The hubbub is about nothing. Please see my post #376 in this thread for an explanation.
Why did a reporter sit in jail?
Miller sat in jail to hype her book. The far more interesting question is why did Novak not sit in jail? And we now have the answer.
What the hell has Fitzgerald been doing all this time?
Why is he bothering with Libby?
The answers to these two questions are related: there is actually some fire to all the David Shuster/TruthOUT/DUmmie smoke. The answer is that Fitzgerald has been trying to snare Karl Rove in a perjury trap for most of the last two years. He has been unable to do that because there was no crime in the first place, and--unlike Libby's--Rove's recollections have been clear enough that he hasn't made a contradictory statement that can be maneuvered into a perjury charge.
Everyone has been asking: "why has Rove been asked to appear before the Grand Jury so many times?" The answer: he had not yet incriminated himself. Fritz tried to rattle Karl Rove via the DC rumor mill, and with Libby's indictment, and he failed. He was almost certainly the target of Fitz's investigation all along. The problem was, Rove wouldn't allow a corrupt prosecutor to manufacture a crime against him. Novak's revelations make that pretty obvious, although you do need to connect the dots.
This would be hilarious if it weren't so serious.
It's not hilarious, and it is serious. Opportunistists in the intelligence community and their allies in the Democrat party saw a chance to embarrass the President. Luckily, they have failed. The President should pardon Libby before he leaves office, if Libby hasn't already been acquitted by then.
bttt
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.
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.
There is no truth in the truthout story. It was a fabrication and nonsense. Fitz was probably trying to snare Rove, yes, but the two things are apples and oranges and you are making quite a reach.