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.
F Just to be clear, your story is not generally available for non-subscribers. AP distributes it to subscribers, who are embargoed, they print it on the date
F First meeting with Wilson
RN On MTP. The day of his op-ed.
F You did not become fast friends.
RN We did not exchange words. Most people in the green room quietly read. He was giving his opinion at some length about how things were done in the Clinton NSC, in a very loud voice, I thought that was an obnoxious performance.
F Did you share that experience with Rove that week.
RN I might have.
F Did you discuss 1999 trade delegation with Rove
RN Yes, that was related to Niger and uranium
F No specific recollection of talking about Wilson's wife.
RN I'm sorry.
F You have no specific recollection of talking about Joe Wilson's wife.
RN No
F But you did talk to him that week.
Redirect.
W: Fitz asked questions about column being sent on AP wire and being embargoed. To your understanding, reporters would be able to read the article.
RN I presume so.
W Some of your customers some of the largest newspapers. He starts listing them, Says Boston Globe
RN [corrects him] Boston Herald.
NO further questions.
Sidebar.
We're going to jurors questions.
Novak looks like he's comfortable that he's gotten through this. His is now doing his nose up in the air arrogant look. and rocking gently back and forth in the chair.
Still in sidebar
2:30
Now Novak sitting with his hand in front of his face looking at the screen, presumably the column.
Now Novak leafing therough the paper copy of his op-ed.
Libby's been storing his water bottle on the floor. Now he's drinking it.
Walton: Without relating what someone would have said in response to what you said. Did you, once you learned about Wilson's wife and the fact that she worked at the CIA, did you discuss it with anyone prior to your article.
Novak: yes, I spoke to Bill Harlow.
Fitz–just the names.
Walton: Harlow
RN Spokesman for CIA. I testified that I might have asked Libby about, but I don't have a clear recollection bc I don't have a clear response.
W Rick Holt. Who is Rick Holt.
RN A lobbyist and a close friend. I talk to him every day.
W did you have conversations with him about it. Did you give him a draft of the article.
RN Yes.
W Mr. Holt had the article in his hand by 4:00 that day. And Holt is a lobbyist about town. Would you describe him as a gossip.
RN He talks to a lot of people, even me, he's a good news source.
W He talks to a lot of media people.
F Did you have an understanding about what he could do with the copy of the article
RN No sir. I didn't have an understanding with him. I had assumed he would not share it, there was not an agreement made between us.
Fitz, one moment.
2:38
F Did he ever tell you he had shared it
RN Vague recollection that he had told the WH that there was an interesting piece coming out.
RN In those conversations I had with him on Friday.
F Your belief is that he told the WH on Friday that an interesting piece coming out.
RN Yes
Thank you.
10 minute break.
2:40
Related posts:
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search
Fitz!
He sure doesn’t say much in cross, whew
Fitz!
What? You must have taken some pointers you gasbag hack.
Fitzgerald asked fewer questions than there were “first posts” in this thread?
Cranky
I’m not seeing at all how Novak helps Libby.
I don’t get it.
robert novak belongs in prison
Lina – B/c there is nothing to get. That is why the cross was so short.
How much is Novak a red herring on the perjury charge?
lina @ 5
me neither – I don’t see how any of these guys do…
Ah, I see. Ambassador Wilson wasn’t properly respectful of the Great Reporter Novakula, so it was okay for Novakula to spill classified information. [/snark, such as it may be]
An obnoxious performance, he says. Novakula mustn’t take kindly to competition.
OldCoastie @ 9
All I can see is billable hours for Wells et. al. and with a 5 mil defense fund, may as well spend it!
Still in sidebar.
Novak cooperated w/Fitz essentially from Day One.
Not gonna chew him up here.
Or something…. maybe the good trial lawyer in him told Fitz to just let him walk away, ’cause he never laid a glove on ‘em.
>> I’m not seeing at all how Novak
>> helps Libby. I don’t get it.
> me neither – I don’t see how any of
> these guys do…
I am starting to get the impression that /Fitzgerald/ doesn’t see how they help either.
Cranky
Tap Duncan @ 6
Agree. I been a broken record on that point.
WHAT pressing national interest was served by revealing her professional identity?
Novak, you scum.
_
RN We did not exchange words. Most people in the green room quietly read. He was giving his opinion at some length about how things were done in the Clinton NSC, in a very loud voice, I thought that was an obnoxious performance.
Oh, Irony! Thy name is Novakula!
Amazing, Fitz had a chance to slice and dice this witness if he wanted! He knows Novak is full of shit.
But in the name of this case (at least), he resisted any temptation to do so. Wow.
BobbyG, I have to ask you to apologize to scum!
theExile @ 19
Duly noted.
Novak shows contempt for anyone on the other side of partisan divide, to the point it would probably weight his credibility against other statements in support of defense.
Disappointed in Fitz there on the cross. No reminding him he’s under oath. No trap sprung. No lessons in meatgrinder theory. Boo. Hiss.
lina @ 5 and OldCoastie @ 9:
I’ve also been asking what Novak’s testimony–or even what any of the testimony the defense has presented so far today–has helped Libby in any respect. I’m sure Marcy will shed some light…
From last thread, correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Woodward say Armitage identified “Wilson’s wife” as an analyst which might suggest WINPAC or at least something non-operational while Novak is saying that Armitage was saying she was CPD, which would be operational and almost certainly covert? Do I remember correctly and isn’t this a discrepancy?
So was Novak called primarily for the court of public opinion? There was the fig leaf of supporting the “scapegoat for Rove” defense, but mainly he just parroted tired right-wing talking points:
- Armitage leaked first
- they didn’t leak her name
- anybody could find out that Joe Wilson had a wife, and what her name was, so she wasn’t covert
- etc.
Since Team Libby didn’t do their usual extended “baffle ‘em with BS” routine, I wondering if that was the whole purpose.
BobbyG @ 16
The people who belong in prison are working in the White House. Once the information gets to the press (even the vile Novak) it’s game over. The reason these people have security clearances is so this information does not get to the press. Therein lies the criminality of it all.
Biodun @ 23
Could they (Wells et. al.) be thinking if they show the jury enough different people they might forget Libby exists, much less whether or not he is a lying traitor?
TPhillip @ 22
Fitz has his eyes on a larger prize. I trust his judgment.
personally, I would have asked Novak to affirm that Libby was not a source, then gone after Novak’s credibility…. and asked him again if Libby told him that Valerie Plame was a CIA operative….
TPhilip @ 22:
Fitz has no interest in trapping Novak. Novak cooperated with him in his investigation. The question remains: Why did the defense call him as a witness.
OldCoastie @
9
The only way I make sense of it is the “everyone knew” before Libby spoke to Russert, and if anyone is anyone in the MSM it’s Russert who had to have known before his conversation with Libby. It goes to Russert’s credibility.
I’m probably totally off base here. I’m struggling to make sense of what the defense is doing.
Wells is working with what he’s got (not much) but all he has to do is confuse or sow reasonable doubt with one juror.
TPhillip @
22
Well, like everybody else I would love to see most of these guys made into sputtering, gasping, desperate fools all having Perry Mason moments under Fitzgerald’s withering cross.
However, he is there to convict Libby of perjury and obstruction, not to make my dreams come true.
Novak is lying. He talked to Rove about Plame before he talked to Armitage about “Valerie”. If Fitz does not nail this, it will be frustrating to watch the rest of the horse and pony show. Especially since Fitz did not ask Woodward a few key questions. I will let Marcy take care of this when she does her summary of today’s events. She knows a great deal with regard to what went on in the background on this case.
Shorter Fitz:
“I love not many words.”
All’s Well That Ends Well, III.vi
TPhillip @
11
Well, you must admit, Novak does know from obnoxious…he lives it daily.
EPU’d from the previous Novakula thread:
p.lukasiak @
94
Fitzy’s Team! Fitzy’s Team! OVER HERE! Novak just got caught lying his ass off!! Any agreements you might have with him are null and void!
Slightly OT. Since Armitage admitted to being one of the leakers to Novak, why has there been no charges filed against him? Or have I missed that announcement?
Dersu
*xyz @ 28
Fitz has many more cards to play. He’ll win the Libby hand easily.
It’s Cheney who needs to know what Fitz has. Fitz is wisely silent.
Larisa Alexandrovna
a big phat FDL welcome !!!
John Forde @ 38
Word!
Novak v. Russert? Isn’t this a bit far removed for perjury charges for Libby?
cbl @ 39
ha, thanks
Why did the defense call him as a witness.
Biodun @ 30
To get to when his column hit the AP wire. I guess so they can argue Russert knew when he talked to Libby, and he told Libby about the wife, and Libby heard it “as if it were new” – just like his GJ testimony?
TPhillip @ 22
I agree. Was Fitz basically trying to make the point that even though Novak talked to Rove, Rove never discussed Wilson’s wife? (And that Novak didn’t particularly like Wilson?)
Also is the idea here that the Woodward and Novak testimony is part of a play for jury nullification. If other government officials were talking to reporters about all this, does it really matter what Scooter was doing or that he lied about it?
Larissa! Welcome!
Legal eagles – is there a point at which Fitz can simply object to these witnesses on the grounds of IRRELEVANT!???
John Forde @ 46
Thanks John, but only if you spell my name correctly:D
lina @ 26
I know that such is the legal reality. I totally agree that these White House pukes should go down, but Novak’s outing her was equally treasonous from a moral perspective. No national interest was served here.
_
Larisa: why is that important?
the blog and Washington Post seem to contradict AP on andrea mitchell ruling, so is she or isn’t she?
lina @ 50
Why is what important?
What is up with the juror questions regarding Holt? The questions seem to come from a juror who may be inclined toward the “everyone knew it” gossip theory. Thoughts?
scarebaby @ 47
Absolutely.
But it’s much more fun watching them eat each other, and simutaneously build his IIPA case.
To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, Robert Novak should tremble when he considers that God is just.
OK Folks,
It’s that time of the day. If we want to keep the servers humming, please refrain from comments that are not specifically related to the testimony. Thanks.
Everything Novak said today can be used by Fitz at a later date (or other related trials), correct?
stingray @ 43
Like Russert reads wire copy? Gimme a break.
Wouldn’t he have asked Russert about this?
WTF he gave it to a lobbyist?
*xyz @ 53
Or did this Holt question come from Wells? (this would make more sense)
Larisa Alexandrovna @ 52
your #33 re who Novak talked to first – Rove or Armitage?
Scarebaby – Yes. For example, that is what the conferences with Walton about Andrea Mitchell have been about.
Hey there,
We’re still on break. I’m not sure who is up directly next. Maybe Harlow, maybe Eckenrode, maybe more journalists (not that we should consider Novak that).
Larisa Alexandrovna @ 33
Do you have any evidence that Rove talked to Novak about Plame before Novak talked with Armitage?
Maybe it happened that way, but I am deeply skeptical that you or anyone else has evidence of this.
RN No sir. I didn’t have an understanding with him. I had assumed he would not share it, there was not an agreement made between us.
So he’s sloppy, on top of the rest of it.
Biodun @ 30
I was just commenting on the wishlist from the last thread there.
I think the part about Novakula’s lobbyist pal, Holt, was the reason they called him. Talks to him every day. Shared the story with him. Holt is a blabbermouth. Talks to a lot of people all over town. Maybe it was he who spread the word around so that everybody got it. Sort of like a modern day Typhoid Mary.
emptywheel @ 63
Presumably they’ve still got Kessler, at least.
Where the liveblogging has “W” at the end, in the jurors’ questions section, should that be read as Walton or Wells? I’m confused.
watertiger @ 65
His great ego leds to his sloppiness/foolishness.
F Did he ever tell you he had shared it
RN Vague recollection that he had told the WH that there was an interesting piece coming out.
RN In those conversations I had with him on Friday.
F Your belief is that he told the WH on Friday that an interesting piece coming out.
RN Yes
Oh, well played Mr. Fitzgerald.
And Evan Thomas.
Kessler is up. I’ll start that thread in a few minutes.
Did we know about this?
lina @ 61
Because Rove leaking to Novak demonstrates that the initial leak still came from the White House, from the same group of people. By the time Novak got to Armitage, the leak had been delivered already and sold to the press. By making it seem like Armitage was the original leaker, it puts the most damaging part of the case outside of the White House, which is not true.
emptywheel @ 72
This is going darn fast. At this pace, how long before Libby runs out of witnesses? Will this trial even last into next week?
Hey folks, this trial has sped up quite a bit. How many more witnesses do we guess the defense has?
Lois , W is Wells, Marcy spells out Walton when he speaks.
Shez @ 77
Good news. I was worried the jurors were starting to ask irrelevant time frame questions about Holt, which would be a sign they were drinking the “everyone knew it” kool aid. Since the Holt questions were from Wells, I feel much better.
From Novak: One
emptywheel @ 53
Jane, Christy – Anybody? 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.
Novak played along lines.
He tried to bait Fitz into Demonstrative questioning. Make it a he said she said partisan kerfluffle.
Rove was not authorized, this will pertain to the sealed portion of trial. If Novak learned from Armitage and libby was not the source why did Scooter Libby lie to the FBI?
This doesn’t prove Libby’s innocence directly relating to the court topic. It appears to be rather irrelevant at this time, a defense witness that Fitz never called upon in building his trial.
stingray @ 43
I think you’ve nailed it! They were trying to introduce the idea (speculatively, of course) how “the press” could have the information before Novak’s column was published, to try to undermine Fitz’s timeline. All you have to do is accept that news organizations would violate the publication embargo and pass stuff around to everyone in the press, including their competitors!
It seems odd to send someone to Armitage as a confirming source. Did anyone else get sent to Armitage? Seems like the “confirmers” were all in the WH.
Just saying – it’s odd.
@ #74 Murray Waas wants Fitz to ask novak about an earlier rove convo… http://whateveralready.blogspot.com/
Jeff @ 64
Jeff, if I had “enough” evidence for an article, then I would have written it. What I have, however is not enough for an article and since it is not enough for an article, it is relegated to opinion. When someone tells you something off the record and on deep background, you cannot run it unless you can find someone else to tell you on the record/even if anon. Finding others who know something is not hard, getting them to tell you on the record, even if anon, is what is hard. That does not mean these are not facts, it simply means I cannot discuss this information as though it were fact or publish it in any way. What I have posted above, given this structure of limitations, can only be opinion. I cannot back it up formally, although I believe it very strongly.
In other words, it is simply my opinion, it has to be given the limitations and nothing more. I cannot back it up at all in this context. Sorry if that frustrates things a bit… but it is what it is. But perhaps Fitz will surprise us all?
So, Holt is who Novak uses to tip the White House before his column comes out. It’s called plausible deniability, folks.
Fitz seems content not to let a lot of the conspiracy evidence out, and he has played his cards most conservatively today. That was obvious from his approach to Woodward and Novak; he’s not willing to take the bait, and he’s not letting the defense see his hand.
Frankly, I don’t know what he has on Rove before July 8th, and that could all be a matter of conjecture, even of misinformation emanating from the VP’s camp… One thing everyone must agree on about Fitz, though, he’s a study in reticence and self control. You got to respect that.
FYI: I think Rick Holt should be spelled “Rick Hohlt” (via Jeralyn)
Fitz is extremely economical in his questioning, both on direct and cross. My sense is he’s creating an impression with the jury that his case is rock-solid, and that the reporters testifying on behalf of the defense have nothing to do with Fitz’s case.
Wells, on the other hand, seems to be all over the map, because he has such a weak case. Fitz is counting on the jury picking up on this, and thus is doing nothing to draw attention away from Well’s rambling witness questions. Libby’s defense, it seems, is to throw sand in the eyes of the jury.
Unless one of the defense witnesses testifies unequivocably that Libby is innocent, I don’t see how the jury acquits. Wells may have no choice but to put Libby and/or Shooter on the stand. I think that’s when we’ll see the Fitz fireworks-he’s not going to waste any time on the reporters.
new thread
QuickSilver @ 86
his hand is played, the prosecution has rested, are you talking about the sealed and future indictments?
OK so Novak uses ‘friend’ to distribute column to WH in advance.
“see guys I wrote what you wanted”
QuickSilver @ 86
Remember, this is the man who, in Illinois, started his investigation by getting the cooperation of truck drivers on the take, then worked his way up to the governor. His approach seems to be tried and true.
perris at #90: I remain agnostic on sealed indictments. I firmly believe there is more to come from the leak investigation.
Attaturk @ 70
Fitz knows RN knows full fucking well it was shared with the WH!
Larisa Alexandrovna @ 84
I can appreciate that, it doesn’t frustrate me. I don’t think Fitzgerald is going to surprise us at all in this regard. Among other things, Fitzgerald has no interest in making Rove look bad in this context, given that the defense hs announced it will try to portray Libby as, in effect, Rove’s victim.
However, beyond that, I am skeptical because there are a number of people floating around who have served as off the record or whatever sources on this or retailed purported information damaging to some folks in the White House that has been proven, frankly, to be false, and almost certainly deliberately false.
We might start, for instance, with Stephen Hadley.
is shooter’s appearance confirmed ?
Zig alert.
Please watch the growing number of quoted quotes, thank you.
QuickSilver @
93
is that indictment still sealedJeff @ 95
Yes, we might indeed. I think, again, Marcy can explain it well. I understand your concern as that was an article I bylined on. But I had my own sources who were different from that of the other writer. Sunday London Times did their own article – I don’t know their sources – which confirmed my findings. And I might add that my reporting on this case has never been about the “who will be indicted” game, but rather, about the chain of custody of the Niger forgeries… it is from that thread we learn who leaked what to whom.
But again, Marcy can better list the issues and I don’t have to worry about overstepping. I do not find Woodward credible, however, which a sorry state of affairs. I am not pleased by this as he was a hero of mine.
But just also to quickly note – that this is as much about the Niger forgeries as it is about the leak. Hadley is the most closely connected to those 16 words and to the issue of the forgeries. Hadley has never denied being the main source (there were several that were supporting players). But your are going to choose to believe what you will and that is absolutely fine. You should be skeptical of course.
Seems that all of this is going to Scooter’s motive to lie- his defense is presumably that he HAD no motive to lie- the information he passed on to reporters was already common knowledge, so Scoots had nothing to fear from having it come out before the grand jury- so his errors must have been accidental not deliberate.
(at least that’s the most I can figure out from what’s been said).
why has novak been so prickly about this issue, storming off the set and whatnot?
how is it possible that various media types DIDNT know that wilson was married to Plame? i surmise that he is the type of guy who would DEFINITELY have brought it up at parties.(he’d done iraq with state, the hair, the media appearances thru the 90’s; Plame was a hottie, CIA, he cannot keep his mouth shut…)
The defensive strategy, beyond confusion, must be to try and convince the jury that the case is about scooter leaking, not lying -
Don’t know if this observation has been made here – I haven’t had time to read all the threads, alas – but astute commenter leveymg made an interesting deductive leap in Swopa’s DailyKos diary on the Plame case, “Hiding in Plame Sight: The Blockbuster Story No One Is Reporting from the Libby Trial” that answers a lot of the “why?’ questions:
He lays the whole thing out, how the leak was structured and spread, and why it was done that way.
Read the whole diary, BTW. It’s a beaut.
But I had my own sources who were different from that of the other writer.
Yes, but the point is that your sources were wrong. I obviously have no idea who your sources are, but I do know that there are people with a very strong animus against Hadley who are willing to lie about him to try to get him. (Which is strategically idiotic, by the way, but that’s another matter.)
I do agree that Hadley remains largely unsung in both the prewar intel stuff and perhaps also in this whole leak investigation. But that is different from the fact that there are people who go around fabricating negative stories about him.
As for Woodward, what on earth do you mean you don’t find him credible, in this context? You think he fabricated the tape recording?
Sharoney @ 102
Double duh. I should take my own advice! The Swopa diary was also posted — here! [slaps own face repeatedly, slinks away in abject embarassment]
Oh, well. The comments thread at DK is still worth reading.
somebody edify me please
has wells made ANY point?
Don’t know what trial your watching. Seems the MSM is taking a terrible beating. Hope Mitchel has to swear in. Russert own show yesterday with 4 liberal commentators all said the same
Media looks bad………..
stingray @
43
No duh.
But, the issue in this trial is whether Libby LIED to the GJ and the FBI, not when X knew Y. All of Novak’s testimony is superfluous to the case.
Fitz asking about it getting back to the WH is instructive and mildly useful to the prosecution, though, IMHO, since it shows how tight these embedded reporters were with the WH – that stuff is leaked and then the reporters, like lap dogs, make sure their handlers know about what they wrote ASAP – presumably so they can get their doggie biscuits. But (I speculate) ALSO, so that the WH can review it and correct it before publication.
Remember Libby’s call (overheard by Cathie Martin) to Russert (I think it was Russert), that they didn’t present the talking point properly? The WH CONTROLLED these hacks, and they wanted to know what they were writing before it hit the streets. Before is better than after.
perris @
90
Absolutely correct. Fitz’s case is done. He can’t add anything to it, even on cross examination.
Also, surprises are not allowed in trials. That is what the discovery phase is all about, so that both sides can prepare adequately to what the other side is doing.
*xyz @
92
Ahhhhhhh! Someone else who appreciates Fitz’s modus operandi!
This is NOT the last court case to come out of the outing of Valerie Plame.
Fitz builds and builds and builds, going up the ladder. One of the interesting things here is that he seems to have started pretty high up the ladder. But only with a little case.
Fitz also jumps on perjury, obstruction of justice and conspiracy a lot. I get the impression that – with what he knows that we don’t know yet – Fitz is gathering fodder from this trial for future conspiracy charges.
And the outing charges are not off the table, either. Not by a long shot. It appears that at least some of the testimony so far supports the prosecutablity of that.
slickery @
106
Ummm, they weren’t “4 liberal commentators”. At best, you could call 2 moderate/centrists (Kurtz, Ifel). The other 2 were clearly NOT on the liberal side (Broder, Simon).
But you are right about the MSM taking a beating.
It was bound to catch up to them.
jc chasezbian = troll, or ReThug stenographer
portia.vz @ 110
I guess we can agree to disagree about Kurtz and Ifel. One person’s moderate is another persons liberal.Media stinks….isn’t Pincus the WAPO guy who published the false story
the paper had to eat.I guess he is a stooge for Carl Levin. Why isn’t the press all over Levin for this. Think maybe because he is a democrat……….
SteveGinIL @ 108
I thought that was for civil trials. In a criminal trial discovery is in one direction: the prosecution (which has the burden of proof) has to turn over its evidence to the defense, has to disclose its witness list up front, etc. The defense doesn’t have to turn over anything, the defendant doesn’t have to testify, etc. The defense can spring all the surprises it wants.
Jeff, are you having fun yet?
W Rick Holt. Who is Rick Holt.
Novackula: A lobbyist and a close friend. I talk to him every day.
Uh huh. This testimony oozes with the essence of slime supreme. It’s an “obnoxious performance.”
Why are some of you sure that Fitzgerald has his “eye on a higher prize”?
Personally, i hope you’re right–but I’m not sure I share your optimism.
*xyz @ 60
Walton asked a series of follow up questions from the jurors questions.
Actually, from the non-verbatim transcript it seemed that Fitz was a bit surprised at either this (new?)information or the fact that a juror was asking it.
If it was “new” information (and if it wasn’t then why didn’t Wells “use” it in his – “maybe it leaked out to Russert” argument) then it suggests that Novak perhaps DISSEMBLED in his Grand Jury testimony.
I wonder if that means that Fitz may be considering perjury charges for Novak at this very moment?
I am surprised that their hasn’t been a shortage of KY Jelly the last six years and quite frankly it is getting hard… to know the pitchers from the catchers.
mui @ 115
In other words is Holt “in bed with Novak”? EVERY DAY? I don’t even see my girlfriend EVERY DAY!
He doesn’t work with this guy and he’s that intimate with him?
And just what firms/organizations/countries does Mr. Holt lobby for?
cinnamonape @ 119
That is a good question.
Aw, I wish they would ask him about blabbing to anonymous strangers on the street.
I know this might seem late in the game, but I would urge all FDL fans that live in the Chicago area to write to the editors of the Chicago Sun Times and demand Novaks’ termination, or at least threaten to cancel your subscriptions. It’s what I did and I feel a whole lot better, believe me. This man was complicit in a breach of national security and needs to be held ACCOUNTABLE. Recently they decided to forego the publication of their weekly television guide, but w/ reader feedback decided to re-instate the publishing of it. So at least we know they DO listen. Let’s gang up on them and make a change for the better.
Does anybody have a theory on why Armitage called Novak out of the blue? Why does Armitage go from refusing to return Novak’s calls to revealing the identity of a undercover agent in zero seconds flat?
Something doesn’t seem right here.
Redshift @
81
So, to say they learned it from Novak’s column would seem to imply the version the public first saw in print when it could’ve been the embargoed version not yet public.
That would explain it. Now, can Wells provide ANY evidence of it? Can he question Andrea “Heather” Mitchell or some other reporter who’ll support that view?
Then, can they provide ANY evidence that Libby had forgotten and then heard it anew from Timmeh?
It’s far-fetched.
All-in-all the defense seems to be, “Let’s show the whole damn conspiracy and embarass the White House into providing us a pardon to shut us up.”
Hugh @ 24
It might mean that Armitage got an “corrected” bit of info on VALERIE.
I can’t see where in all of this stuff where Armitage may have learned her name?
If HE ALSO went out of the way to look her name up in Who’s Who then it wasn’t simply a bit of “trivia” that he was passing on by “mistake”…as he implied to Grossman.
If Novak isn’t lying then Armitage is in trouble…TWO incidents of leaking AND actually “seeking out” more info on “Wilson’s wife” to tell Novak.
Libby had a June 6th meeting with Armitage listed in his schedule.