Red Rover

Viveca Novak has provided testimony for Patrick Fitzgerald concerning her conversation with Karl Rove's attorney, Bob Luskin. She's written about her testimony for Time. First of all, like Judy Miller, Novak has some credibility problems in that she can't seem to recall when the conversation with Luskin took place. She originally testified that it could have been in January or May, most likely May. She then testified again that it might have been March 1, based on her calendar.

But for me the oddest thing is how this whole thing came about. Rove's defense is that he didn't intentionally fail to reveal his call with Cooper; he just forgot about it. However, this is how Novak says her meeting with Luskin unfolded:

Here's what happened. Toward the end of one of our meetings, I remember Luskin
looking at me and saying something to the effect of "Karl doesn't have a Cooper
problem. He was not a source for Matt." I responded instinctively, thinking he
was trying to spin me, and said something like, "Are you sure about that? That's
not what I hear around TIME." He looked surprised and very serious. "There's
nothing in the phone logs," he said.

Yet at the time of Novak's conversation with Luskin, there hadn't been speculation that "Karl had a Cooper problem." Yes, Cooper had written a story about Plame. But in the beginning of 2004 there weren't accusations swirling around that Rove was a source for Cooper. So it seems really, really odd that Luskin would have made that statement to Novak. It would be like me posting, "WaxWorks does not contribute funds to the Iraqi insurgency," when no such accusation has ever been made. Asserting such a thing points to a guilty conscience.

Until Cooper got subpoened in May, there wasn't much speculation period about Cooper. And I suspect that is ultimately the point. Rove thought he could get away with not telling prosecutors about his conversation with Cooper, because Cooper wasn't talking and no one else knew. Therein likely lies the purpose behind Luskin's conversation with Novak: he was seeking intelligence about whether anyone else knew about the Cooper conversation.

Remember Scooter Libby's letter to Judy Miller, providing her a waiver to testify? Luskin's statement to Novak is actually quite similar to Libby informing Judy Miller, while on the one hand giving her permission to talk about any conversations they had concerning Plame, that "the public report of every other reporter's testimony makes clear that they did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity with me, or knew about her before our call." It's now clear from the indictment that this statement simply wasn't true -- or was at best purposefully misleading.

In essence, Luskin, like Libby, appeared to be fishing to confirm that a tactic of continuing to deny that Rove spoke with Cooper would be effective. Instead, he got the opposite and Rove ultimately faced the music and changed his testimony. Interesting too that Rove did so only 2 days after Cooper was held in contempt, not immediately after Luskin spoke with Novak. Sounds like he knew that the gig was up.

For what it's worth, I don't think this Luskin-Novak conversation saves Rove from prosecution for failing to inform investigators that he spoke to Novak about Plame. Especially since Libby's indictment, in paragraph 21, makes clear that Rove told LIBBY that he spoke to Novak, but somehow Rove forgot to tell the FBI the same thing.
- posted by Joshua @ 5:22 PM