home

Waas: Novak Promised to Protect Rove in PlameGate

Update: Scroll to the bottom to see Rove Spokesperson Mark Corallo's response to Murray's article:

Murray Waas has a new article on the Valerie Plame leaks investigation, disclosing that federal agents became suspicious of Karl Rove and Bob Novak because of a telephone conversation in which Novak reached out to assure Rove he would protect him as his source. The conversation was on September 29, 2003, three days after it became public that the Justice Deparment was opening a criminal investigation into the leak.

Sources said that Ashcroft received a special briefing on the highly sensitive issue of the September 29 conversation between Novak and Rove because of the concerns of federal investigators that a well-known journalist might have been involved in an effort to not only protect a source but also work in tandem with the president's chief political adviser to stymie the FBI.

Murray reports that Rove disclosed the conversation to investigators and to the grand jury.

Waas further reports investigators were suspicious because Rove and Novak's versions of their July 9, 2003 telephone call were so similar.

Rove has testified that he simply told the columnist that he had heard much the same information about Plame, which perhaps was nothing more than an unsubstantiated rumor. Novak's account of the July 9 call matched Rove's. Investigators were suspicious that, if this version was true, the columnist would have relied on Rove as one of his two sources to out Plame as an "agency operative."

Ashcroft was advised during the briefing that investigators had strong reservations about the veracity of the Novak and Rove accounts of the July 9 conversation.

Finally, Murray reports that Fitz remains focused on Rove's initial failure to disclose his conversation with Matt Cooper.

As Fitzgerald considers whether to bring charges against Rove, central to any final determination will be whether Rove's omissions were purposeful.

It appears Rove fully disclosed his September 29 conversation with Novak to investigators in October, 2003 and later to the grand jury. So I don't see how this adds to his legal woes, unless Fitz thinks it somehow makes a case for obstruction of justice. It may reflect more poorly on Bob Novak. Does Novak has immunity from prosecution? Does he need it? Consider Murray's statement:

A second reason that federal investigators were suspicious, sources said, is that they believed that after the September 29 call, Novak shifted his account of his July 9, 2003, conversation with Rove to show that administration officials had a passive role in leaking Plame's identity.

Does Fitz now have another witness to show collusion between Rove and Novak on the July 9 call? Does he doubt that Rove only said, "I heard that too.?" Without another witness, how would he prove it?

Novak had two sources. We still don't know who the identify of the second one , the official who first told Novak about Valerie Plame Wilson and her employment as a CIA agency operative.

Crooks and Liars thinks Rove threw Novak under the bus. More from Empty Wheel, who wants to know what date Rove disclosed the September 29 conversation to the grand jury. I suspect it was his first appearance in February, 2004, because he had already told investigators about it.

Rove, according to attorneys involved in the case, volunteered the information about the September 29 call during his initial interview with FBI agents in the fall of 2003.

One other note: I'm wondering where Stephen Hadley is in all this. He was the recipient of Rove's July 11 e-mail informing him that "he hadn't taken the bait" when speaking with Matthew Cooper that date. Rove also wrote to Hadley, "I warned him [Cooper] not to get too far out front on this." It seemed from that e-mail that Rove and Hadley had discussed Wilson's wife and her CIA employment and/or role in sending Wilson to Niger prior to then. Was Hadley privy to Rove's version of the July 9 Rove-Novak conversation? Is he cooperating with Fitzgerald? Does he support Novak's and Rove's description of July 9 call or has he provided information to make Fitz and investigators more skeptical?

Update: Mark Corallo, Karl Rove's spokesperson, has sent me this response to Murray's article:

"Karl Rove has never urged anyone, directly or indirectly, to withhold information from the Special Counsel or to testify falsely. No one has ever said or implied to Karl Rove that he intended to do so. The Special Counsel has never suggested that there is any evidence to support such an allegation. Frankly, it is hard to think of anything less reliable or less relevant than what investigators may or may not have speculated before they had started collecting evidence. Circulating such speculation now is nothing short of irresponsible."

< The Enron Verdict : Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling Convicted | Bush's New Domestic Policy Advisor >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Waas: Novak Promised to Protect Rove in PlameG (none / 0) (#1)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu May 25, 2006 at 01:10:45 PM EST
    OT but GW has sealed the documents seized in Sen. Jefferson's office for 45 days. Looks like Denny made some calls. You heard it here first at Che's Lounge! (I gotta get my own site, mumble, mumble)

    Re: Waas: Novak Promised to Protect Rove in PlameG (none / 0) (#2)
    by Che's Lounge on Thu May 25, 2006 at 01:14:15 PM EST
    Minor correction offered to the article: They weren't trying to "stymie the FBI". They were conspiring to cover up their treasonous actions. With all due respect to the author.

    Re: Waas: Novak Promised to Protect Rove in PlameG (none / 0) (#3)
    by oldtree on Thu May 25, 2006 at 01:24:34 PM EST
    I missed the 17th being the day of indictment, but I am not sad I wish to add conspiracy to obstruct justice, subbornation of perjury, (to O of J, perjury and false statements from earlier contest) oh, and add one person to the list of indictees, Bob "got my hand in your pants" Novak, perjury, false statements, conspiracy to obstruct justice, obstruction of justice, subbornation of perjury, conspiracy to reveal identity of covert CIA operative, revealing the identity of covert CIA operative poor old cranky bob can't be a very happy man right now. everyone now knows he is part of the machine, and not a "newsie" like he has told every one. his career is finished. one must wonder what deal novak has struck to remain free? is he a tenor or a baritone?

    I remember fondly those days when the pundits would tell us the Plame investigation was a waste of time... If novak goes down, I'm throwing a party.

    Re: Waas: Novak Promised to Protect Rove in PlameG (none / 0) (#5)
    by Strick on Thu May 25, 2006 at 01:38:39 PM EST
    Wow. An objective read would take it that Novak was promising to protect his source. Someone needs to alert the NY Times and the Washington Post at this agregious breach of a reporter's ethical behavior. Thank goodness none of the other reporters involved in this affair decided to do the same.

    Re: Waas: Novak Promised to Protect Rove in PlameG (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Thu May 25, 2006 at 03:11:36 PM EST
    Rove, Libby, and at least a third administration official told Novak, Cooper, Miller, and Walter Pincus of The Washington Post about Plame's CIA job. Rove has said he discussed Plame with Novak and Cooper.
    Hadley? Also as hard as it would be to prove Novak and Rove made up a cover story it seems clear that they did.
    On July 22, 2003 -- eight days after the publication of Novak's column on Plame -- Newsday reporters Timothy Phelps and Knut Royce quoted Novak as telling them in an interview that it was White House officials who encouraged him to write about Plame. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," Newsday quoted Novak as saying about Plame. "They thought it was significant. They gave me the name, and I used it."
    This is very different than the story Rove and Novak cooked up after they found out an investigation was about to start.

    Re: Waas: Novak Promised to Protect Rove in PlameG (none / 0) (#7)
    by oldtree on Thu May 25, 2006 at 03:41:31 PM EST
    let us all re write the law for obstruction of justice so that you can be happy about the definition of it. a blogger seems to have left out a critical bit of info involving the conspiratorial hiding of information in a criminal investigation. There are several names for that depending on how the complaint is worded. the statement about revealing a source would pale to the fact that they were conspiring to fix their story for future reference, regardless of whether it might be true, or in fact, as they appear to have said, that they changed the story later. truth is truth, deal with all of it please

    Re: Waas: Novak Promised to Protect Rove in PlameG (none / 0) (#8)
    by JK on Thu May 25, 2006 at 04:03:36 PM EST
    I'm sorry, but there is something that does not make sense about the Rove throwing Novak under the bus theory. If Novak promised to protect him as a source, that means as a journalist he would protect him as a source. In other words, he would not reveal that he spoke to Rove about Plame. However, Novak did just that. Compare Novak to Cooper -- that is what is known as protecting your sources. What I think is that, even if Rove revealed this July 29 conversation with Novak, he lied about what they said. Clearly, what Waas is saying is that Fitzgerald believes that in that conversation Rove and Novak got together and cooked a story, not that Novak promised to protect Rove as a source in the journalistic sense of the word. While I don't think that this is Rove throwing Novak under the bus, I do believe that this is another indication that Rove is cooperating. He may be coming clean about his misdeeds. Or, he may be preempting the shock of an indictment for obstruction of justice by making this information public.

    Re: Waas: Novak Promised to Protect Rove in PlameG (none / 0) (#9)
    by jondee on Thu May 25, 2006 at 04:44:30 PM EST
    I guess none of you heard that Jim proved months ago that everybody already knew who Plame worked for before her name was leaked; as we speak he's in transit preparing to give secret, sworn, testimony to that effect. This whole case will be cleared up in a few, short, days.

    I take Corallo's "denial" as an acknowledgment that the story is pretty much true: Frankly, it is hard to think of anything less reliable or less relevant than what investigators may or may not have speculated before they had started collecting evidence. Circulating such speculation now is nothing short of irresponsible. Before they started collecting evidence? Does that make sense to anybody? Isn't Waas saying that investigators were speculating after talking to Rove and Novak (that is, after they had started "collecting evidence")? I think Corallo is giving us a very weak denial.

    Re: Waas: Novak Promised to Protect Rove in PlameG (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Thu May 25, 2006 at 06:18:12 PM EST
    Jeralyn has a new friend. Who would have ever thunk it. The blogosphere rocks.

    Did Corallo actually bother to read the Waas article before he tossed out the denial? That pushback just lost Corallo credibility on the Leopold story denial as Waas is widely regarded, as we know, as top notch credible.

    The comments I received from Mark Corallo were made after he had read the article.

    Re: Waas: Novak Promised to Protect Rove in PlameG (none / 0) (#14)
    by Tom Maguire on Thu May 25, 2006 at 07:57:49 PM EST
    So Novak called Rove after the investigation was announced? Bob Woodward spoke to his contact a couple of times (and could not persuade him to come forward). IIRC, Pincus, Cooper and Miller have not mentioned any private discussions with their sources after the investigation was announced. Meanwhile, I seriously wonder whether Murray Waas, who is normally quite good on this story, actually read/wrote this article. Two howlers: Geneva Overholser, a journalism professor at the University of Missouri, questioned the propriety of Novak's using Rove as a source on the Plame story if, in fact, Rove had passed along only unsubstantiated gossip. "It's very hard for me to believe that any journalist would write a story of such importance based on someone making an offhand comment that 'I heard that too,'" Overholser, who is a former chair of the Pulitzer Prize board and a former editor of The Des Moines Register, said in an interview. "A comment like that could mean that it's just the gossip going around. That means something very different than an affirmation to go with a story. If that was the basis for Novak's story, it was the slimmest of reeds." Fine but wait until she gets a load of Cooper's version of his talk with Libby: On background, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied, "Yeah, I've heard that too," or words to that effect. And this is flat wrong: Novak's quotes in Newsday -- that administration officials had encouraged him to write that Plame worked for the CIA, and that she played some role in sending her husband, Wilson, to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African country -- were consistent with the later accounts of the other journalists who had spoken to White House officials for their stories on Plame. Those reporters included Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine. I will dredge up citations eventually, but Pincus was quite clear that his source was trying to *discourage* a story about Wilson; Rove was trying to discourage Cooper ("Don't get too far out on Wilson"); Libby said little to Cooper, as noted; Woodward thought it was an off-hand, casual comment; and Miller I should check, but I am skeptical. Now, Murray has to know this is wrong - anyone following this story would.

    Tom, Cooper's article was called "A War on Wilson?" The whole point of the article was that administration officials were actively pushing back against Wilson, including noting his wife's CIA status. Cooper described his testimony thus:
    I recall saying something like, "I'm writing about Wilson," before he interjected. "Don't get too far out on Wilson," he told me. I started taking notes on my computer.
    "Don't get too far out on Wilson" can mean a lot of things, but from the context of Cooper's article and his public comment about his testimony, I think it probably means, "Don't get too far out on Wilson's account of the Niger uranium story, because I'm about to tell you some things that challenge his credibility." I don't see any support for your claim that "Rove was trying to discourage Cooper" from writing about Plame's CIA status. Same goes for Libby and Judy. Pincus and Woodward may have had a different source(s) ("the innocent accused") with different motives. I think Murray's characterization holds up fine.

    I don't see any support for your claim that "Rove was trying to discourage Cooper" from writing about Plame's CIA status Sorry if I've mischaracterized your argument. I think maybe a more accurate paraphrase of what you are saying is that "Rove was trying to discourage Cooper" from writing about Wilson. I've never seen any evidence of that. And I don't think "Don't get too far out on Wilson" means what you're suggesting it means. Regardless, I think it's misleading to say that Murray is flatly wrong on that point.

    I think things perhaps get confusing here by the possible "smokescreen" that Rove kicked up with his late-discovered email to hadley. That is - Via Cooper's testimony, Rove comes across like he's actively spreading dirt on Wilson, encouraging perhaps an eventual hit piece on Wilson. (as noted by w0551.) But via Rove's email to Hadley, this conversation is characterized very differently. In the email, Rove comes across as seeming to discourage Cooper from writing at all, highlighted by the "I didn't take the bait" line. From Rove's email, it sounds like Cooper is the one actively pursuing a hit piece, and Rove tries to put the brakes on it. (This view jives more with Tom's view.) The dueling versions of this conversations have perhaps fueled this large perception re: what the hell was Rove really saying??? Simply put, perhaps Waas accurately states that Rove was TELLING Cooper, Miller, and Novak the same stuff. But he wrote a different story in his email. (This is why I can't help but wonder if the email was staged or planted at some point to help Rove's defense. Perhaps this email is Fitzgerald's smoking fun for Obstruction of Justice.)

    Re: Waas: Novak Promised to Protect Rove in PlameG (none / 0) (#18)
    by Tom Maguire on Fri May 26, 2006 at 06:27:11 AM EST
    From W0551, 9:30: Same goes for Libby and Judy. Pincus and Woodward may have had a different source(s) ("the innocent accused") with different motives. I think Murray's characterization holds up fine. As to Rove, I can agree that it is ambiguous. Do we agree that Libby siad to Cooper, (in Cooper's version) "Iheard that, too" after Cooper ran thr sotry past him? That does not strike me as an exhortation to print a story. As to Miller, here is Waas' story: ...administration officials had encouraged him to write that Plame worked for the CIA, and that she played some role in sending her husband, Wilson, to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African country Here is Miller's personal account in the Times: Mr. Fitzgerald asked me whether Mr. Libby had mentioned nepotism. I said no. And as I told the grand jury, I did not recall -- and my interview notes do not show -- that Mr. Libby suggested that Ms. Plame had helped arrange her husband's trip to Niger. My notes do suggest that our conversation about Ms. Plame was brief. Is that consistent with the Waas claim that she was urged to write about a lnik between Wilson, the wife, and the Niger trip? Pincus: I wrote my October story because I did not think the person who spoke to me was committing a criminal act, but only practicing damage control by trying to get me to stop writing about Wilson. Woodward: Fitzgerald asked for my impression about the context in which Mrs. Wilson was mentioned. I testified that the reference seemed to me to be casual and offhand, and that it did not appear to me to be either classified or sensitive. By my scorcard, Waas is flat-out wrong on Miller, Pincus, Woodward, and Libby, but in a gray area with Rove. Your thoughts?

    As to Miller, here is Waas' story: "...administration officials had encouraged him to write that Plame worked for the CIA, and that she played some role in sending her husband, Wilson, to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African country" Do you mean Cooper here? If so, I'd say Rove definitely encouraged him to do so. To wit, Cooper's email to his bureau chief from Newsweek: "Subject: Rove/P&C," (for personal and confidential), Cooper began. "Spoke to Rove on double super secret background for about two mins before he went on vacation ..." Cooper proceeded to spell out some guidance on a story that was beginning to roil Washington. He finished, "please don't source this to rove or even WH [White House]" and suggested another reporter check with the CIA. ...Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"--CIA Director George Tenet--or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger ... " It appears that Libby's role with Matt Cooper was to be the designated second source. Although his role with Miller was to be the primary source.

    I really wanted to believe Jason Leopold's story. I also wanted to believe that if it didn't hold up, he would "out" his sources. He has not. I believe that he was "played" just as Dan Rather was. I believe that Rove was behind it. These people are blood suckers who play on the weaknesses of others. They have made it a sport. I will not read Leopold again. I really feel badly for him, regardless of what the truth is about his story. Therein is my reason for deciding not to read him again. Besides that, when you have an administration who IMO, is actively and purposefully using journalists as employees, stooges, and pawns, in an attempt to cover crimes and misdemeanors, the public has a vested interest in searching for and believing in the only source that might be the only thin thread our constitution is hanging on. Credible journalists!

    Re: Waas: Novak Promised to Protect Rove in PlameG (none / 0) (#21)
    by Tom Maguire on Fri May 26, 2006 at 06:07:37 PM EST
    Do you mean Cooper here? If so, I'd say Rove definitely encouraged him to do so. I meant Miller, but I'll try again. Waas chracterized the Admnin push back as follows: Novak's quotes in Newsday -- that administration officials had encouraged him to write that Plame worked for the CIA, and that she played some role in sending her husband, Wilson, to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African country -- were consistent with the later accounts of the other journalists who had spoken to White House officials for their stories on Plame. Those reporters included Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine. Government witnesses who have testified in Fitzgerald's investigation have consistently told that story, too, sources said. Waas offered Miller as an example. That implies that Miller should have been "encouraged ...to write that Plame worked for the CIA, and that she played some role in sending her husband, Wilson, to Niger". However, from Miller's own account, nothing in her notes indicates that Libby linked the wife to the Niger trip. An excerpt: Mr. Fitzgerald asked me whether Mr. Libby had mentioned nepotism. I said no. And as I told the grand jury, I did not recall -- and my interview notes do not show -- that Mr. Libby suggested that Ms. Plame had helped arrange her husband's trip to Niger. My notes do suggest that our conversation about Ms. Plame was brief. Ergo, Waas is wrong with the Miller example. I have also offered cites showing he is wrong on Woodward and Pincus.

    Waas was not wrong on Miller, she testified that Libby brought up her name and connection to the CIA at all three meetings. While the segment you copied suggests that he hadn't mentioned nepotism, you must remember she was being as accomodating as she could to not totally brutalize Libby. And testimony can be that exacting. If Libby didn't use the precise word nepotism she need not answer in the positive, but somehow she sure still got there from what he gave her. My notes indicate that Mr. Libby took issue with the suggestion that his boss had had anything to do with Mr. Wilson's trip. ''Veep didn't know of Joe Wilson,'' I wrote, referring to the vice president. ''Veep never knew what he did or what was said. Agency did not report to us.'' Soon afterward Mr. Libby raised the subject of Mr. Wilson's wife for the first time. I wrote in my notes, inside parentheses, ''Wife works in bureau?'' I told Mr. Fitzgerald that I believed this was the first time I had been told that Mr. Wilson's wife might work for the C.I.A. The prosecutor asked me whether the word ''bureau'' might not mean the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Yes, I told him, normally. But Mr. Libby had been discussing the C.I.A., and therefore my impression was that he had been speaking about a particular bureau within the agency that dealt with the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. So right there we see a provocative connection being made as to Valerie's association to the CIA. Later, she miraculously comes to the conclusion that Valerie's connection is story-worthy: Mr. Fitzgerald asked whether I ever pursued an article about Mr. Wilson and his wife. I told him I had not, though I considered her connection to the C.I.A. potentially newsworthy. I testified that I recalled recommending to editors that we pursue a story., Mr. Fitzgerald asked my reaction to Mr. Novak's column. I told the grand jury I was annoyed at having been beaten on a story. I said I felt that since The Times had run Mr. Wilson's original essay, it had an obligation to explore any allegation that undercut his credibility. I just think her entire testimony very suspect. She clearly did everything she could to protect Libby, nonetheless, it is apparent that he had encouraged her to write exactly what Novak wrote and moreover, she was pissed that Novak scooped her.

    Re: Waas: Novak Promised to Protect Rove in PlameG (none / 0) (#23)
    by Tom Maguire on Fri May 26, 2006 at 10:46:13 PM EST
    While the segment you copied suggests that he hadn't mentioned nepotism, you must remember she was being as accomodating as she could to not totally brutalize Libby. And testimony can be that exacting. If Libby didn't use the precise word nepotism she need not answer in the positive, but somehow she sure still got there from what he gave her. Well, I can't win an argument against a "reality-based" detective. Her notes were taken contemporaneously - they were not, I suspect, written with an eye to protecting Libby agaisnt the day she would testify against him to a grand jury. Yet her notes don't mention a link between Ms. Plame and the Niger trip. Surely the allegation "The wife arranged the Niger trip" would have merited a note? Or maybe not, since she knew some day she would want to protect him. An alternative hypothesis is that the Wilson and wife story is newsworthy independent of whether she was specifically involved in the Niger trip. For example, Wilson was attacking the White House and defending the CIA's reporting on Niger-uranium. But guwess what! His wife works at the CIA, so really, Wilson is helping his wife and her boss in their tussle with the White House. Worth a mention? Tough call. Well - since Libby "might" have mentioned the Niger connection to Miller, I guess you figure it is OK for Waas to state as fact that he did, even though her testimony does not demonstrate that. Reality. Her testimony: And as I told the grand jury, I did not recall -- and my interview notes do not show -- that Mr. Libby suggested that Ms. Plame had helped arrange her husband's trip to Niger Oh, he might have said it, she was protecting Libby, she was lying, so Waas is right. Fine. Can I save some time and explain Pincus? What he seems to have written is this: I wrote my October story because I did not think the person who spoke to me was committing a criminal act, but only practicing damage control by trying to get me to stop writing about Wilson. What Pincus meant was, they were trying to get him to *stop* writing about Wilson, and *start* writing about how Wilson's wife arranged the trip to Niger. Three down, only Woodward to go. Gosh, it must be fun to be reality-based.

    Reality-based? You're the one making up alternative explanations for Judy wanting to write a story about Wilson and his wife when she's already admitted to being ticked over the fact that Novak got there first. The story she felt scooped on, the connection she thought important, what her editors wouldn't allow her to write...Novak's hit piece. "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him." Occam's Razor, dude. It matters not that her notes didn't exactingly specify, nor did she recall whether or not Libby suggested Plame sent her husband on the trip. Her testimony and memory are suspect in Libby's favor. She also didn't recall the June 23rd meeting with Libby until prompted by Fitz with Secret Service security logs proving her meeting and then suddenly a whole new notebook of notes appears! Ooh, why how magical! Yeah, that's it, tell me about reality-based. Curious that this newly discovered notebook and, previously undisclosed by either Libby or Miller, meeting just happened to be all about Plame's employment and when those four little words were written: "Wife works in bureau?"

    Oh, and Tom, and might I just add that Waas has every reason to believe exactly what he wrote considering his previous reporting on this and what his sources told him about Libby's and Miller's conflicting testimony: According to attorneys familiar with his testimony, Libby told the grand jury that at the meeting he told Miller that Plame had something to do with Wilson being sent on a controversial CIA-sponsored mission to Africa, but that he did not know that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA or anything else about her. However, Miller testified and turned over notes from the July 8 conversation to the grand jury that showed that Libby had told her that Plame worked for the CIA's Weapons, Intelligence, Non-Proliferation, and Arms Control office. Libby has told federal investigators, according to legal sources familiar with his testimony, that he told Miller at the meeting that he had heard that Wilson's wife had played a role in Wilson being selected for the Niger assignment. But Libby testified regarding both the June 23 and July 8 meeting that he had never named Plame nor told Miller that she worked for the CIA, because either he did not know that at the time, or, if he had heard Plame was a CIA employee, he did not know whether it was true. Miller's grand jury testimony as well her notes on the July 8 meeting contradict Libby's version. Miller's notes indicate that Libby did indeed tell her that Plame worked for the CIA. Her notes said, according to Miller: "Wife works at Winpac." Asked for an explanation by the grand jury, Miller has said she testified she knew that Winpac meant Weapons Intelligence, Non-Proliferation, and Arms Control, a CIA unit. Reality sucks, huh?

    Re: Waas: Novak Promised to Protect Rove in PlameG (none / 0) (#26)
    by Tom Maguire on Sat May 27, 2006 at 02:54:52 PM EST
    IOW - it's OK for Waas to state it as fact because you believe it anyway. Whatever. She also didn't recall the June 23rd meeting with Libby until prompted by Fitz with Secret Service security logs proving her meeting and then suddenly a whole new notebook of notes appears! Ooh, why how magical! That is the lefty myth, all right. Left unanswered - how come Fitzgerald didn't confront Libby with these logs when he testified to only two meetings with Judy. amd did why Fitzgerald fail to specify the June meetings in the subpoena to Miller? Never mind. The alternative explanation - that Fitzgerald had no clue about the June meeting until Miller brought it up - is too painful for some to contemplate. Here was Judy talking to the WSJ: In a brief telephone interview yesterday, Ms. Miller said she discovered the June 2003 notes in her office after being prompted to seek out answers to another question Mr. Fitzgerald had asked her. "There was an open question about something, and I said I would go back and look and see if there was anything in my notes that would address that question," she said yesterday. She said she found the notebook in her office. She reiterated that she couldn't recall who told her the name that she transcribed as "Valerie Flame." "I don't remember who told me the name," she said, growing agitated. "I wasn't writing a story, remember?" Asked if the other source was Mr. Rove, she replied, "I'm not going to discuss anyone else that I talked to."" (link) Keep Hope Alive!

    IOW - it's OK for Waas to state it as fact because you believe it anyway. Whatever. Whatever? Now, that's an incisive come back, valley boy. So you don't believe Waas' reporting? Is that your problem? And why should that be? It appears everything he's reported has played out. Moreover, there's Miller's own attorney: "Bob Bennett, an attorney for Miller, confirmed in an interview that Miller's October 12 testimony "corrected" her earlier statements to the grand jury regarding the June 23 meeting. Bennett declined to provide specifics of anything Miller said during either of her grand jury appearances, except to say: "We went back on the second occasion to provide those additional notes that were found, and correct the grand jury testimony reflecting on the June 23 meeting." Bennett said that Miller's testimony is now "correct, complete, and accurate." In other words, her earlier testimony which did not disclose the June 23rd meeting was INCORRECT, INCOMPLETE and INACCURATE. The New York Times was yanked over Juday-Juday's reluctance to discuss her testimony in further detail. She [ahem cough] declined to give them any more details about this second testimony OR let them review her notes. Now just what was she hiding if she's so golly-gosh-gee-whiz innocent of having omitted the meeting? That is the lefty myth, all right. Left unanswered - how come Fitzgerald didn't confront Libby with these logs when he testified to only two meetings with Judy. amd did why Fitzgerald fail to specify the June meetings in the subpoena to Miller? How can something be left unanswered when it went unasked until now? Man, constantly presenting a new argument does not make your previous argument correct. How do you know he wasn't presented with the same logs? He didn't disclose the June 23rd meeting "until pressed." Pressed how? Hmmm? And why should Fitz give everything away to Miller in his subpoena, especially if he wants to find out exactly how forthcoming a witness she's going to be? C'mon man, these are easy...well, for most. Care to sputter a new come back?

    WaPo also reported on Libby's testimony regarding whether Libby told Miller Plame sent Wilson.
    Libby told Miller he heard that Wilson's wife had something to do with sending him" WaPo 9/29/05