We all burst out at the same time, here in my house. Trying to paraphrase from memory, Bob Novak said that

1) Valerie Plame wasn’t really a covert agent, so it’s no big deal, and
2) Aldrich Ames outed her before as a covert agent, anyway, so who cares?

So if Aldrich Ames outed her, how can these pinheads keep saying she wasn’t a covert agent? It seems a contradictory position. Perhaps he means that she was a covert agent but her status wasn’t well-protected. Be that as it may, it doesn’t help for him to say she has been outed before, because if she wasn’t protected, there would be no big deal to Aldrich Ames outing her, either, now would there?

Basically, he’s saying he’s only the second traitor to out her. Which is a much better position to be in.

MR. RUSSERT: What were the ground rules of your interview?

MR. NOVAK: I have interviews all — I’m a reporting columnist as opposed to a thumb-sucking columnist, and I have all kinds of interviews with people where there is a tacit agreement that now — that I will not reveal the name. I sat down with this source who was not a — as I have said many times — was not a political gunslinger. We had a long talk, an hour-long talk, we’re the only people in the room. I didn’t have a tape recorder, I didn’t take notes. It’s the kind of tacitly, not-for-attribution interview that I do constantly as part of my work for the last half-century in Washington.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/16/14732/3082

Looks like if we want to hang our hopes on Anne Kornblut being accurate when she (and only she) reported that Robert Novak has testified again since Libby’s indictment, we are on very, very thin ice. [Except for the fact that she sounds like she’d have excellent and willing sources among the plotters who would be in a position to know that such a thing happened… Perhaps some inside information slipped out in that article that wasn’t supposed to?]

Kornblut appears to belong to the Novak school of biased political party promotion mislabeled as the reporting of a free and objective press.

On other matters: It seems urgent to everything good in America that someone civil or criminal just has to get to discovery at least – trial would be best.

IMO just getting everything out in the open so America can see is enough. A place in hell already awaits em . . .

McGee – I think perhaps my op-ed reference is slightly inaccurate – again emptywheel probably has that quote pinned down better than I do, somewhere – I substituted the op-ed for what I believe Novak actually cited, which was Wilson’s Meet the Press appearance on the same day. But in the scenario you cite, the difference is important as to timing. So if it was MTP, not the op-ed, from which it was ‘just a few days’ – Monday gets a little less likely, but still not impossible, of course, as you point out.

melior (in Austin) #256 -

That is no “minor detail” you cite! Thank you for the link and quote. I think this real-time verification of the knowledge of Bob Novak is very, very important. Kudos to the heads-up Wilson friend who engaged Novak in conversation on Pennsylvania Avenue. In reading the excerpt from Wilson’s book – it’s not crystal clear how close to the White House they were walking. The friend was heading to Wilson’s office, which is located a couple of blocks from the White House [if I’m interpreting that sentence in his book correctly]. Novak was walking in the same direction, and the friend assumed it was toward George Washington University, for the daily taping of the former Crossfire program (but he didn’t verify that with Novak). They walked together for a block or so. And then the friend (a stranger to Novak) went straight to Wilson’s nearby office and relayed the details directly to Wilson, ‘hot off the press.’ Wilson had the foresight to have his friend write down the information he heard from Novak, then and there. And then Wilson immediately proceeded to call CNN to try to hold Novak to account (obviously without success).

By July 10, Novak was apologizing (twice) to Wilson on the phone for blurting this (irrelevant as Wilson tried to emphasize) alleged information about Valerie out to a stranger on the street, while simultaneously trying to get Wilson to confirm Valerie was CIA… And Valerie alerted the CIA’s press liaison (by July 10?) about these conversations, so by that point in time, at least, the CIA should have been on-guard for and prepared to protect against the ongoing effort to force out into the open the identity of one of our clandestine CIA Agents.

As to the activity by the plotters on Sunday, July 6th – note that it was, I believe (without checking), on Sunday 7/6, that Armitage (I believe) called Carl Ford (I believe) at home to ask him to retrieve the state department’s INR Memo for review by Colin Powell – which Ford subsequently did in time for it to be aboard Air Force One on its way to Africa the next evening, July 7.

While the CIA refuses to publicly define her status, the official contact says she is “covered” — working under the guise of another agency.
Novak 10/1/03

In July, I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador [Joseph] Wilson’s report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing.
Novak 9/29/03

On to Waas

The two officials told investigators they warned Novak that by naming Plame he might potentially jeopardize her ability to engage in covert work, stymie ongoing intelligence operations, and jeopardize sensitive overseas sources.

[…]

Moreover, one of the government officials who has told federal investigators that Novak’s account is false has also turned over to investigators contemporaneous notes he made of at least one conversation with Novak. Those notes, according to sources, appear to corroborate the official’s version of events.

[…]

Shortly after his column appeared, Novak seemed to suggest that the information about Plame was planted as part of a White House campaign. In an interview with Newsday reporters Timothy M. Phelps and Knut Royce, he said, “I didn’t dig it out, it was given to me. They thought it was significant. They gave me the name and I used it.”

Then Novak started to backtrack, giving the impression that the leak was more the result of his own initiative than from a White House source. He also claimed the Newsday reporters quoted him out of context, an accusation both reporters deny. (Full disclosure: Royce is my longtime friend.)
Waas 3/8/04

Royce and Phelps are sticking with Novak quote, say it was in context.

I agree that the bar is there to prevent having to be hassled with factual/litigation issues and that’s why I don’t think a straight retaliation claim, even with the 1st and 5th ramifications gets you anywhere if there is an absolute immunity bar.

The only crack I see is to go the next step and claim an actual criminal violation as the basis for the claim – and claiming the violation of the Intel Ident act, IMO, bolsters the property argument under the 5th as well – there was a contractual obligation of the govt to protect the covert status, reflected in a law passed by COngress making it a crime for GOv to blow that cover.

I do think that it makes for a suddenly much more compelling argument on the immunities front if the Wilsons go ahead and toss out the pitch that they are going to prove up criminal violation of the Act as a part of their civil action. There is certainly language in lots of cases and historic docs taht indicates that immunities may fall before a claim of criminal action. Certainly, Exec Priv. fell in the face of criminal actions for Nixon.

It would, if nothing else, be awfully interesting if things went down that path. I really want to see the argument that the President can conspire to kill babies for organ transplants commit a criminal violation that violates a citizen’s consitutional rights and puts them at risk, and not have to respond to legal process.

It does all go to CHeney more than Bush anyway – but I would consider making that dive (that we’ll go into the criminal violations of the Intel Ident Act) if I could pull research together. IMO – it makes everything stronger for them. And I like the language in Gavel discussing earlier cases, if the origination was Bush or CHeney — the fact that the order given was immune does not make the following of that order immune.

Stronger may not = winner, but it is pretty darn hard to argue that a)violating criminal law is an official act, and b) it is not an impermissible encroachment on separation of powers for the Exec. actors to violate the law, and conspire to violate the laws, passed by COngress, with impunity under claim of immunity, when such violation disenfranchises an American citizen of their constitutional rights.

IMO, implicit in the US v Nixon case on privilege is the holding that, if the Pres had not complied, he would not have had immunity for non-compliance. Otherwise, the ruling was without real basis or effect. ?

fwiw