Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

2nd Time Reporter to Testify in Leak Case (NYT adds to earlier AP article)
NY Times ^ | 11/28/05 | DAVID JOHNSTON

Posted on 11/28/2005 6:03:52 AM PST by frankjr

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last
Insight from "Just One Minute"...

"However, in my unexpected role of TIME apologist, I will hazard this guess - suppose Special Counsel Fitzgerald is asking Ms. Novak about information she may have passed to Robert Luskin. Specifically, suppose Ms. Novak told Mr. Luskin in May of 2004 that Matt Cooper believed he was being subpoenaed to testify about his side of a conversation with Karl Rove.

Well, then - it is far from clear why her questions would be covered by any concept of source confidentiality. But if Luskin had been alerted in May 2004 that Cooper had talked top Rove, why did it take so long to discover the missing email?

It's just a guess. Now I'll tell you something that is not a guess - TIME ought to have explained this in their statement. Are they or are they not still attempting to protect their sources?

More links to possibly-relevant Viveca Novak articles here, and more links to follow. And as to how or why Fitzgerald discovered this link now, as opposed to a year ago, I have no idea."

1 posted on 11/28/2005 6:03:54 AM PST by frankjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: frankjr

Any relationship between Viveca and Bob Novak?


2 posted on 11/28/2005 6:08:19 AM PST by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redbob

No relation on those two, but I'm beginning to wonder if Patrick Fitzgerald and Ronnie Earle may not be long lost cousins.


3 posted on 11/28/2005 6:12:39 AM PST by Chuck54 (Free Scooter, Indict Joe W)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: frankjr
Cooper called Rove on July 11th via the Whitehouse Switchboard. Cooper was transferred to Rove's Office and because the call originated at the switchboard, the call DID NOT appear in Rove's phone log.

There was a little Asian girl (I think she was Asian) who testified at the end as to how the phone transfers work.

Cooper didn't get through to Libby until July 12th.

Now, why the hell would either Libby or Rove pass info "to spin" to a Dem Operative who is married to Mandy Grunwald who (by coincidence) is Hillary's best friend and MEDIA advisor. Mandy was also Bubba's campaign manager.

This whole thing was about getting rid of Rove so Mandy wouldn't be up against him when Hillary mounts her broom.

4 posted on 11/28/2005 6:14:12 AM PST by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redbob

What about Kim?


5 posted on 11/28/2005 6:14:57 AM PST by rabidralph
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: frankjr

Is it just me of has the whole Plame affair sunk to ridiculousness? And why is Fitzgerald being paid on my nickel to continue this foolishness?


6 posted on 11/28/2005 6:18:05 AM PST by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chuck54
"I'm beginning to wonder if Patrick Fitzgerald and Ronnie Earle may not be long lost cousins."

LOL!
Indeed, but not "lost" enough to suit me.

7 posted on 11/28/2005 6:20:34 AM PST by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rabidralph
"What about Kim?"

Hmm, now there's a thought...

Sorta the Melanie Griffith of her time, eh?

8 posted on 11/28/2005 6:23:02 AM PST by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: frankjr

Just when is this guy going to stop wasting the taxpayers money? She was not covert at the time of her so called "outing". The man who wrote the law says this does not even qualify. Could someone tell me why this partisan hack is allowed to continue with this drivel?


9 posted on 11/28/2005 6:37:24 AM PST by joe fonebone (Well, since there's no other place around the place, ah reckon this must be the place..ah reckon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
Here is the part I do not yet understand: let's suppose Rove is forced to resign. What prevents him from using a phone/fax/email/private meetings to STILL plan strategy? What prevents him from writing books and op eds? Can they interdict his brain? Has he failed to train people to run various portions of the election campaign machinery?

This is all about trying to change perceptions, not reality.
The donks are still having Lee Atwater nightmares, fifteen years after his death. They wouldn't let up on demonizing Rove if he were gone, either.
10 posted on 11/28/2005 6:51:04 AM PST by reformedliberal (Bless our troops and pray for our nation. I am thankful for both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Redbob

She was much better looking than Melanie Griffin, especially after Melanie aged a bit.


11 posted on 11/28/2005 7:06:31 AM PST by calex59 (Seeing the light shouldn't make you blind...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: frankjr

This Times reporter is no doubt expected to hang Rove, or she will lose her job at the Times, too.


12 posted on 11/28/2005 7:56:05 AM PST by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly

Sorry, wrong company. My bad.


13 posted on 11/28/2005 8:03:00 AM PST by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: reformedliberal
The whole idea is to weaken the Republican Party. Just like the Dems "distanced themselves" from Berger (and Wilson), the Republicans would have to do the same.

Not only that, Rove would not be privy to "Classified" information and would lose his security clearance. You can't decide what to do without background.

It's not like you can make Rove invisible. If he's around, you'd hear "convicted felon", "Security breech" 24/7 until he was back in the pasteur.

14 posted on 11/28/2005 8:09:29 AM PST by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

The Dems didn't have to distance themselves from Berger - the news media suddenly went comatose on that story.


15 posted on 11/28/2005 8:29:38 AM PST by popdonnelly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: calex59

"it must have been moonglow..."

Anyone who saw her dance with William Holden to the song Moonglow in the film Picnic will never forget her.


16 posted on 11/28/2005 8:36:05 AM PST by wildbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Chuck54

They are direct descendents of William Bligh


17 posted on 11/28/2005 8:36:24 AM PST by woofie (Hating GW Bush Never Fed a Hungry Child)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Fitz is apparently obsessed with proving that Rove deliberately covered up that July 11th convo with Cooper and nailing him with perjury charges for it. That is the only explanation for calling this reporter to talk about her discussions with Rove's lawyer. He must think that perhaps Luskin told Ms. Novak something about Rive's recollection or documentation that differed from what Rove told the GJ. But I don't think that is admissible in court, it is hearsay and Luskin cannot be called to testify against his client.


18 posted on 11/28/2005 9:10:22 AM PST by Dems_R_Losers (The Kerry/Lehane/Wilson/Grunwald/Cooper plot to destroy Karl Rove has failed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dems_R_Losers

If Fitz is fishing for some inconsistency in Rove's testimony about the Cooper conversation, and tries to pin an indictment on this, it is going to look ridiculous, particularly after Woodward and Pincus publicly differed on the nature of THEIR conversation, and since Miller had also failed to remember one of her meetings with Libby. It is going to look like Fitz is selectiviely prosecuting only those targets who happen to be members of the Bush administration.


19 posted on 11/28/2005 11:21:33 AM PST by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dems_R_Losers
But I don't think that is admissible in court, it is hearsay and Luskin cannot be called to testify against his client.

Can Fitzgerald break attorney-client privilege between Luskin and Rove by accusing Luskin of wrongdoing here? If so, he could compel Luskin to reveal everything he and Rove discussed. Besides opening that gold mine up to a grand jury, Fitzgerald would be sending a message to every attorney in DC - don't even think of trying to get in my way on this! I'd like to think that there's no way Fitzgerald could get away with such an outrageous abuse of his power, but with all the Dims and the MSM likely cheering such a move on, and with the general spinelessness of the GOP and their lack of any care beyond getting themselves re-elected, I just don't know any more.

20 posted on 11/28/2005 11:37:35 AM PST by CFC__VRWC ("Anytime a liberal squeals in outrage, an angel gets its wings!" - gidget7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-23 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson