Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What Viveca Novak Told Fitzgerald (by Viveca Novak)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
npincus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 10:08 AM
Original message
What Viveca Novak Told Fitzgerald (by Viveca Novak)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1139780,00.html

It was in the midst of another Washington scandal, almost a decade ago, that I got to know Bob Luskin. He represented Mark Middleton, a minor figure in the Democratic campaign-finance scandals of 1996. Luskin kept Middleton out of the spotlight and never told me much. Still, there is the occasional source with whom one becomes friendly, and eventually Luskin was in that group.

We'd occasionally meet for a drink--he didn't like having lunch--at Cafe Deluxe on Wisconsin Avenue, near the National Cathedral and on my route home. In October 2003, as we each made our way through a glass of wine, he asked me what I was working on. I told him I was trying to get a handle on the Valerie Plame leak investigation. "Well," he said, "you're sitting next to Karl Rove's lawyer." I was genuinely surprised, since Luskin's liberal sympathies were no secret, and here he was representing the man known to many Democrats as the other side's Evil Genius. I began spending a little more time than usual with Luskin as I tried to keep track of the investigation. But how it all bought me a ticket to testify under oath to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald still floors me.

The week of Oct. 24, 2005, was Indictment Week--that Friday, the grand jury's term would expire, and it was expected that Fitzgerald would finish up his probe by then so he wouldn't have to start working with a new grand jury. It seemed clear that Scooter Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was in deep trouble, but Rove's status was uncertain. Sometime during that week, Luskin, who was talking at length with Fitzgerald, phoned me and said he had disclosed to Fitzgerald the content of a conversation he and I had had at Cafe Deluxe more than a year earlier and that Fitzgerald might want to talk to me.

Luskin clearly thought that was going to help Rove, perhaps by explaining why Rove hadn't told Fitzgerald or the grand jury of his conversation with my colleague Matt Cooper about former Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife until well into the inquiry. I knew what Matt had been through--the unwanted celebrity, the speculation unrelated to fact, the dissection of his life and career. I didn't face the prospect of prison, since Luskin clearly wanted me to tell Fitzgerald about the incident and thus Luskin was not a source I had to protect, but no journalist wants to be part of the story. I clung to Luskin's word might, but the next week he told me Fitzgerald did indeed want to talk to me, but informally, not under oath. I hired a lawyer, Hank Schuelke, but I didn't tell anyone at TIME. Unrealistically, I hoped this would turn out to be an insignificant twist in the investigation and also figured that if people at TIME knew about it, it would be difficult to contain the information, and reporters would pounce on it--as I would have. Fitzgerald and I met in my lawyer's office on Nov. 10 for about two hours. Schuelke had told him I would discuss only my interactions with Luskin that were relevant to the conversation in question. No fishing expeditions, no questions about my other reporting or sources in the case. He agreed, telling my lawyer that he wanted to "remove the chicken bone without disturbing the body."




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Cheney Killed Bambi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
1. Ouch
She's now been put on a leave of absence. Plamegate seems to destroy every journalist it touches.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinnie From Indy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
2. This sounds to me like a Hail Mary by Rove and Luskin
Novak could easily be an asset of Rove's that, for whatever reason, is being used as a desperate attempt to save his bacon. As far as Time is concerned, she should have been fired. This whole Novak episode is just too conveniently beneficial to Rove to be an accident.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #2
8. How is it a Hail Mary for Rove?
It sounds more like Luskin is trying to protect Luskin's ass. Even if Luskin didn't know about the connection between Rove and Cooper until Novak told him, it still means that Rove could have been dicking his Democratic lawyer. Who better for Rove to abuse than a Democrat?

It certainly wouldn't be the first time a lawyer was lied to by his client.

Oh, and by the way, why are Democratic lawyers so much better when they represent Republicans, than when they represent any Democratic ideal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. Why do you believe it's NOT a Hail Mary by Rove?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. Because the information was withheld from Fitzgerald, and the
only thing that the Novak testimony proves is Rove-Luskin came clean ONLY AFTER they realized that "the word was out on the street."

This is very important because that's EXACTLY how the good ole boy lawyers of my area work. As long as they can keep the lie a secret, they continue to do business as usual. But once the "word gets on the street," suddenly they become moral pillars of the community.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. IMHO, that's pretty weak, if that's what they were doing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. You're having trouble believing that this administration counts on
the public being misinformed in order to continue their dirty politics?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. If you've read ANY of my previous posts, you would know....
...that's not even close to what I think about the NeoCon Junta.

What's your problem? Are you trying to pick a fight?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. I'm trying to find a common thread in this new Novak testimony,
and there doesn't seem to be any common ground. I just don't see how this evidence helps Rove at all. I explained to you why I don't, and you disagreed. Maybe the next step is to ask why you think this information is going to help protect Rove against Fitzgerald's indictment of Rove?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #26
43. You're twisting the words in my posts, counsellor....I suggest that you...
...read my posts in this thread again, especially where I questioned the idea that VN's testimony would help Rove. Pay particular attention to my post concerning my opinion that this was a Hail Mary by Rove and Luskin. Just in case you don't understand what "Hail Mary" means, it football parlance it is known as a last-ditch effort to attempt to win a football game with a long pass into the end zone. The implication in my posts is that this latest effort would NOT help Rove.

Again, I'm going to ask you what your problem is in regards to understanding what I'm saying in my posts on this subject. If THIS doesn't make my comments crystal clear, then it's going to be very clear to me that you either lack the ability to understand what I'm CLEARLY telling you, or you want to pick a fight for some obtuse reason known only to you.

Please don't respond again until you CLEARLY understand my position on this matter...otherwise, you're just wasting my time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #43
55. Testy, aren't we?
I've seen too many Hail Mary passes succeed. I don't associate them with failure, as apparently, you do. Last ditch effort, yes, we agree there, but I still don't see what Luskin was trying to accomplish with it. My guess is that the answer is somewhere in Novak's comments that Luskin isn't too happy with her for disclosing all the information she has disclosed to the public. I think right now, Fitzgerald is smiling because he knows when a story starts to unravel, and I think this one is unraveling for Luskin and Rove.

You'll excuse me if I don't address the rest of your simpering temper-tantrum.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #55
61. I guess you can't deal with someone unwilling to put up with your crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Pimms drinker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinnie From Indy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #8
27. It's a Hail Mary because once Rove knew he was caught, they HAD
to find a way to "correct" the record. Rove is exposed because he lied to the prosecutor and the Grand Jury. Novak's revelation gives Luskin a shot (a long one) at claiming Rove's lies are simply a clerical error combined with forgetfulness. Don't forget that after this came out Luskin advised Rove to review his emails where he miraculously found an email that he missed before and that this email jolted his forgetful memory. See? Just honest momentary lapse in memory for a very busy, important man. He wasn't lying, he just forgot. That is why the Novak revelation is a well crafted Hail Mary attempt by Rove & Luskin to inject doubt into his bald faced, premeditated lies told before a Federal prosecutor and a Grand Jury. Whether this ultimately works is yet to be seen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Hi Vinnie.
Edited on Sun Dec-11-05 12:36 PM by The Backlash Cometh
I think you grasped the highlights. The only reason why I think this is more meat for Fitzgerald is because all too often, lawyers will feel no compunction to volunteer the truth until the opposing side brings it up in discovery or until the word gets out in the street. Novak just gave Luskin, the lawyer for Rove, an alibi so he (Luskin) can claim he really didn't know about the Cooper-Rove connection; but that doesn't clear Rove. What's his excuse?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-12-05 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #2
71. I fear that you may be right.
Personally, this doesn't look good to me either. This may be Rove's fire escape. I hope I am wrong and that Fitzgerald has something else (a lot of something elses) up his sleeve because your comment about Novak being "an asset of Rove's" certainly crossed my mind, too.

By the way, I'm sorry you are being attacked here. I know that you want Rove brought down as much as anyone. It's sad when you express your concerns that you are attacked for doing so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wishlist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
3. If she was gathering info talking to Luskin, why didn't she keep notes?
Incredible that while she recalls everything in detail about her meeting where she tipped off Luskin to Rove being Cooper's source, she cannot remember if it was January or May or maybe March? That is hard to believe. I would think any reporter would at least jot down some notes immediately after these conversations since she says they were information gathering meetings for her and this particular conversation seemed to have made a big impression on her since Luskin seemed so convinced Rove was not Cooper's source.

Her excuse that Luskin would not be as comfortable and forthcoming if she took notes during their talks is not convincing, since nothing would have prevented her from making notes afterwards. She is trying to convince readers that she was not deliberately feeding info to Luskin that could help Rove, but her excuse about why she didn't keep notes doesn't help her case that she wasn't tipping him off but merely made an inadvertent slip while she was really just hoping to get info from him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #3
18. Note that she said nothing about taping the conversation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunny planet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
32. I also found it hard to believe that she didn't know Luskin was Rove's
lawyer until she met him for cocktails and they started discussing that she was working on writing about the Plame case. If the rumor mill in DC is anything like what I've heard it is, she would've known that already. No way of proving that of course. If in fact that is when she found out why would she ever say anything to Luskin at all, ever, about the case at a subsequent meeting. Wouldn't that definitely taint her reporting about it subsequently and of course put her square into the story, as she claims she is distressed to find herself? Seems like a very carefully worded and barely forthcoming article to me. She's revealed practically nothing and has claimed the ever popular 'I can't remember' whenever there was any possibility of her saying something of any significance.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terre Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #3
56. That's a major issue over at the conversation
on Daily Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/12/11/94156/302

On that same diary, someone said they were looking for a pic of VivNovak - they're not readily available by Googling the images - but I did come up with this image, and did a little "doctoring". Thought I'd share it with you guys as well:



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
4. why would she keep this from her editors? Didn't she learn the cover-up
is what causes a lot of problems?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 10:40 AM
Response to Original message
5. Journalists are going down like bowling pins
It sure shows how incestuous the relationship is between Washington and the media, imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Halliburton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
6. am I missing something?
how is this supposed to help Rove? seems like a big distraction to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. I don't really see it either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. The help really came when she tipped Luskin off that there was more to the
investigation - that Rove was still a target. That enabled them to change the story (by discovering the "lost" email), and thereby avoid an indictment. At least so far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #9
15. I Don't Think It Will Be That Much Help
Despite KKK protestations that it was an innocent conversation, it wasn't so innocent that he wanted it on the phone logs. He told his assistant, Ralston, not to log it and she has testified to such. And, shaking as her memory is, reports say she places the meeting at an earlier date than Luskin does, which means FitzG. may be able to prove that Rove deliberately misled the GJ.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Halliburton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #9
17. it hardly helps
if their accounts are inconsistent and the WP reported that luskin and novak have differing accounts on this. the fact that luskin is pissed at novak for writing the article suggests that he didn't want her to reveal just how weak his hail mary defense really was.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #6
40. My guess at how it helps Rove is timing.
Edited on Sun Dec-11-05 01:55 PM by Jim__
My understanding is that Rove came clean about Cooper when he found out that Time knew and was going to expose Rove as the source. Now, the Novak story pours some doubt on this. Rove told Fitz the truth and only after Novak told Luskin was Rove alerted to the possibility that he misspoke. He started to search for evidence of the talk with Cooper.

This story gives reasonable doubt that Rove deliberately misled Fitz. of course it's bullshit. But, if Fitz believes there is reasonable doubt, he won't indict Rove.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
10. I wonder if Luskin violated attorney-client privilege in his conversations
Edited on Sun Dec-11-05 11:12 AM by IndianaGreen
with Viveca Novak. Even if he hadn't, I am disturbed by this cozy relationship between the Washington press corps and the people they are supposed to be covering. Is the price of information worth failure to disclose wrongdoing by government officials?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. It's disgraceful.
But this all started ten years ago when the media whores wanted to get invited to "A" list cocktail parties and the ticket for those gala events involved selling out Clinton. The idiot media should know that anybody who invites them to an expensive cocktail party is going to slip them very selective gossip.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #11
34. "Access"
Bush's people made it known from day one that reporters who said anything negative about their darling boy would get no access.

Josh Marshall has been making points about that lately, how that Knight-Ridder was the only US news service filing stories that went contrary to what everyone else was printing about Iraq's WMD in the run-up to war and how this was primarily because KR reporters didn't have access to the high-level admin types, and had to go with the information they were getting.

He also points out how the Duke Cunningham story was broken not by a star reporter with access, but a schlep who had time and curiosity.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/007223.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virgdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #34
44. Very true...
and this is how Watergate was "broken." By two shleps (minor cub reporters Woodstein) who had time on their hands, curiosity, and an insatiable drive to find the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #34
45. the tragic fact is....
...that they never had any access to Bush. The threat of denial of access means nothing when the principals lie and the press secretary gives nothing up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wordie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #34
51. We ought to kick up a HUGE stink about this.
Bush's people made it known from day one that reporters who said anything negative about their darling boy would get no access.

We should make sure that all future US Presidents understand clearly that to restrict information flow in this way is going to be considered by the US citizenry as completely unacceptable, taboo.

And now should be the time to start, given some of the recent poll results. They say Americans by an overwhelming majority would be likely to agree with us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-12-05 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #11
70. you slip me a favor and i'll slip you one--Federal Justice dismissed
It's just a game to these people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #10
33. I wonder if he violated Grand Jury secrecy rules
Edited on Sun Dec-11-05 12:54 PM by DoYouEverWonder
by leaking info to Novak for months? I think Luskin and Rove stepped in it big time by pulling this stunt.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #33
54. I don't think that people hauled in front a GJ
have any secrecy requirement imposed on them, and I am fairly certain that lawyers of people hauled in front of a GJ aren't even allowed in the room. So Luskin representing rove cannot be violating any GJ secrecy rules and since he is not an idiot and is working on behalf of his client, he is deliberately feeding Novak information he wants her to have because it will help his client. Either that or he cannot stand rove and has seized the opportunity to strike a blow for the people against the evil empire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #54
58. I know Rove can talk to whoever he pleases
about his own GJ testimony but wouldn't it be a serious breech of confidentiality for a lawyer to talk to other people about their client and/or matters regarding an ongoing investigation. Especially, if he what he was doing was to deliberately impede that investigation? I don't know enough about the law and ethics to know whether or not secrecy rules were violated but somethings not kosher here.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren Stupidity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-12-05 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #58
67. I am not a lawyer
but lawyer-client confidentiality seems to apply to a lawyer being allowed to withhold information on that basis, not to his being prohibited from deciding to provide the same information. He has to act on his clients behalf or he is violating his contractual obligations to his client. What he said to Novak is gossip: he can lie, embellish elaborate exagerate, mislead etc. not swqorn statements in court or statements to officials conducting an investigation. I don't know if the case can be made that bullshit you tell a hack can be construed as impeding an investigation. I think you have to tell that bullshit to an actual official participating in the investigation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 11:18 AM
Response to Original message
12. If I screw up and say something I shouldn't have said
Edited on Sun Dec-11-05 11:21 AM by lwfern
and find myself feeling very uncomfortable and wishing for a do-over, I can normally remember when it occurred.

I would think if my main project in life was researching the Plame case, and I screwed that up by giving information to Rove's lawyer, it would be especially memorable. I find it quite stunning that she can't recall if she met with Luskin again or not after such a screw up.

And also, quite stunning that she didn't write down notes - at least immediately after her meetings - given that her big project was the Plame case and she was trying to be "the information gatherer."

Finally, the footnote is most amusing. She told a lawyer about evidence that might be used to defend his client, and she's angry that he used it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Good point.
She must have known she tipped him off, and if so, that would be monumental in this ongoing crime of two centuries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Halliburton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. maybe Luskin didn't want her to reveal his weak hand?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunny planet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 12:53 PM
Response to Reply #12
35. Totallly agree lwfern. Whenever I have made a big slip-up in my life,
professionally or privately, it is ingrained in my memory whether or not I'd like to remember it or not. Vivnovka's story is full of holes IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
19. What a sloppy reporter! She takes no notes and entirely misses a March
date because she enters it as 5:00 AM instead of 5:00P?? Has she ever heard of jotting down notes AFTER the meeting? Especially when you are meeting with Karl Rove's lawyer?

She doesn't tell her editors that she is talking to the Special Counsel in a federal leak case of historical importance related to conversations she had on a story she was working on for Time because other reporters might latch on to it?

This story rather reeks, doesn't it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Media_Lies_Daily Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. I wonder how the law views recording conversations like that? Is it....
...possible that she used a recording device when meeting potential sources like Luskin?

No, I don't think she's anywhere close to being a "sloppy reporter". IMHO, she has either shredded her notes swearing Luskin to secrecy (since they appear to be in the same sinking boat), or secretly recorded the conversation with Luskin (which may be against DC law if the person being recorded is not told that the recording is being done) and she's trying to avoid being charged with that crime (if it's illegal).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #21
63. Could be, but to tell a Fitzgerald that under oath would not be wise,would
it? It does sound way too wide-eyed and innocent to me. Something's wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
24. She still won't come clean. What a dirtbag she is.
The "chicken bone":

Toward the end of one of our meetings, I remember Luskin looking at me and saying something to the effect of "Karl doesn't have a Cooper problem. He was not a source for Matt." I responded instinctively, thinking he was trying to spin me, and said something like, "Are you sure about that? That's not what I hear around TIME."

So her "source" for the info she gave Luskin is TIME?! Yeah, she gets stuff from TIME as her source. Why doesn't she want to tell the public where she got the info? Did Cooper tell her that Rove was the source? She just innocently overheard it around TIME. This is a disgusting piece of crap she wrote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #24
46. Maybe she's competing with Judith Miller
for the biggest whore of the 21st Century award?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaoar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #24
52. You have obviously
never worked in a newsroom filled with people who spend their working hours honing the art of pumping people for information. The gossip is pretty intense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Usrename Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #52
59. That's true, I haven't.
She's not a reporter by any stretch of the imagination. Waiting all this time to see if she would talk, the only thing I really wondered about was "how did she know Rove was Cooper's source?"

Seems like a reasonable thing to want to know. If you are saying she has no clue of how she found out, well, what a dumbass dirtbag.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Historic NY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
28. I beginning to wonder if this was all a ploy to confuse the GJ &
Fitz over both the Novaks. Sounds like the monkey wrench didn't work to good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClayZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
29. Plastic Surgeons and the Press....
Rhinoplasty must be popular with the press these days!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
31. What a Bunch of Prima Ballerinas
One final note: Luskin is unhappy that I decided to write about our conversation, but I feel that he violated any understanding to keep our talk confidential by unilaterally going to Fitzgerald and telling him what was said. And, of course, anyone who testifies under oath for a grand jury (my sworn statement will be presented to the grand jury by Fitzgerald) is free to discuss that testimony afterward.

"But he did it FIRST!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 12:53 PM
Response to Original message
36. This whole account stinks to high heaven!
The reporter SHOULD be on a leave of absence, with that shitty a memory. And come on, Luskin walked her to her car? She should think back and try to remember what she was wearing--a topcoat, for cold January or March DC, or a more summery getup, for much warmer May? Did she pick her way through snow and slush, or stroll across a dry sidewalk? She is NOT telling the whole truth in this account...ya gotta wonder why. Is she really sloppy, or is there something else going on here?

I wonder who picked up the check? Did they pay cash, or did Luskin put it on his expense account? Old Fitz might want to see if there are any credit card receipts for two wines signed by either of them--odds are good that will give him the day, if such documentation exists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tight_rope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #36
65. My thoughts exactly...."It has a very nasty odor".
Can we say Judith Miller #2. Maybe alittle jail time will help with the memory problems that she is having. It certainly helped to clear Judith's memory. Maybe the aspens should turn for her too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bumblebee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
37. Not good for Rove, especially if you bear in mind that Luskin wanted
this conversation to have occurred before Rove's first testimony, not after, and definitely before Cooper was subpoenaed. That clients would lie to lawyers, especially when they think they do not need to tell the truth (during his first GJ appearance Cooper was not under subpoena yet), is obviously common. Luskin could have also been goading Novak -- for his own purposes or Rove's -- to reveal whether Cooper had been talking to his colleagues about who is protecting as his source. Otherwise his volunteering the info about how Rove was not Cooper's source simply does not make much sense. Also remember there is something fishy going on about why Cooper's call was not registered as going to Rove, and his personal secretary testified more than once already about that. I know I want to be optimistic but nevertheless I will go on a limb and say: probably a Rove indictment as early as next week, knock on wood!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
38. What she did is not in the same mold as what Woodward did;
She should not lose her job or otherwise be sanctioned
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DoYouEverWonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #38
48. At the least she should be fired
fot stupidity.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wordpix2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
39. if it's such a little deal, why did Fitz speak with her for 2 hrs.?
She reports that all she knew in Oct. 2003 was that Luskin is Rover's lawyer. BUT...

<snip> "Fitzgerald and I met in my lawyer's office on Nov. 10 for about two hours. Schuelke had told him I would discuss only my interactions with Luskin that were relevant to the conversation in question. No fishing expeditions, no questions about my other reporting or sources in the case. He agreed, telling my lawyer that he wanted to "remove the chicken bone without disturbing the body."
<snip>

Seems Viveca Novak must have learned more than that for Fitz' questioning to take 2 hrs.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
41. Does this create reasonable doubt that Rove deliberately lied?
Edited on Sun Dec-11-05 02:10 PM by Jim__
My understanding is that up 'til now, Rove didn't mention the meeting with Cooper 'til he found out that Time knew and Time would talk. Then Rove rushes out to set Fitz right. Obviously, he's trying to cover his ass - too late.

But, then, Luskin claims he learned about this at a meeting with Novak: Toward the end of one of our meetings, I remember Luskin looking at me and saying something to the effect of "Karl doesn't have a Cooper problem. He was not a source for Matt." I responded instinctively, thinking he was trying to spin me, and said something like, "Are you sure about that? That's not what I hear around TIME." He looked surprised and very serious. "There's nothing in the phone logs," he said. In the course of the investigation, the logs of all Rove's calls around the July 2003 time period--when two stories, including Matt's, were published mentioning that Plame was Wilson's wife--had been combed, and Luskin was telling me there were no references to Matt. (Cooper called via the White House switchboard, which may be why there is no record.)

And, as soon as Luskin told Rove, Rove starterd to search for evidence of the meeting: I didn't find out until this fall that, according to Luskin, my remark led him to do an intensive search for evidence that Rove and Matt had talked. That's how Luskin says he found the e-mail Rove wrote to Stephen Hadley at the National Security Council right after his conversation with Matt, saying that Matt had called about welfare reform but then switched to the subject of Iraq's alleged attempt to buy uranium yellowcake in Niger. According to Luskin, he turned the e-mail over to Fitzgerald when he found it, leading Rove to acknowledge before the grand jury in October 2004 that he had indeed spoken with Cooper.

If that story can be accepted as true - can be - then that may serve as reasonable doubt - enough to block Rove's indictment.

But, I think Fitz may be able to get past it. We have to believe that even after Rove was reminded of his talk with Cooper, he still couldn't remember the conversation and had to search for evidence. Even if everything else is true, I don't believe that Rove still wouldn't remember the conversation with Copper after he was reminded of it. That he had to search for evidence.

It creates a problem for Fitz.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bumblebee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. Don't think so. Timing is of essence. Just means he got scared when it
Edited on Sun Dec-11-05 02:21 PM by Bumblebee
became obvious Cooper may be induced to spill the beans. That's why Luskin wanted it to have occurred before Cooper was in Fitz's sights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demgrrrll Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #41
47. Can you even begin to imagine how angry Fitzgerald is right now?
If I had to deal with these clowns I would be close to having a Scanners head explosion. I think Needlenose and Firedoglake have the best takes on what is happening with this three ring circus. Needlenose still thinks Rove will go down for a false statement to the Grand Jury. I think I don't know. The only person who does know is Fitzgerald.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virgdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
49. There is something that has always bothered me...
both Libby and Rove "claim" that they got Plame's identity and NOC status from reporters. If this information is so "Top Secret" that only Bush's inner circle, those with a "need to know" this classified information, knew of this information, then how did reporters, who have no access or need to know this information, have knowledge of this classified information about Plame's undercover status? This does not make any sense to me at all. Maybe I'm missing something, but I would like to know the answer to this question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cantstandbush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #49
60. It's bothered me too. No explanation yet. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunny planet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
50. Sometimes I think a side plan of Rove and Co. is to first use the
reporters to disseminate false or misleading reports and then, when the reporters have already compromised themselves for the so-coveted 'access', to engineer their public disgrace. This way, Rove obfuscates and muddies the waters with leaks and propaganda, confuses all of those who aren't paying as careful attention as Plamaholics (let's face it, that's seven eighths of the country) and big bonus, eventually destroys said reporters reputations (and the newspapers they work for in the bargain) enough so that when the real story comes out, the majority of public opinion is that the newspapers and news magazines are not reputable so who believes anything they say anyway.

Think about it, what's the common result so far, aside from all the confusion about what, where, when, and why Unca Karl and Scooter did what they did? Three journalism institutions have been made to look foolish at best, complicit at worst, and all of their reporting has come into question. They are in essence, discredited institutions. This is not to say that these news outlets did not have their own responsibility in having sullied their own reputations, just that it may have been one of KKKarl's plans all along to use the media, and then throw them under the bus. If only we could convince more Americans to get their news from the blogs instead of the MSM, we'd have a more informed public.

None of this, of course, would stop Fitz from pursuing the legal avenues for prosecuting these crimes. It's just that the public perception of the mainstream press has suffered immensely (we've known they were full of shit for some time), and I can't help but think that helps the Bush crime family too. They can now say, how can you trust these papers to report the truth about us, they lie all the time (even though the Bushies have benefited from those lies). Now that the press is just beginning to report little glimmers of the truth, here and there, isn't it convenient that they have been discredited three times now, Miller, Woodward, Vivnovka and their respective institutions, the New York Times, WaPo, and Time magazine have been smeared by association?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaoar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 04:42 PM
Response to Original message
53. You have to wonder why Luskin didn't quit as Rove's lawyer
A client lying to his attorney is grounds for the attorney to end the relationship. Especially when it makes the lawyer look foolish.

Rove probably insisted that he just forgot about that conversation with Cooper.

But here we have a case where Rove is likely going to be indicted because he lied to his lawyer. His lawyer, discovering the lie after talking to Viveca Novak, gets pissed and launches an investigation to see if Rove did lie. He discovers the email Rove wrote to Hadley and turns it over to Fitzgerald.

So Rove has been ratted out by his own lawyer. Makes you wonder why Rove didn't fire Luskin and get a lawyer more willing to do whatever it takes to get him off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
57. Didn't they already make that movie?? "Secrets & Lies"
These "reporters" amaze me.. They jealously hoarde every bit of information they glean, and pretend in one moment that it's the most important piece of information EVER, and in the next moment, a throw-away remark at a tete a tete..

I wonder how her husband feels about the casual "meet for cocktails" relationship with Luskin..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Witch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-11-05 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
64. She makes it all sound soooo innocent.
I'm not buying it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-12-05 12:15 AM
Response to Original message
66. Heres a point Why didn't Luskin tell Fitz the conversation early
on

Why didn't Novak step forward early on???

Why did Luskin not bring her in to testify early on in defense of Rove???

Sounds like Luskin was scrambling for help///
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-12-05 08:53 AM
Response to Original message
68. Cough cough
This is turning into a real rodeo and I'm not sure who's riding who?

Something as simple as this is turning into a dazzling display of meaningless rhetoric that is getting far far away from the reality of the crime.

That name "Viveca" is suppose to be a take off of Vivekananda? And then to add "Novak" at the end is just too much for my 0' heart to take.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemonFighterLives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-12-05 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
69. It sounds like a cheap trick to me
Rove and Luskin will try anything once. Their giving Fitz the run around may come back to bite them in the ass.

Fitz is still cutting through the fat and lard thrown to him, but soon, I hope, he will get to the meat of the matter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-12-05 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #69
72. Well Fitz better INVESTIGATE THOROUGHLY or he is going
to be laughed at!!!

He was to narrow on his focus and this is what happens!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gulfcoastliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-12-05 06:15 PM
Response to Original message
73. Viveca Novak, media whore extraordinarie
Worthless sack of excrement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC