home

Novak Then vs. Novak Now

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 10:25:58 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Thanks to Tom Maguire for reminding me of this old post of mine in which I cite Timothy M. Phelps and Knut Royce's Newsday article of July 22, 2003, 8 days after Novak's column outing Valerie Plame was printed, in which he is quoted as saying,

Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it." (my emphasis.)

Now he says he got it from Who's Who and no one in the Administration told him her name.

Interestingly, Fitz subpoenaed the info from Phelps and Royce. [Correction: Fitz subpoenaed information on Phelps and Royce from the White House.] Remember this subpoena, reported in the March 5, 2004 Chicago Tribune (I quote liberally from it here)?

The third subpoena [by Fitzgerald] repeats an informal Justice Department document request to the White House last fall seeking records about staff contacts with Novak and two Newsday reporters, Knut Royce and Timothy Phelps, who reported July 22 that Plame was a covert agent and Novak had blown her cover.

So is Fitz satisfied that Novak never said that to the reporters? Or is Novak spinning us again?

This is a continuation of this post from yesterday.

Update: Kevin Drum posts his thoughts on this. And Jason Leopold at Truthout notes the discrepancies between Novak's statement and Bill Harlow's earlier statement.

< Wednesday Open Thread | Alaska Pot Possession Law Held Unenforceable as to Personal Use in Home >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Novak Then vs. Novak Now | 12 comments (12 topical)
    Re: Novak Then vs. Novak Now (none / 0) (#1)
    by rdandrea on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 12:27:39 PM EST
    I think "Liar Liar Pants On Fire" pretty well sums it up...

    Re: Novak Then vs. Novak Now (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 12:39:58 PM EST
    His source (inadverent/Armitrage?) thought it was significant and told him. Must "significant" conflict with "inadvertent?"

    Re: Novak Then vs. Novak Now (none / 0) (#3)
    by MiddleOfTheRoad on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 02:07:31 PM EST
    The subpoena was only for White House records related to Royce and Phelps. The Novak discussion would not fall under that. Furthermore Phelps has reported that they were never subpoenaed by Fitzgerald. link

    Re: Novak Then vs. Novak Now (none / 0) (#4)
    by MiddleOfTheRoad on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 02:08:39 PM EST
    Since Novak was under suspicion for concoting a cover story, why wouldn't investigators talk to Phelps and Royce about what Novak told them? What is the legal angle here? Would it be a "he said, she said" situation, and worthless for a perjury prosecution? Would Phelps and Royce have refused to disclose what Novak said to them?

    Re: Novak Then vs. Novak Now (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jul 12, 2006 at 02:12:21 PM EST
    Yes, Novak was given the NAME: Mrs. Joseph Wilson. Yes, Novak then looked up Mrs. Joseph Wilson on Mr. Joseph Wilson's Who's Who entry and - oopsy - found: Ms. Valerie Plame Wilson. That is hardly a change in story. And apparently the hired gun for the prosecution believes the same. Again: Valeri