judy Miller and Vivac are mentioned,I’m reminded of the lyrics in the song Reptile by Nine Inch Nails from The Downward Spiral cd.

My money says if she had not been told in absolute terms to stay away from Luskin, she would at this moment be sharing a drinkee with him at their favorite little place.

I agree with the earlier poster. Note to Patrick Fitzgerald: Have the FBI interview the help at that favorite little place. Bet they could tell you more that Viveca is willing to.

jlr, agreed.

Damn, Monk keeps getting better and better.

I thought the last paragraph of her piece today strongly implied irked feelings – at least as strongly as she could in public.

jlr–Maybe not. I am sure her own attorney and TIME’s attorney have strongly advised her not to. Her lack of any irked feeling to Luskin is highly suspect.

Maybe like Judy Miller’s husband, Novak’s “labor lawyer” husband believes her. Maybe not.

Karen, yessirreee. My thoughts exactly, just the whole tone reeks of stale perfume.

Could this latest series of events be a cry for help from Luskin? Is he trying to get himself the fuck off this case? He seems more like a PR tool than a lawyer.

My conjecture is that at this point she has no loyalty to Luskin whatsoever – he having pretty much thrown her under the bus.

I think Corn may be dislexic:
Vivak is more likely ass-kicked than “kick-ass”
Woodward may be emblematic of the ‘elite’ Beltway journo;
but if Vivak is any indication of the rank and file, it is no wonder wefind ourselves in our current condition.
Her Time ‘explanation’ is pathetic on so many levels… and why would any clueful editor even bother to run it.
…
More evidence that the American public has been second to cocktail weenies so far as the MSM is concerned

I write about politics for Time Magazine in Washington.

I have direct personal access to the most important source of the most powerful actor in the most intriguing drama in years.

I leak information that helps the defense.

But I don’t write notes. I don’t remember dates. I don’t alert publishers.

I continue to get personnal access to a misinformation campaign. And continue to write about it.

My personal source rats me out to the Special Prosecutor and the world. My reputation and professional standing and career are over.

But I don’t have notes. I still don’t remember dates. I only alert publishers when I need their deep defense pockets.

That’s some high fucking journalistic standards. And some good self preservation skills.

Has anyone conjectured as why Viveca’s loyalty to Luskin is so strong? She doesn’t in the least sound angry that Luskin played her like a violin.

When she says she began seeing him more than she usually did…does anyone think Viveca has an intense enduring emotional feeling (snark) for Bobby Luskin?

Putting some previous comments together and a re-write for clarity. This analysis is based on a comment from lukasiak in the previous thread.

1. Let’s say that Luskin told Fitz, in the week of October 24, 2005, that the Viveca conversation (where she told about Cooper) may have occured in the fall of 2004.

Remember the NYT had the version that the important conversation occured in the summer or early fall. Sure reads to me that Luskin is the one putting that out.

Mr. Rove’s lawyer, Robert D. Luskin, spoke in the summer or early fall of 2004 with Viveca Novak
NYT 12/02/05

2. Fitz brings Viveca in for her 1st interview on 11/10/05 and she arrives knowing from Luskin that Fitz wants to know about the Luskin/Viveca meeting where she told about Cooper. Viveca has 2 dates when she thinks the conversation occured, 1/04 or 5/04.

3. We know Fitz asked her about meetings with Luskin through the fall of 2004 in her first interview.

He asked how often Luskin and I met during the period from fall 2003 to fall 2004
TIME 12/11/05

4. We know Fitz asked Viveca to look for other specific dates (pural) before her second interview, he had to have these dates from Luskin.

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

5. Viveca says only one of the dates Fitz asked for checked out, 3/04.

One of them, March 1, 2004, checked out.
12/11/05 Time

Me3: Good question

I just can’t see how either the March or May date will end up mattering? How can Rove justify waiting MONTHS to come forward if it were indeed his intent upon getting the Novak reminder?

As usual, most insightful post! The credibility of the MSM continues to go down the drain. These big-shot inside-the-beltway reporters are the same people who helped con the American people into supporting the Iraq war. Scumbags, that’s what they are. Increasingly, we are depending on you guys to keep us informed. Keep up the great work…

Looks like Pealstein did express his pisstivity…did you notice?

>>Editor’s Note: By mutual agreement, Viveca Novak is currently on a leave of absence.

remember the date

I wonder if either of them used a credit card.

I bet she remembers the vintage of the wine.

“But then again, she doesn’t have the superstar status to carry her, and as amazing as it may seem to people who thought the bottom of the integrity barrel had already been hit, her journalistic sins appear to be worse. Much worse.”

Sorry, but I feel compelled to leap to Vivnak’s defense, at least to some degree. I guess part of the reason for that is I think that if Cooper’s e-mail at Time hadn’t been leaked in the first place, Time and Cooper might have kept the whole thing under wraps.

I agree that Vivnak should have told Time about the conversation. But is it worse to conceal a mistake from your employer, thinking it may never come to light? (She was telling Luskin about a conversation she had every reason to believe he already knew about.) Or is it worse to help spread lies in order to lead a nation into war?

I’d have to go with the latter.

Also, if it was a surprise that Luskin was Rove’s lawyer, what story was she working on at that meeting?

Two points:

1) Has it been determined that Rove was in his own office since the call went through the switchboard?

2) A good waitress would remember the date, especially since it seems to be they meet at the same place.

SALUDOS DESDE ESPAÑA

just wish we could invite Patrick Fitzgerald for brunch–Dutch babies, German pancakes, waffles with strawberries. I’m sure he could use a home-cooked meal….

It’s funny how the important thing to a journalist seems to be their Anon sources. It’s also funny that, regarding the Plame matter, their Anon sources seem to be the only thing able to bring these errant journalists down. They get so caught up in “the life” that they forget the reader who will toss them aside the first minute they smell deception.

Judith claims she was protecting her source. I would think that Fitz! allowed Libby to release her. Yeah, and I found Jesus behind the couch when my Anon source plugged in my Holiday Tree.

I am now certain that all Anonymous Sources is the one and only propaganda department of the Bush Administration.

Jane, could you give me a call when you have a chance?

I stand by my questioning statement to David Corn concerning his defense of Ms. Novak last week.

“Do you have to wash the blood off your hands after writing shill for Satan?”

I still want an answer.

Can we start calling her Ho’vak now?

Of course she was looking out for herself. Everyone has to. But we don’t have to stop at the looking out for ourself.
I think the point you hire a lawyer you have an obligation to fess up-at this point you know you might be in deep do-do.
But as for not telling anyone after the meeting itself…even if she was worried about having slipped up-I can understand her taking the wait and see option before doing anything else.
And I would guess that most folks would do the same.

GREAT post Jane………….

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

^^^ Media Campaugn ^^^

Send letters to the MSM and demand honest investigative reporting. Sign Petitions. Write Congress.

When government and the media stand down… The people have to rise up.

Fitz!