Here you go:
Times story says that Novak claims (and has testified) that Rove said "You heard it too", confirming the Plame story.
AP story says that Rove has claimed to the grand jury that he originally heard the Plame story from Novak.
If both of these men testified as written in these two reports, with two conflicting stories, hasn't one of them committed perjury before the grand jury?
Rove can always pull the "my Diary Lied to me" trick out of the book....
The AP is recycling The Times story their own way, from the Times account.
"On Oct. 1, 2003, Mr. Novak wrote another column in which he described calling two officials. The first source, who is unknown, was described by Mr. Novak as "no partisan gunslinger" who provided the outlines of the story. The second, confirming source, Mr. Novak wrote, responded, "Oh, you know about it."
That second source was Mr. Rove, the person briefed on the matter said, although Mr. Rove's account to investigators about what he told Mr. Novak was slightly different. Mr. Rove recalled telling Mr. Novak: "I heard that, too."
Amounts to the same thing. Novak called Rove, told Rove who had already been told by other journalists.
Thanks. So their charge is that Rove misidentified Novak as his source, eh?
Well, earlier tonight I kind of expected this to head in that direction.
I'm sure there's a good explanation.
Like the MSM, DUers can't get a story straight even when it is spread out in front of them as plain as day.
Whether Novak related this to Rove or the other way around, it seems neither broke the Espionage Act of 1982. Perjury or obstruction may be an issue. But there was no illigal leak of the name of a covert operator. Is that what you see?
Not necessarily. Could be just a difference of recall. A bit of common knowledge gets brought up and people can differ as to how and when it entered the conversation. Rove's reported comment sounds as though it is common knowledge of at least suspected.