BOB NOVAK, My Leak Case Testimony - Cites Who's Who as source

The Drudge Report ^ | july, 11,2006 | drudge

[blogblogginaway]

BOB NOVAK, My Leak Case Testimony: 'I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in 'Who's Who in America'... MORE Published reports that I took the Fifth Amendment, made a plea bargain with the prosecutors or was a prosecutorial target were all untrue... MORE... My primary source has not come forward to identify himself... Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column confirming Mrs. Wilson's identity. I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in 'Who's Who in America'... I answered questions using the names of Rove, Harlow and my primary source... I considered his wife's role in initiating Wilson's mission, later confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Committee, to be a previously undisclosed part of an important news story. I reported it on that basis.

[Common Tator]

What if it's Colin Powell??? THAT would be great!!

Colin Powell has never gotten his own hands dirty in his entire life. More than likely it is someone who worked for Powell.

But you can bet that Novak is not going to reveal that source anytime soon. Novak is going to discuss his testimony before the grand jury while keeping the name of his primary source a secret.

[Common Tator]

The answer: he (Rove) had not yet incriminated himself.

Novak's latest column contains the following:

I have revealed Rove's name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection

What in the world does that mean?

If there is a conflict between their recollections then why was Rove not indicted? Was the conflict less important than the conflict between Russert's testimony and Libby's?

If there were very minor differences in their recollections then why would Novak bother to include that fact in his column?

With all the information left out of this columm, why would Novak go to great pains to state that he only included Rove's name in this article becuase he and Rove's attorney disagree on was said in Rove-Novak conversation about Plame.

This does not compute.

[Common Tator]

I thought Rove said something like you heard that too

Yes that is what I recall as well. Rove's attorney said Rove told Novak, "I have heard the same thing!" An admission that one has heard the same "rumor" is not a confirmation that the "rumor" is true.

But Novak is quick to claim that his recollection of his conversation with Rove differs with Rove's attorney's report about that conversation.

The journalistic rule is two sources must confirm. The Rove comment does not qualify as a confirmation. Thus Novak had to go to the third source... the CIA guy to get a second confirmation about Plame's job in the CIA.

Could it be that Novak told Fitzmas that Rove did not confirm that Plame worked in the CIA and let it drop at that point? Could it be that Novak in his testimony never mentioned that Rove said, "I have heard the same thing."?

Rove had to be the one that told Fizmas about the "I have heard the same thing." comment.

That might very well be the difference between the Novak testimony and the Rove testimony.

How do you indict Rove for remembering something that Novak did not mention in his testimony.

That might very well explain the difference between the two recollections. And Novak wants Rove to know what the difference was. I think Novak wants Rove to know he was not out to trap him.

[ltc8k6]

Well, I was wrong about the date that Fitz knew all the players. Fitz already knew what Novak was going to say, because he already had waivers from all of Novak's sources when Novak went in to testify.

So, Fitz knew all the players long before 1/14/04, including the primary source.

As far as I can see, Fitz couldn't have been hunting Rove, because according to Novak, Fitz already knew for sure that Rove wasn't the primary source. Fitz had already spoken to the primary source.

Novak's testimony on 1/14/04 merely confirmed what Fitz already knew.

So, whatever Fitz was doing, he couldn't have been looking for the person who outed Plame.

[Perdogg]

Spin of the day from the WaPost:

Novak said he and Rove had differing recollections of what happened when he asked about Plame. Novak recalls Rove saying, "Oh, you know that, too?" Rove, according to Corallo, has said he responded, "I've heard that, too

[Peach]

That's a distinction without a difference, isn't it?

I know the left will try to make hay out of that, but I don't see it.

[LS]

It never aired. I swear I taped it, in NY. Oh well, you'll have to make do with hearing me on RUSH today! (second hour!)

[bcsco]

"That's a distinction without a difference, isn't it?"

Not when you're a political operative talking to the press. To admit knowing something is different than admitting 'hearing' the same thing. 'Knowing' is confirmation; 'hearing' is gossip.

[Perdogg]

In this context, there is no difference. The English phrase "heard that.." is synonymous with to know something without necessarily knowing where one learned it.

I would not consider it material per Section 1623.

[bcsco]

"The English phrase "heard that.." is synonymous with to know something without necessarily knowing where one learned it."

I would agree in general. However, I parsed my comment by saying 'when talking to the press'. My point was that one cannot be too careful in such instances as they will hear what they want to hear.

I still believe that stating that one 'heard' something 'too' can be differentiated from 'I knew that' by someone with an agenda. That's my point.

[Common Tator]

"Oh, you know that, too?"

That is such an unnatural phrase. "Oh, you know about that, too?" would seem more likely.

"Have you heard that the moon is made of green cheese?" a reply of "Oh you know that, too?" or "I've heard that too." does not confirm anything.

It is a comment by Rove on what Novak KNOWs and perhaps others know. It is not a comment on what Rove Knows to be the truth.

But what blows my mind is why NOVAK would leak to the Washington Post. He works for the Chicago Tribune. The Tribune people get ticked if an employee leaks to another paper.

Could it be that Fitzmas or someone leaking at Fitzmas's direction is the Post's source? I find it hard to belive that Novak is the source. If he were going to leak it, it would go to his employer.. the Chicago Tribune.

[kabar]

I am not disputing the fact that Wilson is a liar. The Senate Intelligence Report said as much. The point that I am trying to make is that Wilson was sent to Africa in 1999 and 2002 as boondagles on the CIA's tab so he could conduct personal business. He was not paid anything for his work except the plane fare. Thus, eliminating any audit trail.

Wilson appeared more upset about possible charges of nepotism than anything else, and for good reason. He and his wife concocted the two trips so he could conduct personal business. Sending Wilson made no sense for a variety of reasons. The information that the agency wanted could have just as easily been obtained by the Embassy.

After the fact, Wilson used his trip to further his political ambitions. He saw an opportunity after the STOU address and the Kerry campaign and took it. The Agency cabal may have been egging him on at that point, but the 2002 trip (and the earlier one in 1999) were, IMO, not part of some grand, sinister plot.

[maica]

I may be in the minority here, but IMHO Novak has been a class act here, defending journalistic principles while cooperating with the investigation and not grandstanding ... *and* not giving the Lefties their "Fitzmas".

&&&&


Well said.

[Barset]

Thanks for the ping Purrcival. Captainsquarters has an excellent round-up of the Novak/Plame story and where Kurtz and company are going (or not going) with it.
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com

[maica]

Regarding the reporter who sat in jail, we have to remember that she was persona non grata at the New York Times. Judith Miller wrote the articles supporting the Administration's claims of Saddam having WMD, etc. That made her, in the eyes of the NYT, a collaberator with Bush/Rumsfeld in starting the war.

Perhaps, she was worried that Fitz was going to ask her more about these sources. I think she was very worried about Fitz asking her about her phone calls to the Holy Land Bank, prior to 2003. I also think that she was setting herself up for a career beyond the NYT.

[maica]

Your conclusion is the logical one. Wilson went to Africa on personal business, and being the lowlife that he is, used it later to ingratiate himself with Kerry.

[bcsco]

Thanks! I'll check it out when I get back from some errands.

Jimbo

[Just mythoughts]

True enough, regarding that Senate Intelligence Report, but look who the liberal Senate players are that helped put that report together. The Republicans continuously look like they are caught with their pants down.

My reasoning comes from what John Ashcroft informed us during the 9/11 Soviet style commission, how the previous administration built walls within and around government agencies NOT for the purpose of protecting our national security but for the purpose of self protection.

Those wall builders were in charge when Joe Wilson went to Niger in 1999, and the powers that be knew where they planted every potential operative, and glory be, how convenient to have that guy for a repeat performance.

Of course Joe Wilson was about making a dollar, what we do not know is who in that stealth government was facilitating him in money making ventures.

It was in the interest of players higher up the chain for Wilson to be discredited yet why no investigation about Wilson and how it came to be that his woman a supposed no named, nonpolitical entity would have the power to send him her hubby on such a critical intel gathering mission.

I think it is more likely that Wilson suggested to his wife him going rather than her asking him.

[syriacus]

Her bio at that link (love of a lost family pet, kind hearted) reminds me of the Schindler's bio of Terri Schiavo.

The difference in treatment of Terri and Valerie by the MSM is telling

A little background....Both Terri and Valerie
1. were born in 1963,
2. spent their high school years in Huntingdon Valley, PA,
3. married liars.

Valerie ostensibly gets to keep her "covert operative" job at the CIA, even though she suffers from a mental breakdown.

Terri, gets labelled PVS by professional euthanasiacs and labelled "brain-dead" by the MSM, deprived of mental stimulation, and killed at her husband's request.

Valerie, a journalism major, gets her name in a Novak column and the FBI investigates a crime that never occurred. Bush got blamed for being behind the publication of her name.

Terri got killed because a judge disobeyed a law which was passed by Congress and was signed by the President. Bush got blamed for trying to save her life.

The MSM feels sorry for "outed" Valerie, but not for "killed" Terri.

DRUDGE: JOE WILSON SAYS THERE HAVE BEEN THREATS AGAINST VALERIE PLAME

[Peach]

That's an excellent explanation of this ridiculous case; much ado about nothing. And since Fitzgerald has always known who Novak's sources were, and didn't indict, I'd say Fitzy boy has some explaining to do.