Can someone help decipher this story re. Rove and his atty, V Novak, TIME?

[DeepModem Mom]

New York Observer:

Did Time Burn a Source?
Conversation Disclosed in Print
By Anna Schneider-Mayerson


In its Dec. 5 issue, Time magazine reported that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald had asked one of its D.C. reporters, Viveca Novak, “to testify under oath about conversations she had with Robert Luskin, Rove’s attorney, starting in May 2004.”

Neither Mr. Luskin nor Ms. Novak had expected to see news of those conversations in print. According to a source familiar with the matter, their talks had been off the record.

According to the source, Mr. Luskin told Mr. Fitzgerald to talk to Ms. Novak, signing a waiver. “The waiver that was executed was in a form that was similar to one that was used by Fitzgerald with other reporters—a waiver for the limited purpose of responding to questions from the special counsel,” the source said....

***

Time’s account of the conversations between Mr. Luskin and Ms. Novak arrived on newsstands Nov. 28. On Dec. 2, The New York Times reported on the substance of one conversation, writing that Mr. Luskin had learned from Ms. Novak that his client, Mr. Rove, might have spoken with Time’s Matt Cooper about Ms. Wilson.

That fact was significant because, at the time, Mr. Rove may not yet have told Mr. Fitzgerald about this conversation, and because Mr. Cooper was under pressure to reveal his source. The Washington Post reported on Dec. 3 that Mr. Luskin was using this conversation with Ms. Novak as a tool in his defense strategy, though exactly how (or if) this detail helps Mr. Rove remains murky.

So did Time magazine burn Mr. Luskin? Or did he waive his confidentiality when he came clean to Mr. Fitzgerald?...


http://www.nyobserver.com/media_nationalobserver.asp

[MADem]

1. I was given to understand that they were friends, having a drink

No notebooks, no interview, just background. And if Luskin signed a waiver, Viveca is totally off the hook. Luskin can't play it both ways. He is a smart lawyer, but he may have screwed his client with this move. OTOH, maybe he KNEW that Fitz had some other sources that would impeach his client, and he threw Viveca to the Fitz Wolf simply to buy Karl a few more weeks of time to come up with some other bullshit story.

[DeepModem Mom]

2. Thanks -- a very tangled web they've woven! nt

[greiner3]

3. On one hand;

I would have said that they were so clever, in a bastardly way, to have done that on purpose. After the last few months watching all the repugs going, or on the way, down, I would doubt that they could tie their own shoe laces without detailed instructions.