Viveca Novak article

[ChowChowChow]

All I can say is What the ???


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1139780,00.html

[Spazito]

1. Thanks for the link, it makes for very interesting reading

I can't help wonder what she left out as this article is very carefully written, imo. I see she is now on a leave of absence unlike Woodward who should also be forced to take a leave of absence from the Post if it cared about it's integrity, imo.

[goclark]

2. ? Is she covering for herself? Rove? what is she saying?

[Punkingal]

3. Well,

It sounds like Rove is not off the hook....and it sounds like Viveca and Luskin are not on the best of terms now. Sounds like she didn't say what he expected, with regard to the timing of this thing.

[malaise]

4. On leave of absence

hahahah - all these liars should all be fired. Go Fitz go!!

[stray cat]

6. What do you think she did that is a firing offence?

[malaise]

11. How about this

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.
-----------------------

Another one bites the dust.

[lonestarnot]

15. and another one gone and another one gone and another one bites the dust

hey hey.:9

[stray cat]

18. If I was going before a grand jury I would at least talk to a lawyer

I have also known questioning at what point I should go to my employers and even if I should in various situations.

[ChowChowChow]

7. I agree FIRE THEM ALL!

Look at what they all get for being Rovers attack dogs!

[Toots]

5. Rove's lawyer being told details by a reporter instead of his client

That ought to tip this lawyer off he is not dealing with an honest man...Run Luskin run while you still have a practice...

[Indykatie]

14. AM versus PM Entry in Calendar

rings hollow with me. If I check my calendar entries for particular event on a given day I review all entries. Does her statement on this sound strange to anyone else?

[lonestarnot]

16. crap to me!

[RedOnce]

20. Yes, see #19 (I just noticed your post)

[lonestarnot]

8. hmmmmmm.....

[kpete]

9. Caught this explanation at Firedoglake (scroll down)

Ok, I've read the article.

The latest date her conversation with Luskin could have occurred is May, according to her testimony.

This allegedly prompted Luslin to perform the search that produced the Hadley email, which would have been responsive to previous subpoenas for evidence but had not been produced.

The discovery of the Hadley email is what allegedly prompted Rove to recall his conversation with Cooper.

After Fitzgerald gets Vovak on the record, he returns to the grand jury, as it was the disclosure of her conversation with Luskin on just before Fitzmas which may have kept Karl form being indicted then.

Bottom lines, as discussed here before:

1. The disclosure of the Vovak conversation was a last ditch effort to avoid indictment. If it had been a promising defense, it would have come forth sooner.

2. It took a lot of time for the email to come forward. Its elusiveness is highly suspicious. I imagine Fitzgerald asked Luskin more about why it was so hard to find, considering it had been written by Karl form his government account in the days surrounding the outing of Plame by Bob Novak.

3. Fitzgerald's prompt return to the grand jury once the Vovak stuff got nailed down suggests Karl is the next, immediate target. Note Luskin's non-leaky silence on that score.

4. Vovak's lack of memory is curious, but ultimately inconsequential as far as Fitzgerald's investigation goes. She is in trouble at Time, but not, probably, in legal trouble. Her next attorney is probably an employment issues specialist.

5. All of this suggests that Karl is shortly to be indicted. The only question now is whether or not plea negotiations will be more productive this time than they were just before Fitzmas.
Pachacutec | 12.11.05 - 7:21 am | #
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/firedoglake/113427467523086364/

[ChowChowChow]

10. thanks Kal!

[lonestarnot]

13. Yes and found this at Raw Story this a.m.

Spotlight on Luskin

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/08/AR2005120802136_pf.html

[Halliburton]

12. and how does this help rove?

seems like a big distraction to me.

[HereSince1628]

17. Me too, call me dim witted but I don't see how it helps Rove

Obviously it involves the background and the timing of Rove's "correcting" his several earlier testimony (to both the FBI and Fitzgerald).

Perhaps it is an attempt to suggest that Rove really had forgotten about the conversation. Perhaps it is also an attempt to make it look like the defense team is on the up and up. I dunno.

As it turns out, what we really know with respect to Rover is that he needed to correct his statements and he did. I am having trouble seeing that there is anymore anymore there.

Sure it's suspicious that he didn't come forward with a recollection until there was another source ready to contradict his testimony. But establishing that Rove was involved in a deliberate deceptive witholding of information will take more than suspicion.

[RedOnce]

19. I found this part interesting...

"Fitzgerald had asked that I check a couple of dates in my calendar for meetings with Luskin. One of them, March 1, 2004, checked out. I hadn't found that one in my first search because I had erroneously entered it as occurring at 5 a.m., not 5 p.m."

But, she did find it when Fitz specifically asked her to check that date. I wonder how often she has 5 a.m. meetings.