There’s no way he could have found her in Who’s Who — not as “Valerie Wilson”.

Could he have found that information in Joe Wilson’s entry? In other words, does it say that his wife is Valerie Plame?

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

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.

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.

Novak has one cup of water to the side and one in front of him

Did anyone check to see if one of this is blood?

Anyone have a little info on this? On what grounds were the objections, and the subsequent rulings by Walton?

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.

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?

“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.

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.

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.

Anyone have a little info on this? On what grounds were the objections, and the subsequent rulings by Walton?