NOTES: (1) This is not a transcript — It's the blogger's approximation, and no one really knows what that is yet! But I do know you shouldn't quote anything not in quotation marks. (2) I'll timestamp the updates and will update about every 15 minutes, servers willing. The hamsters that run the servers will appreciate it if you don't refresh excessively in the meantime. (3) If you're not having enough fun just reading along the liveblog, consider buying my book on this case.
Well,I guess Libby's team thought we'd be tired after lunch. Or perhaps they want us to lose our lunch. Becuase we're getting Novak.
Novak sitting there looking shiftily from right to left, kind of sitting back in the seat. He's got a three piece suit (like the one in the picture, but a yellow tie or some such thing. And he's wearing glasses. Maybe he noticed earlier that losing one's glasses is a good way to stall for time?!?!
Fitzgerald and Wells chatting about something–bench conference on something relating to Novak.
Libby is very animated right now, laughing with Jeffress. Whatever he said, they're both cracking up.
Novak has one cup of water to the side and one in front of him. He looks more comfortable than Judy, but not all that much more. But maybe that's because he looks shifty by his very nature? That took abotu 5 minutes or so. Jury now coming in.
I think Walton is getting tired–he's not as chatty as he was with the jury week before last.
[Wells up, I'll use W and RN]
RN: I'm a journalist, staffer for Sun Times, syndicated columnist, also a (clears throat) contributor for Fox, Bloomberg, editor in chief for Evans-Novak.
W: In 2003 who did you work for?
RN Sun Times, CNN. Exec producer for Capital game [His voice sounds A LOT more nasaly than normal], been political commentator since 1963.
Wells: Work history.
RN: goes through military service, AP, Evans, since Evans retirement.
Now Novak is sitting up on edge of seat.
W: Week of July 7 2003.
RN: Change of counterterrorism aide, Ms. Townsend, and several small stories ran in item, working on Amb Joe Wilson's mission to Niger which he had written about.
W How did you come to be working on Wilson column
RN: Previous Sunday, alleged attempt by Iraq to buy yellowcake from Niger, he had written op-ed, he was on MTP, I happened to be on roundtable and came in contact with him, had been interested in story, became more interested in it, and whether Pres had ignored report in opting for invasion of Iraq.
Wells, introduces the column.
1:41
W: Focuses on the key paragraph of the column. Two SAOs told me. WRT statement about 2 SAOs, who were the two?
RN: Both of those officials have signed waivers I'm free to give their names, then Dpty SOS Armitage, and Senior WH Aide, Karl Rove.
W: Start with how you came to speak with Armitage.
RN: I had been trying to get appointment with Armitage since 2001, he had declined to see me, had indicated he just didn't want to see me. After 9/11 I tried again, got rebuffed. At the end of June, last week of June, his office contacted me, said he'd see me. Made appointment for July 8, afternoon, his office, State.
W: What you recall about conversation.
RN: The only people in room were Armi and me, no aides, no tape recorders, I did not take notes, it was by tacit agreement rather than by stipulation, a background, I assumed I could write what he said, but I wouldn't be able to identify him, I also got to the point, I had decided by then I was going to write a column about Wilson's mission to Niger.
W What he told you WRT Wilson's wife.
RN: After we talked about mission, I asked why in the world they named WIlson when he had been staffer in Clinton NSC, he was believed to be critical of Bush, no experience in policy, had not been in Niger since 1970s [wrong again, Novak], so Armi said he was suggested by wife Valerie who was employee in CPD at CIA.
W You specifically recall that Armi referred to Wilson's wife by name,
RN Yes, as Valerie
W How did you come to learn her last name
RN Wilson's entry in Who's Who. It was listed as Valerie Plame.
W Armitage did not give you the last name.
W You used the term Agency operative. Did that come from Armitage
RN I've referred to people probably too much as operatives politicians as political operatives. Didn't indicate I had knowledge of her being intell operative but as employee of CIA.
W Did you have knowledge she was covert.
RN No.
W Fair to say Armi primary source. Did you have confirming source.
RN That was Karl Rove. In 2003 he was senior advisor to Pres on a wide variety of subjects. He had a lot to do with political strategy.
W To make sure they stayed in office.
RN MOre than that, that they were successful.
W That they were re-elected.
RN He was trying to do a good job for country.
W Personal Friend?
RN I wouldn't call him friend, I'd say very good source.
W When did you speak with Rove.
RN I called as soon as I returned, I can never remember getting him back right away, I think it was that day he returned the call.
W Conversaion the next on July 9
RN When we had that conversation–it could have been July 8, I haven't been able to pin it down. Mainly I was interested in Rove, I'm sorry, mostly Wilson mission to Niger, Asked him about that and policy. Near the end, I asked about Wilson's wife, I asked if he knew, I commented, I had been told that she was an employee of CPD of CIA and had suggested mission. He said, "oh you know that too."
W Did you take that as confirmation
RN I took it as confirmation
1:51
W To what extent was your long-standing relationship with him factor into the fact that you took that as confirmation.
RN I knew when he was confirming something. When he said "oh you know that too" I took that as confirmation.
W I want to go to your conversations with Libby. Did you also speak with Libby.
RN Yessir.
W Relationship with Libby.
RN I had never had contact until election of VP Cheney in 2000 [interesting way to describe that!]. I asked him out to lunch, a couple of social events, I went to his book party, I called him a couple of three times during that year, that was about the extent of it.
W Introduces his phone bill.
RN What was the question?
W Describe to jurors
RN Phone record of phoned in call from my number in Washington at 4:46 PM on July 8 to Mr. Libby's office at WH.
W Going through phone number. It says Inside.
RN That's the name of my column.
W How do you know that shows you call.
RN It's like an eye test.
W magnifies it. Walton points out that it's in front of him on a screen.
RN That says one minute, I didn't talk to him for one minute. I asked for him, and he was unavailable.–they took a message.
RN I believe he returned call on July 9.
W Describe your recollection of your conversation.
RN I was trying to find out more information about Wilson's mission to Niger and VP's connection. Most memorable about call, I asked Libby if he might be helpful to me in establishing timeline in 16 words. When they came in, who proposed it, sort of a consecutive account that I could put in column. I interpreted him as saying he could be helpful.
W In context of talking to Libby did Wilson's wife come up.
RN I don't remember exactly, I might have raised that question, I got no help, and no confirmation on that issue. The reason I'm fuzzy is that I talk to a lot of people in govt an politics everyday and a lot of them are not very helpful and I discard unhelpful conversations in my memory bank.
W You have a clear recollection he gave you no info about it.
RN I'm sure he gave be no info about it.
W You might have asked if he knew that "the wife" worked at the CIA.
W Timeline, on July 8 you talked to Armi, then July 9, you talked to Rove, and also on July 9 you talked to Libby.
RN I'm not positive about the Rove conversation, I'm not positive about whether it was 8th or 9th.
W Back to Novak's column
1:59
W Paragraph says CIA said counterproliferation sent him. Is it fair to say CIA said that.
Fitz Objection
Sidebar.
Novak with hand on chin, looking at screen.
Now sitting back, making his big grumpy frowning face. Puts on his glasses to get started again.
W: I want to see the front of the article. The date. Apparently there is no date.
W The article says Chicago Sun Times, July 14, 2003.
W When did you write your July 14 column
RN [voice slips] The morning of Friday July 11.
W After you wrote it, what did you do?
RN Immediately after finishing it, it was emailed to syndicate.
W What is it
RN Syndicate, sells these to indiv newspapers. An editor goes over it, after a while, calls me back, we discuss further changes I might want to make, changes the editor wants to make. Then in final version, is given to AP for distribution to clients who buy my column. Over 100 newspapers buy it.
W Based on your understanding, when 100 newspapers given column.
Fitz Objection sustained.
W Understanding of how it is distributed.
F Objection, incompetence.
Walton: how do you know?
RN I've been a columnist for 40-some years.
Walton: Overruled
RN Given to AP, it distributes to newspapers that buy it.
W When column given to over 100 newspapers
Fitz: objection
Walton: You don't know specifically what happened.
W With respect to usual pattern,
RN as soon as column is cleared, it is immediately given to AP it's on the wires within an hour.
W Usual practice, when would have it been on the wire.
Fitz Objection
Walton Sustained.
W WRT usual process, after you wrote article, what time on wire?
RN It depends on when I got it to the syndicate. My recollection is since I had busy afternoon, I wanted to finish it before noon, editing before 1, following usual practice it would have gone on immediately thereafter.
W Once it's on the wire, can they print it.
RN It is what is called an embargo, it is not to be printed until Monday morning's newspapers.
W Are people in newsroom permitted to review it.
RN All they have to do is look at it.
W No further questions
2:16
Oh wait, yes he does!!
W WRT the conversations you had with Libby, Armi, and Rove, when did you first testify about those conversations to Fitz.
RN [looks stumped, lets out breath] I first testified to Fitz, as differentiated from FBI
W Let's start with FBI
RN I haven't reviewed those dates, and I don't have a good memory for dates, a couple of months after investigation started, investigation started October 1, 2003. I talked to him subsequent to that, did not mention names of sources. I talked later, I can't give you exact date, at that time, attorneys informed that they would have waivers only for Armi and Rove. In other words, they knew my sources, there was no point in dissembling. That's when I first discussed with authorities.
W I'll show you a copy of GJ testimony, February 25.
F We'll stipulate to the date,
W Is that the first time you testified concerning Armi and Rove. And you said Armi was primary and Rove secondary. Did there come a time when you received a waiver from Libby. Do recall when that was. When did you testify to GJ about Libby?
F Objection.
Sidebar.
2:19
W One last question.
Novak looking pissed right now.
Fitz up



124 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Do the monsters know they are monsters?
Novakula!
Fitz!
A yellow tie…
Novak? in broad daylight? get out the garlic!
Has he drawn any blood yet?
But for Novak’s article, Plame could be working on intelligence about Iran.
Lest we forget.
New visitors to FDL live-blog of Libby Trial, please read
The live-blogging is creating enormous demands on the FDL servers. For that reason, Emptywheel is updating only every 20 minutes or so, and time-stamping each update. Please do not “reload” the page more frequently than that. Also, please be judicious in your use of comments (see below), and how often you refresh them, to reduce demands on the servers.
Peterr wrote:
A few reminders to the regulars and words of welcome to newcomers. .
FDL’s comments are moderated, mostly to eliminate the mass spam that flies around the Internet. All comments run first through an automated spam filter, and if caught, are then checked by human moderators, because in addition to spam, the filters also catch regular comments from time to time.
Here’s some info that will keep your comments from landing in moderation or otherwise clog things up and make life difficult for the mods:
1. Size matters. Long posts get automatically put in moderation and require the mods to set them free. If you want to use a post from elsewhere, don’t cut and paste the whole thing; just give us a link and post a short snippet. It saves space here, and gives the original author the traffic they deserve on their site.
2. Words matter. Especially those words that appear in email spam. Creative use of asterisks in words like “ins*rance” or “vi*gra” will keep things from getting caught in the filters.
3. Links matter. If you put a comment in with more than two or three links, it will end up in moderation. If you absolutely, positively have to have multiple links, you probably want to split it into multiple comments.
4. Attribution matters. If you are posting a news item, give us a link so we know where it came from, how timely it is, and how credible it is.
5. Preview is your friend. Before you send that post, especially if you’ve used bold, italics, or inserted a link, check it out by clicking the preview button before you submit it. It saves on the cleaning bills.
6. Beware the ziggurat! That is, when you quote a comment that quotes a comment that quotes a comment, etc. the resulting nest can “bust the margins” of the webpage. To correct this, the mods have to go in and mess with the coding . . . it’s no fun, and can easily be avoided if you snip out some of the innermost comments of the nest or simply start a new comment and point back to the original with “Jane @ 25″ or some other referent.
Finally, and most importantly: Do not feed the trolls. It just encourages them, and makes life difficult for the mods. Ignore the trolls.
If your comments do end up in moderation, don’t panic. The mods will see them, and free them up in short order. Comments that get held up in moderation, however, do NOT appear if you simply hit “Refresh Comments.” They come up when the entire page is reloaded using F5 or your browser’s “reload” function. Every so often, it’s worth reloading the page to see what might have been missed.
That’s also how Emptywheel makes her updates on the action in the courthouse. It keeps all the courtroom action in one place. Have mercy on the servers, and don’t keep pounding away at them by reloading the page every 30 seconds to find The Latest New Thing. If she can wait 20 minutes to update, you can wait 20 minutes to reload.
And if you’re able, toss a few $$, euros, shekels, or other fun currencies into the FDL donation basket at the bottom of the post. That’s what makes this all possible.
Welcome to the ‘Lake! The water’s warm, so jump right in.
Thanx
Novak for Novak, nothing else is important to him.
Good thing it’s overcast outside, ‘lest he had burst into flames on his way into the courthouse
Bob Novak knows why the caged bird sings…
Great photo. Good thing I didn’t have any coffee in my mouth.
A Novakula moment in history.
One of the last words he said on CNN was “Bullshit.” How apropros.
What! No Pulitzer?
This has been a particularly INTERESTING day!!! Yes???!!!!
I’m at work and can’t take my eyes off this website. I’m gonna be in big doo doo.
Now just what in the hell can Novak do for the defense? This is getting comical.
Biodun @ 14
Talk about what a bad boy Rove is?
And in the picture above, in case anyone is wondering, that’s Novak in a tiff walking off the set of CNN’s Crossfire, his last appearance in the show before it was finally yanked off the air. And that’s Ed Henry on the right, and James (the Bulldog) Carville, Mary Matalin’s spouse, on the left. All in the family.
Novak’s answer regardin his conversation with Armitage sounds totally cooked. Now he’s claiming he used the “Who’s Who in America” to get the name Valerie Plame.
Mickey @
12
Evidently they don’t just give it to you. You have to dig for it.
Biodun @ 14
I agree, so what about Armitage if that is from whom Novak got his info. Has nothing to do with Libby’s lies.
Biodun@14…
My thoughts exactly. How can he help Libby by telling the truth?
Former CIA Director and hookercard scandal point man Porter Goss was on the House INTEL Committee and as such had access to INTEL, most likely was at the briefing or had notes Plame introduced her husband towards…
wrt to the contact, the Sg.t at Arms may have to be consulted, to determine to what extent the Senate President’s staff worked in coordination with the House…
Goss was a guest on CNN the week of Novak’s outing regarding Plame. One the same table with him on Crossfire.
Bio@!4- They don’t believe in making things better. Their like the capt. of the titanic ramming the iceberg over and over and over again!!
yuck. but I promised myself I wouldn’t look away, but,… yuck.
EW or Christy. Please let me know if you want notice of typos or would rather not be bothered. I don’t mind, but don’t want to drive you nuts over tiny details.
My thot was that these non-transcripts are surely going to be read & re-read, possibly published (yes yes, please ;->), & some quick touch-up might help.
I did a little on a couple posts downstairs, but won’t bother more, unless you say okay…
Jane Hamsher @ 17
Fitz’s cross should be fun.
_
dab from CT @
15
Good answer!
Pame’s name was not the issue, her job as acting CIA program for NOC regarding weapons proliferation is of import…
Fitz is gonna nail Novak to the wall on this.
Adie at 23 — We can’t fix typos while the liveblog is ongoing — too much bandwidth and too much of a distraction to bug Marcy while she’s concentrating on current testimony. We’ll have to get them once court has finished for the day.
Hi Jane!
Hope you’re having an “interesting” week, heh.
Must be hard to keep a straight face thru some of this stuff. ;->
Jane Hamsher @
17
Someone must have leaked the FDL photo. That red book beside Carville is Who’s Who.
Mickey @ 12
Good one…..
Libby spoke to Novak as well, apparently during leak week. He’s never talked about it. So this will be interesting.
Diodun @ 14, what the hell can Novak due for the defense.
He can tell people he didn’t hear for the first time about Plame from Libby. Armitage was his source….see get it,they are trying to infer that since Libby didn’t tell him it then proves and somehow absolves Libby from charges in front of him mainly that he didn’t lie to the FBI, GJ or other investigators in his testimony that the first Libby heard about Plame was from Russert.
Hubris-Bush put a leak forward point man in charge of the show…
the House and Senate INTEL Committees are the only other gov’t bodies that could have access to Plame’s name before the official declassification, they could have elaked classified info back to OVP with his Senate President Staff…
Tap Duncan @
22
Great analogy, but I’m not convinced the Titanic hit icebergs… this read is quite interesting:
http://snipurl.com/Titanic_Truth
Novak’s answer regardin his conversation with Armitage sounds totally cooked. Now he’s claiming he used the “Who’s Who in America” to get the name Valerie Plame.
The same bullshit he’s been peddling for years. And still absolutely, positively unbelievable.
RN When we had that conversation–it could have been July 8, I haven’t been able to pin it down. Mainly I was interested in Rove, I’m sorry, mostly Wilson mission to Niger, Asked him about that and policy. Near the end, I asked about Wilson’s wife, I asked if he knew, I commented, I had been told that she was an employee of CPD of CIA and had suggested mission .He said, “oh you know that too.”
Treason.
Confirmed by Novak on the record, under oath.
“Even though I’m a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.”
— George Herbert Walker Bush, 1999
So, when will Bush revoke Rove’s access to classified information?
For that matter, shouldn’t Rove be fired?
Nice to see he’s still hanging onto that “Who’s Who” BS.
RN [Rove] was trying to do a good job for country.
W Personal Friend?
RN I wouldn’t call him friend, I’d say very good source.
[makes loud hurling noises]
Change of counterterrorism aide — Townsend — right in the middle of all this. Relevant?
Wow, can’t believe he’s going with Who’s Who. Cross could be fun. Will Fitz start by asking him if he realizes he’s under oath?
Blast from the past..
Amitage and Rove
http://news.nationaljournal.co…..525nj1.htm
“Where’s this going?”
Guess the argument is that lots of people had spread the goods about Plame before Scoots opened his pie hole so he didn’t really have any reason to lie to the GJ-so it must have been bad memory- or somethin like that?
This is confusing. Supposedly, Armitage didn’t tell him she was CPD, right? If he knew that, then he had reason to know she was covert. And a reason to use the word “operative” in his column.
This is stunning, truly stunning. He is so stupid he can’t even tell when he’s being used. What a f*ckin’ moron.
He doesn’t even try to find out if she is a covert agent.
Isn’t the CPD Division undercover by definition?
OMFG…could Novak suck up anymore to this administration with his extraneous glowing comments. Gee, wonder if any of today’s testimony contradicts with any of his previous testimonies (FBI and GJ). Cross should be very interesting.
Armitage suddenly called him for interview out of the blue. Why would Armitage seek out Novak? How would that have benefited Armitage. I’ll bet it is a case of Bush/Cheney already having “secretly” declassified the info for Armitage to leak without telling anyone else (maybe not even Libby), so they could throw him under the bus later. Seems to be their M.O. Novak expected “dirt” on Wilson (Clinton supporter, etc.). Sounds like Armitage was told to spread the dirt to willing, anti-Clinton journalist. Sounds like some kind of a set-up to me. Sounds very political and Karl Rovian. Just part of the larger conspiracy.
Mainly I was interested in Rove, I’m sorry, mostly Wilson mission to Niger
Freud called. He wants his slip back.
I sure hope Fitz springs a trap on Novak in the cross… Please, sir, give us one for the gallery!
QuickSilver @ 49
I want Fitz to teach Novak the meaning of the word meatgrinder.
Jane Hamsher @
17
That’s been his ass-covering excuse since he landed in the crosshairs of this whole thing. Josh Marshall grabbed the Who’s Who entry on Wilson (PDF, may need to zoom in to read it).
I don’t see it listing Valerie Plame as a covert CIA agent working for a front company tracking WMDs in Iran. I really doubt the name of Wilson’s wife was a big secret in Washington, D.C. It was her job that was the secret.
I’ll bet his call to Rove was really something like “mission accomplished”.
We’re still in sidebar here. Jane’s here. In her professional opinion, this is mighty rehearsed.
Oops!
CHS 27. Thanks. Kinda figured. ;->
emptywheel @ 52
Is a screenplay in the offing?
Somebody told Armitage to call Novak. Someone who knew she was counterproliferation. Hmmmm…CP…sounds familiar, where have we seen that before….
Someon needs to remind Wells that Libby is on trial for lying and obstruction, not for leaking. All this business about primary and confirmation sources–and whether Novak got his info from Who’s Who–seems irrelevant.
Wow. Almost 2 years of trying to get an interview with Armi. He’s rebuffed on god knows how many occasions, and then Armi calls Novak in June 2003?!
What does that tell us? Seems a bit suspicious to me.
If Novak was told that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA and was only given her first name- he might very well have gotten her last name from Who’s Who- it really has nothing at all to do with the case one way or the other as far as I can see.
Novakula outs Rove. I thought W was going to fire anyone in the WH who was involved in the leak? And was Rove cleared for that information about Plame’s agency status? If not, who leaked to him?
dang! I’m going to miss the cross if it’s today because I have a hearing in an hour. Dang Dang Dang.
Linda2 @ 47
As you say, that really sounds fishy?
Jane Hamsher @ 17
I thought he used that to get the name Brewster-Jennings, and then decided to put that into his column for laughs.
Terre @ 59
Armi’s handlers wanted him to leak in gossipy fashion to Novakula? Hmm… intrigue…
So by saying under oath that all these other SAOs told journalists, is Libby trying to throw the rest of the admin under the bus? Because it seems like instead of disproving all our conpsiracy theories, these guys are basically confirming that anything Libby did, all these guys did – that there was a conspiracy to out Valerie. And if there IS a conspiracy, doesn’t it make double sense that Libby would lie about it? I mean, honestly!
Armitage: It’s a lovely morning. I think I’ll call Bob Novak today for an interview regarding Joe Wilson and make sure he knows that Joe Wilson’s wife works at CP. Yeah, that’s the ticket…
I have always believed Novak’s Who’s Who story. I don’t know why – it just rings true. They told him Wilson’s wife, and he looked up her name in a reference book.
Then Harlow (I think) told him not to print it, and he did anyway. He is pond scum, but I believe the Who’s Who part.
Biodun @ 57
Its relavent to a theory of Rove setting up Libby, but as Linda2 just pointed out isn’t the information Armitage apparently passed to Novak about Valeri Plame at CPD just down the line with what Libby had told Fleisher in the same time frame.
Hmmm. Armitage told Booby WMD. He told Novak CPD?
jayackroyd @
29
I saw that interview when Novak walked off. IIRC, the interviewers brought in the Who’s Who book to show that what Novak claimed he learned from that book was not in there. Does anyone else remember anything about this?
Pat_AlexVA @ 70
Is there a real difference or is it a matter of description? Just curious.
Linda2 @ 52
Exactly. Armitage bit from the cookie, so we’re good to go on our alibi.
KathieinMN @ 71
It is in there.
Pat_AlexVA @ 70
Somebody, please…Must. Connect. Dots.
mc @ 74
Counter-proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Novak is backing away from his spin that he did not know Plame was covert by admitting he was told she was CPD.
Mr.Murder @ 33
Still wouldn’t get them off the hook, since handing information from one person with appropriate clearance to another isn’t a leak. (For TS/SCI, it would certainly be inappropriate, but it’s not illegal, and from Ari’s description it was apparently commonplace in this White House.) Also, it seems awfully unlikely that an agent’s identity would be included in a congressional briefing, so there would have to be some evidence that someone there had requested it.
In any case, the only thing that would get them off the hook is if the Intelligence committees had leaked it directly to reporters. And while the administration has fairly frequently cited potential congressional leaks as justification for refusing to give them information (despite the fact that most of the leakers have turned out to be executive officials), I haven’t heard anyone make that argument in this matter.
watertiger @
48
that really was a cute slip, wasn’t it?!
in re his clearing throat – often in “strategic” places (?)
maybe some kind soul should call a sidebar & loosen that yella tie for the noble fella, or… not….
emptywheel @ 53
You mean like the part where Novak says he’s absolutely sure that Libby didn’t bring up Plame with him in their July 9 conversation, but he then threw the conversation in his mental trashbasket so he can’t be sure that he, Novak, didn’t raise Plame with Libby – thereby bolstering the notion that Libby might have come to believe that all the reporters knew about Plame? But Novak is sure that Libby gave him no help on the issue if Novak did raise it? You mean that sounds mighty rehearsed? Really?
J. Thomason @ 77
So, he was told she was CPD and then warned by the CIA not to discuss her in his column.
He did it anyway.
A vile and treasonous act.
After this revelation, I can’t imagine that any of the talking head shows will want to invite this kind of person to be a panelist. If they do, it will be our job to speak out.
Biodun @ 58
It might be a good time to remember who’s Wells’ bill – and then *really* wonder why he seems to be throwing the entire admin under the bus.
Makes no sense to me at all.
Has anyone in the courtroom noticed what shade of purple Babs Comstock’s face is today?
RN [Rove] was trying to do a [hit] job [on] country.
Corrected for grammer.
I have come to believe at this point that the WH (all of them – Bush, Cheney, WHIG, etal.)sent Wilson to Niger and all along have been fully aware of Valerie Plame’s name and status. I believe when Wilson contradicted their assertions, they used the information they already had to go after both of the Wilsons and the CIA in general. I think it is that simple. That is why Mitchell said everybody knew.
Will you submit to a lie detector test, you decrpid lying sack of cr*p?
He will wilt in cross or clam up and roll out a faulty memory.
Terre @ 59
This really is funny(!) His whole career has been spent huffing & puffing & strutting about his ability to gain info. from inside sources – stuff that no one else can pry out of them. NOW, all of a sudden, claims no one will talk to him ? LOL
“Novak looking pissed right now.”
That’s just how he looks…
KathieinMN @ 71
It’s kind of bizarre. According to TPM, Carville said there was a copy of Who’s Who on the table, and that’s why Novak stormed off. But they also have a scanned page from it, and it does have Plame’s name. I can only think of two explanations:
1. Novak didn’t know that the name was in there. His “Who’s Who” story was bullshit to cover for his source, and it just happened to be true.
2. Novak was just pissed off at the idea that anyone might fact-check him. I mean, this was Crossfire; he had a right to spew whatever BS he wanted and get a partisan counter-shout in response, but not facts.
It was my understanding when I held a security clearance for the DoD, that we were not supposed to confirm/deny classified information. We can’t put x’s in the logic table.
So, it will be interesting to hear Rove/Libby/Cheney talk about how they spoke with journalists. Did they confirm rumors? That is tantamount to telling the secret, really. Journalists just have to triangulate a little to get the fact.
It’s scary that a GS-5 or ensign is compelled to be more responsible and careful about his little bit of secret information than a high-ranking official with a big picture.
I mean, how many secrets have these guys divulged? Can they remember? Scary.sdk @ 90
new thread
The backstory is the coordinated effort to smear Joe Wilson by outing his wife through the (arguably?) treasonous conspiracy emanating from the OVP.
The trial, as I pretend to understand it, is about Libby’s lies to the FBI and the GJ about when he knew Plame’s status, and when and to whom he told it. That others knew and others told and to whom and when is irrelevant to Libby’s lies to the FBI and GJ except for this: the knowledge and involvement (and the timing) of other reporters and officials challenges the credibility of those who say they heard it first from Libby.
Thus, here’s the defense: others knew and sang before Libby sang; because of the incestuous relationship between the press and the administration, “everyone” knew, and if “anyone is one of the everyones” in DC, it’s Russert who is therefore lying because word was out there well before his conversation with Libby.
All it takes is one confused or unconvinced juror. All Wells has to do is raise reasonble doubt with one of them.
Fitz up
Oh how I’ve waited for those words….
If Novak was told that Wilson’s wife worked for the CIA and was only given her first name- he might very well have gotten her last name from Who’s Who- it really has nothing at all to do with the case one way or the other as far as I can see.
Sorry, but the listing for spouses in Who’s Who is always by maiden name. Novak would have no way of knowing that Valerie was “Valerie Plame” and not “Valerie Wilson” (or Valerie Plame-Wilson) at the CIA from Joe Wilson’s Whos Who listing…
Clean up on aisle 84 – amazing the idiocy of some (I know, don’t feed trolls)
WRT Novak’s use of operative and agent.
He claimed, when it broke that he may have outed a secret operative, that he used operative and agent interchangeably so he couldn’t be held responsible for understanding the use of the term in this instance.
Someone checked and found that he used the two terms appropriately in previous columns. How’s that for luck, since he claims he didn’t know there was a difference?
Novak as RN: not a registered nurse, but rather midwife to treachery.
Biodun @
58
Not if you’re going to leapfrog over Scooter to get to Darth Cheney!
BobbyG @
24
Yeah. Methinks Novak may have tried some fancy footwork and just tripped over his own land mine.
i agree — but what I’ve always wondered is why did novak USE her maiden name in his article. How did he know she used “Plame” in her work? Was it just a lucky guess? Or did he ask the CIA about both Valerie Wilson and Valerie Plame?
Not a huge detail — but one that has bothered me for some time now.
p.lukasiak @
94
Fitzy’s Team! Fitzy’s Team! OVER HERE! Novak just got caught lying his ass off!!
Thanks EW and all. This is great stuff.
Does Novak’s answer establish that he asked Libby about Wilson’s wife? He says that he [Novak] got no info, but did Libby get info [as in reminded of what Cheney had told him]? This may be another chink in the “imagine my surprise when Tim Russert told me” defense.
Also, recall what he said to the GJ in response to Russert , something like – I said, ‘I don’t know that.’ I didn’t want him to think I was confirming.
Did he do the same thing with Novak. Very curious…
dab from CT @
95
Hey, I’m #84. You calling me an idiot and a troll???????
Okay, everybody who believes this, raise your hand.
(pause)
Didn’t think I’d see any hands there. I’m sure it’s just another of those amazing coincidences that (1) Libby told Fleischer on July 7th that Wilson’s wife was named Valerie Plame and worked for the Counterproliferation Division, and that (2) Novak wrote on July 11th that Wilson’s wife was named Valerie Plame and worked for the Counterproliferation Division.
erasmus @ 100
There’s only one problem with that.
Novak says he first heard of her as “Wilson’s wife” and didn’t know her maiden name. But as Paul Lukasiak just pointed out, Who’s Who entries for women are by maiden name only. There’s no way he could have found her in Who’s Who — not as “Valerie Wilson”.
emptywheel @ 53
Jane, Christy? Asking ’cause I really don’t know, but don’t attorney’s go through a sort of rehearsal with their witnesses before they testify? I thought they did.
Ok, Who’s Who for the name Plame, and the FEC campaign donations document for Brewster-Jennings. But who went farther and said she was covert?
Linda2 @ 84
Read the Mitchell quote closely. She does not say everyone knew Valerie worked at the CIA. She only confirmed that everyone knew Wilson was the former African Ambassador. Then she says, she did not know about Valerie until after the Novak article. So what is the fuss about? She was confused later on Imus remembering some old interview, because someone could not parse her awkward wording correctly.
Linda2 at 104—this was likely to have been a comment that was whisked away by the moderators. Then only the remaining comments are renumbered. I doubt this is about you.
The maiden name thing doens’t matter. He looked up (theoretically) ‘Joseph Wilson’, and found ‘Valerie Plame’ in Joe’s listing. He didn’t look up ‘Valerie Plame.’
Linda2 @ 84
My thoughts exactly. All done on purpose to get VF and CPD out of the way for the 2007 Iranshamscam.
Could he have found that information in Joe Wilson’s entry? In other words, does it say that his wife is Valerie Plame?
Others already explained the Who’s Who entry I was questioning. Thanks.
After the 1:59 time mark, Fitz makes several objections, which are sustained. At one point he says “objection, incompetence” (must. resist. opportunity. for. snark.) That objection was overruled.
Anyone have a little info on this? On what grounds were the objections, and the subsequent rulings by Walton?
Notice that competency is not a requirement in Novak’s world. Only uncritical loyalty to Bush. He was in Clinton’s NSC, he was “believed to be critical” of Bush, so therefore he shouldn’t have been sent.
Wild.
KestrelBrighteyes @ 115
“Competency” is, I assume, Fitz’s shorthand for saying that RN doesn’t have any way of knowing what his syndicator does to distribute his article. Basically, Fitz was, I think, telling the judge that there is no foundation laid by Wells, that Novak has any idea how the AP or other syndicators work. What Fitz didn’t appreciate is that RN’s ignorance has never stopped him from tossing in his two cents as though it were fact. Often wrong, never in doubt, that’s RN in a nutshell.
Before RN began testifying, it was observed, “Libby is very animated right now, laughing with Jeffress. Whatever he said, they’re both cracking up.” Maybe it was a little gallows humor. Libby to Jeffress, “Now that it’s almost certain I have no defense and will be going to jail, there’s no way I can pay your multi million dollar legal bills.” Jeffress, “Very funny Scoot, but don’t forget we have a lien on your house, and we still hope your wingnut friends will send in millions to your defense fund . . . “
KestrelBrighteyes @ 115
Wells was asking about the timeline from Novakula filing his column to the syndicate and its being distributed to the papers carrying it. Fitz’s objection was that Novakula wasn’t ‘competent’ as a witness of fact to know exactly what went on behind the scenes w/r/t distribution. Judge Walton allowed general testimony on what usually happens, based on Novak’s experience, but sustained the objections on the specifics, since Novak can’t say when that particular column appeared in editors’ inboxes.
Did anyone check to see if one of this is blood?
Maybe Fitz is planning to charge the admin’s golden boys with conspiracy to out an operative only AFTER the Libby trial, so he can use the testimony from the Libby trial as evidence.
rwcole @
60
In Who’s Who she’s listed as Valerie Plame Wilson. He would naturally have referred to her as Valerie Wilson or perhaps Valerie P. Wilson, but instead he referred to her as Valerie Plame. Odd? Why yes, except when you then learn she was referred to as Valerie Plame ONLY within the CIA in and her work with her secret cover company Brewster-Jennings! Then you know he heard her name from Armitage, Rove or someone at CIA and then he realized he should refer to her specifically as Valerie Plame to properly OUT her. Scum.
Bill S @ 113
More important is how Armitage gave him the name VALERIE!
Remember that Armitage has asserted that his mentioning of “Wilson’s wife” was accidental. It slipped out. For months and months Novak has kept saying this as well about both his sources.
But look at how he describes Armitages “leak” to him. THAT’S hardly off-handed, accidental, or somnething that was unintentional.
Armitage’s statements to Woodward aslo are quite pornographically deliberate.
Now, conbsider for the moment that Armitage had to have obtained additional evidence about Plame…to acquire knowledge of her name. It’s not in the “Ford Report” put together by the INR!
That means that Armitage didn’t simply see it from that report…he had to be involved in doing further research. Maybe, like Novak, he also looked at Who’s Who to find out the first name of Wilson’s wife.
And if he did that he would have seen that her maiden name was Plame. How convenient that Novak says he did the same thing Armitage did…and how strange that he stored out of that program when he saw that “Who’s Who”.
Maybe he never actually looked to see if the listing said what Armitage claimed?
But todays testimony by Novak shows that it was NOT