(AP) Time: Rove's Lawyer Told of Conversation

[rodeodance]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051212/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cia_leak_investigation;_ylt=AlASH7D_XI4sUJ.MFacrM_.s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
Time: Rove's Lawyer Told of Conversation

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer 32 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Months before Karl Rove corrected his statements in the Valerie Plame investigation, his lawyer was told that the president's top political adviser might have disclosed Plame's CIA status to a Time magazine reporter.

Rove says he had forgotten the conversation he had on July 11, 2003, with Time's Matt Cooper. But the magazine reported Sunday that in the first half of 2004, as President Bush's re-election campaign was heating up, Rove's lawyer got the word about a possible Rove-Cooper conversation from a second Time reporter, Viveca Novak.

Novak described her conversation with the lawyer, Robert Luskin, in a first-person account released Sunday on Time's Web site.......

On the Net:

Time: http://www.time.com/time/

[bahrbearian]

1. I don't think Reagans " I do not recall " will work for Rove on this one

[ClassWarrior]

4. Yeah, the sharpest political mind of the century...

...forgot.

:rofl:

NGU.

[MadisonProgressive]

7. Twice!

[Jackpine Radical]

10. BTW--what is this, an all-Cheesehead thread? We only need Sybilla,

Wagner & maybe the Rev to complete the list of usual suspects.

[MadisonProgressive]

17. I guess Wisconsinites hate ROVER more that most!

[rodeodance]

23. I am a cheezehead and proud of it.

[Jackpine Radical]

26. I know--you, Class Warrior, Mad Prog & I were all over this thread.

[ClassWarrior]

29. LOL - Yeah, where are those slackers??

Didn't they get the memo?

NGU.

[usregimechange]

2. Tell me they both "forgot" BS Frog March them.

[Fridays Child]

3. Oh please, please, please indict Rove!

I won't ask for anything else for Christmas!

[usregimechange]

5. Kicked and Nominated! Nominate this guys, kick here:

:kick:

[lonestarnot]

6. Hot fucking digity times up Rover! Time to roll over...! Fuck You ROVER!

[Jackpine Radical]

8. So are there any consequences for Luskin?

Also, Luskin seems to have PUSHED for Viveca's statement because it was supposed to somehow help Rove. I never did understand how it was supposed to help Bush's Brain, and now I REALLY don't get it.

[usregimechange]

9. Did he go under oath on this too?

[Jackpine Radical]

11. Luskin under oath? Not to my knowledge.

[usregimechange]

13. Still if they both knew and didn't come out until Viveca Novak...

informed them and Fitz got aggressive, that is evidence of obstruction.

[Jackpine Radical]

27. But Luskin is Rove's lawyer. I don't know lawyer ethics. Since it was

someone other than Rove who told him, I suppose client confidentiality doesn't apply, but whether he has any obligation to convey information contrary to his client's interests that he gets from another source I don't know.

[Patsy Stone]

35. Luskin was deposed on Dec. 2

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/08/cia.novak/

"Fitzgerald deposed Luskin last Friday. Time and Luskin refused to answer CNN's questions about Luskin's conversation with Novak."

[hang a left]

57. I do believe he was deposed under oath. I read that somewhere here

in the last week or so.

[Pirate Smile]

28. Wash Post article is up and there are consequences for Viveca.

"Time editors asked her to take a leave of absence while they contemplate her future."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/11/AR2005121100400.html

Time Reporter May Have Tipped Rove's Lawyer to Leak

By Carol D. Leonnig and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, December 12, 2005; Page A04

A Time magazine reporter testified in the CIA leak case that she alerted Karl Rove's lawyer in early 2004 that the top Bush adviser had leaked information to her colleague about Valerie Plame, according to a first-person account published yesterday in Time.

The reporter, Viveca Novak, did not initially tell her bosses at Time that she may have tipped off Rove's lawyer or that the special prosecutor in the CIA leak was interested in the details of her conversation with Robert D. Luskin, Rove's lawyer. As a result, Time editors asked her to take a leave of absence while they contemplate her future.

The casual chat between Novak and Luskin, which took place in the first half of 2004, is now central to Rove's efforts to avoid indictment in the more than two-year-old case. Novak's account in this week's issue of Time does little to explain how a conversation over drinks between Rove's lawyer and a reporter chasing the story could help clear the senior Bush adviser. In addition to raising new questions about the role of journalists in the Plame affair, Novak's testimony provides fresh and significant insight into Rove's campaign to avoid charges in a case that threatens the man President Bush once called the "architect" of his reelection.

-snip-
Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald -- who charged I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney with lying and obstructing justice -- recently presented evidence to a new grand jury. Sources close to the case said one of the biggest pieces of unfinished business is whether to indict Rove -- and that a decision could come as early as this month.

[rodeodance]

62. some irony here-the WaPost reporting this story when Woodward did

not tell his bosses (not telling story of how V. Novak not telling her Time bosses).

The reporter, Viveca Novak, did not initially tell her bosses at Time that she may have tipped off Rove's lawyer or that the special prosecutor in the CIA leak was interested in the details of her conversation with Robert D. Luskin, Rove's lawyer. As a result, Time editors asked her to take a leave of absence while they contemplate her future.

[Supersedeas]

67. Nothing like the Washington beat for Reporters like Novak and Woodie

[Patsy Stone]

32. Well, come with me...

KKKarl testified that he only talked to Novakula.

Novak tells Luskin that she knows KKKarl talked to Cooper.

Luskin tells Rove, "They got us. Are you sure there isn't any proof?" Or, Luskin is truly shocked and searches to save his client's ass.

Cooper's attempt at First Amendment protection fails, he's going to have to testify.

Luskin finds email, tells Fitz, Rove gets to recant his testimony about not having spoken to Cooper.

In order for the recant defense ("I wasn't lying, see, I just didn't know about it, sheesh, I mean, there are so many emails.") to work, it has to occur within a timeframe where the liar doesn't know that his goose is about to be cooked.

The timeframe as it stands is too close to prove that A didn't cause B. The earlier Luskin can say that he was tipped off and it was then that he searched for the "memory jogging" email and informed his client, the better because it takes it further away from KKKarl and Luskin knowing that Cooper would be forced to testify.

Two things happened to muck it up: Novak said the conversation took place in March or May, meaning it took Luskin at least five months to locate the email all previous searches failed to reveal, and Luskin's testimony differed from Novak's.

Worst, most desperate lawyer in the world. Did I miss anything?

[bunny planet]

37. I don't think you have missed anything Patsela.

:hi:
Today has been a Plamaholic's dream day to peruse the blogosphere.
Things are looking mighty dicey for Unca Karl aren't they?

I'm trying so hard not to get my hopes up too high, but I just can't help myself.

I see indicted people.

[Patsy Stone]

42. Cautiously optimistic

I am of the pajamadeen today. Did nothing but read everything. Ask me anything. I'm still confused. I posted my questions in UL's thread, but the one I can't figure out is, whose side Luskin is on? OMG. He's just pitching anything and anyone to see what'll stick. This is a defense?

It never ceases to amaze me when the smallest thing is the cause of a huge downfall. Didn't he ever figure on their testimony differing? Even once? Fascinating. Glad you approve of my assessment of the wacky situation. Coming from a world-class Plamologist such as yourself, I'm honored. :blush:

[bunny planet]

47. Me too, pajamahadeen all day, or as the MSM refer to us, laptop barbarians

Yeah, too bad for you MSM, us laptop barbarians are the only ones getting any actual news reported over here.

I read everything at firedoglake first thing this morning and linked to everyone else Reddhedd and Jane recommended, plus read all the comments. I'm still slightly confused too but it appears as if Luskin tried that kooky, sleezoid, devil may care, bullshit his client 'the architect' is used to dishing out and it backfired.

What I'm not sure about is which date for the Vivnovka/Luskin conversation about Cooper and Rove is the one Luskin thought would benefit his client? January, May, and early fall as the dates of Vivnovka/Luskin conversation all have their own inherent problems for Rove. March, which is beginning to look like the real date is the most problematic for Rove and Luskin (and Vivnovka too as a matter of fact) from what I've gleaned because at that date, Luskin was not supposed to know that Cooper was the one Time reporter leaked to yet, but he says 'Karl doesn't have a Cooper problem.' Oopsy. Also double oopsy, Vivnovka mentions that Luskin says 'There's nothing in the phone logs.' So even though her mea culpa article leaves a lot to be desired she does throw those little tidbits out there however unintentionally. Playing CYA is indeed a very complicated affair, she was bound to slip up somewhere. I am confused as to who tipped Fitz off about how many meetings that Luskin and Vivnovka had between October 2003 and October 2004 and how he knew about the March date. I would think that would be the last date Luskin would want out there because it implicates KKKarl and himself with knowledge of something they supposedly wouldn't have known about or 'recalled' yet.

In general, I'm of the opinion that once the Supreme court tossed the case out, and the reporters had to testify or go to jail, Karl's little scheme became quickly much more complicated, and of course he is arrogant enough to have thought he could fuck with Fitzgerald, apparently, a big mistake. Up until that point, Karl never thought his lies would ever see the light of day or be exposed. If he does go down, and hopefully takes Jr. and the Tinman with him, it will be inadvertently the Supremes who got the ball rolling in their downfall. Ironic no?



I think maybe Fitz had the Hadley email in his possession at some point before Chubby McTreason got his memory back and turned it over. Just a hunch. I also think the email to Hadley contains language that is suspiciously cryptic, somewhat like the Libby Aspen letter. I'm wondering whether Rove wasn't giving Hadley a heads up on the progress of the smear Wilson campaign through the use of pre-ordained terms that meant something very different than their surface meaning.

[Patsy Stone]

49. Yes.

The March date would be bad because it would have taken them forever to have actually turned over the email. The January date, or even it it was back in Oct 2003, would be perjury-city. I think he wanted it to be May.

Hey, I used the word oopsie too! http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5572733&mesg_id=5572877

Yes, this whole thing is an unfortunate result of people actually digging for the truth in spite of KKKarl. God bless Patrick Fitzgerald. I think the email may have been in their possession earlier too.

I read all those blogs too. My eyes are bleary. :crazy: Now I'm watching the rerun of the Hardball special from tonight.

ed: more info.

[Jackpine Radical]

44. Oooooh thank you so much for this & your post above, Patsy.

It's all getting so delicious!

[HereSince1628]

60. Rove offered to reappear before the GJ in July of 2005

I believe we can assume at that time he was ready to reveal the conversation with Cooper. Fitzgerald didn't take up Rove's offer until October.

So just as a matter of house cleaning it seems that the time frame to locate and reveal is more like from 2 to 4 months.

I am not sure the earliest time is best. IMO the tip-off can't be too early, certainly not before Rove's GJ appearance.

Why? Because it is reasonable to assume that if L had talked to VN about Cooper L would have told R about the conversation and this should have boosted R's memory. That would make R's testimony more suspect because THAT would be consistent with misleading the investigation.

This is a Goldilock's thing. March works out well for Luskin.

[Patsy Stone]

64. Who is the "source"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1980505&mesg_id=1980729

Who said it could have been pre-February 2004? Oops.

[HereSince1628]

65. I know, I know. And that doesn't make sense, does it?

If Luskin knew and didn't work on Karl enough to have both Rove's and Luskin's staff figure out the truth before his GJ testimony something is amiss.

I can't imagine wanting to have a client go before the GJ with the possibility that the prosecutor has evidence of something your client denies. It would be a huge mistake. That is why NV's comment on Luskin's response seems so right to me.

Liskin would certainly have felt that Fitzgerald's chance of getting perjury or obstruction was much greater than Luskin had thought.

[Pirate Smile]

12. This is key:

"Novak said the conversation with Luskin occurred anywhere from January 2004 to May 2004; she thinks it was perhaps in March.

It was not until October 2004 — sometime between five months and nine months after Novak's conversation with Luskin — that Rove disclosed his conversation with Cooper to the prosecutor.

Rove's disclosure followed Luskin's discovery of a White House e-mail from July 11, 2003. The message, from Rove to then-deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley, referred to Rove's conversation earlier that day with Cooper."

Rove's "memory" was probably refreshed by his attorney 5-9 months before he notified Fitz that he had testified wrong BUT they only contacted Fitz once they knew there was documentary evidence (e-mail) of the conversation? Tsk tsk, Rover, that doesn't seem like you were anxious to correct your mistakes until you figured out you were nailed in a lie already.

[rodeodance]

18. past time to zap that little piglet!

[rateyes]

31. Plus that timeline seems to suggest that Rove had more

than one conversation with Cooper. If Novak is saying she told Luskin in March, 2004 that Rove talked to Cooper, and then there is an e-mail documenting a July, 2004 conversation with Cooper--it makes the "I forgot about my conversation" argument pretty weak. If this is the case, then, IMHO Rove may very well be indicted for KNOWINGLY outing a CIA operative, Espionage Act violations, perjury and obstruction.

Keeping my fingers crossed.

[Hyernel]

14. Fitzmas came. It came just the same.

My puzzler is almost sore.

[usregimechange]

16. That was funny!

:rofl:

[Peace Patriot]

15. I'm a little lost in the back and forth, of he said/she said/his lawyer

said, and the what/when/who of various steps along the way. And I've heard various claims that this exonerates/indicts Rove. Could someone just lay it out simply in time-line form, and how this latest fits in? (Also, please always use V. Novak, to distinguish her from R. Novak--for anyone try to catch up quickly with this segment of Traitorgate.) (I know who she is, and that she's no relation, but many others might not.(

[usregimechange]

19. I don't see how anyone could see this as good news for Rove.

[Patsy Stone]

41. I'll try.

There is a discrepancy in the testimony between Vivac and Luskin. Luskin is trying to say that Rove didn't know about the Cooper conversation and email; he forgot, and when Vivac and Luskin spoke, Luskin was moved to search for any proof that Rove and Cooper spoke. The conversation was the impetus, and Karl simply forgot. He was certainly NOT witholding the information about Cooper, and he wanted a chance to set the record straight, so he went back to the GJ to make good. This, allegedly, had nothing at all to do with the fact that Cooper was about to testify. Nothing at all.

The he said/she said comes from this Hail Mary that Luskin threw on Libby's indictment day that gave Fitz pause. The nugget was that it wasn't obstruction or perjury, or anything bad, just faulty memory, jogged by this conversation that Luskin had with Novak. "Perhaps," Fitz thought, "I need to check this BS out."

Move ahead to this fall, Vivac testifies, because Luskin gave her up, and Luskin testifies. They both say they spoke about this, but, the dates are fuzzy. Yet, the dates are everything. If it was before the second testimony, okay, but it still took them a long time to produce said email, and that's bad news for KKKarl.

If it was before, as one WaPo source implied, that's worse and it's a terrible defense. "A lawyer close to the case said Luskin has contended the conversation happened before Rove's first appearance before the grand jury in February 2004, when he testified he did not recall discussing Plame with Cooper. Luskin refused to comment." From the latest WaPo up now. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/11/AR2005121100400.html

This is a desperate plea for a recant defense and it's all contingent on the fact that the recantee didn't know this was gonna come out really soon. By stating that the conversation took place as early as possible, that puts more room in for the defense to appear plausible. The only problem is it couldn't have taken place too early, because then Luskin is in jeopardy and Rove may have indeed commited perjury and it is provable.

Bulletins at once...

[Demeter]

61. Who Are You Gonna Believe,: A Lawyer or A Journalist?

Tough times bring tough choices.

[Patsy Stone]

63. At least I don't have to make that call

And I don't envy Fitz having to untangle this whole mess.

[Joe Chi Minh]

66. Good one, Demeter. Difficult to imagine there could be knottier

conundrums than that!

[rodeodance]

20. cnn headline news just gave a good report on this.

[jsamuel]

22. what did they say?

[rodeodance]

24. they talked of Rove's memory problem.

[Wordie]

34. LOL...Rove is known for having a *excellent* memory. eom

[Jackpine Radical]

50. Anybody who lies as much as Rove does

had BETTER have a good memory.

[jsamuel]

21. The timing here is very important

[savemefromdumbya]

25. Luskin deposed by Fitzgerald

sounds like Luskin is as faulty as Rove

[pk_du]

30. As Mo Dowd said to Dave Letterman..remember it all boils down

to two words

Cheneys guilty

[rateyes]

33. Yep.

Mo got it right.

[wakemewhenitsover]

56. I missed this... can you fill me in, or is there a link?

[pk_du]

68. From last weeks visit by Dowd to the Late Show (link)

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/12/02.html


...she nailed the whole confusing mess for Dave in two words...

[rateyes]

36. If V. Novak knew

in March, 2004 that Rove leaked to Cooper and told Luskin, and then the e-mail reveals that Rove talked to Cooper again in July, 2004--four months later---and, Luskin and Rove don't tell Fitz about it until over a year later after Libby is indicted, in October (or November?) 2005===

Then the damned "memory problem" defense is shot to hell---because that would mean that both Rove and Luskin "forgot." Can anyone here spell:
0-B-S-T-R-U-C-T-I-O-N?

Can anybody spell: I-M-P-E-A-C-H-M-E-N-T?

Visualize.

[bunny planet]

38. I think Rove talked to Cooper in July 2003, not sure where you are getting

July 2004 from.

[rateyes]

40. I"ll tell where I'm getting it from...

fantasy land...my bad....Damn, I wish I could read! x(

[bunny planet]

43. quite alright. It sure is very confusing isn't it?

:crazy: I usually have to mainline a double espresso before I even start to tackle Plame threads. They are fascinating though, it's just hard to keep all the what did who say to someone else when stuff straight. Sometimes I think I need a big blackboard and some chalk to draw diagrams of all the story lines intersecting in this case.

[rateyes]

45. Yeah, me too,

but then the board would look like the "spaghetti monster" which would only confuse me more! But, I do like the threads.

[Uncle Roy]

39. Rove's secretary also lied about this "unimportant" phone call.

Fitz asked her why it wasn't logged. At first she testified that the call was transferred to Rove's office from the White House switchboard, and that such calls were not usually logged. (She remembered this odd little detail about a 2-year-old phone call that was otherwise so forgettable???)

It was a lie, of course. Fitz went out and got proof that such calls were normally logged, and then hauled her back before the Grand Jury and gave her a chance to refresh her memory.

This time she testified that Rove had told her not to log the call.

You have to wonder why so many people keep either forgetting about or lying about such an "unimportant" phone call. I think Fitz has Rove trapped now.

I'd really love to see what else Fitz could get out of the secretary. It was probably the threat of a perjury charge that refreshed her memory about the phone log detail, and I bet she knows quite a few other tasty details.

Her name is Susan Ralston, and before she worked for Karl Rove, she worked for Jack Abramoff....

[Wordie]

54. I read someplace she had just resigned, citing "stress." I'll bet! LOL

[0007]

46. I find this indeed very strange. Has anyone ever heard of this

Viveca Novak before this story?

Are these people, Rove and the boys, running circles around Patrick Fitzgerald? It sure seems that to me!

[MADem]

52. She has written for TIME for awhile, and every so often does talking head

appearances on MSNBC...not any more, though!!!

[usregimechange]

48. Kick!

[lovuian]

51. Why did Rove wait to tell Fitzgerald Oh he forgot???

Why didn't Luskin who talked to her bring her up to testify???

and now they tell Fitz

and she remembers the Time told her
Time is a BIG PLACE she better get a good excuse than that one!!!

[Independent_Liberal]

53. Kick!

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

55. Kick! And view the whole thread.

Not so good for Rove. IMO

[keopeli]

58. This was the plan concocted between Luskin and Rove - delay the inevitable

None of this is a surprise yet. Of course, Rove does not have a plausible explaination for why he failed to mention his conversation with Matt Cooper.

The point of ALL THIS is to prevent the perceptioin of a conspiracy between Rove and Libby. Who knows, Bush the Lesser himself might have asked the prosecutor to elongate this process for the benefit of a nation at war.

This is the show. Bush is afraid of Fitzgerald. Fitzgerald has the goods.

And some very "big whigs" from the Congressaional Republican elite are probably in a very good position to negotiate right now.

Yes, it's true, it's FITZMAS!!

[hang a left]

59. All three of them are busted.

DU Membership...$35 a quarter
5 year Prozac prescription...$3100
Computer screens and windows...$1200
Watching KKKarl get his due...PRICELESS