Novak’s July 7 Meeting

/in /by

Credit where it’s due. Tom Maguire hits all the right notes about this Novak book excerpt, save one. He notes that Novak’s story has a way of changing with the seasons.

Interesting.  This old post has the Novak version before he was willing to name Armitage; here is Novak (post-"Hubris") rebutting Armitage’s version.

There are subtle shifts in the story – now we are told that "Hementioned her first name, Valerie", a detail not presented earlier.

I love the way righties note how changeable Novak’s story is–yet they always seem to fall for his most ridiculous lines. Like about how, when he referred to Valerie Plame as a covert Agent, he really meant she was running a Congressional campaign in Wyoming (no really–he did say that once–you think he’s got former Congressmen from Wyoming on his mind)?

Oh wait. This is a credit where it’s due post. Sorry. Maguire also points out that Novak’s cover story about Fran Townsend is changing too.

OK, we have had that before – the prevailing version as told by Murray Waas has been that the Townsend column came out on July 10;Rove defended her to Novak at length on the 8th or 9th, and then Novakslipped in a question about Wilson’s wife and Karl responded with "Iheard that, too".

But now Novak tells us that the Townsend column was written on July7.  Hmm – in that case, what did he and Karl find to talk about on July8 or 9?  Or had Rove "heard that, too" in a chat with Novak on the 7theven before Novak met with Armitage?

Well done, Maguire. Posts like these are why you’re a respectable Plameologist.

But Maguire misses one point. A big one. An awfully big one. You see, Novak says he was reporting on Townsend on July 7, before (Maguire accepts Novak here) he called Rove. Maguire points out how that may or may not challenge Novak’s cover story about calling Rove to talk about Townsend. But he doesn’t do the obvious–like asking who, if not Rove, Novak was talking to about Townsend on July 7. I’ll remind you of this passage in Murray Waas’ story on this issue (which Maguire links but apparently doesn’t re-read that closely).

The senior staff in the Office of the Vice President adamantly opposedTownsend’s appointment. The staff included two of Cheney’s closestaides: Libby, then the chief of staff and national security adviser tothe vice president; and David Addington, who at the time was Cheney’scounsel but who has since succeeded Libby as chief of staff.

Among other things, Libby and Addington believed that Townsendwould bring a more traditional approach to combating terrorism, andfeared she would not sign on to, indeed might even oppose, the OVP’spolicy of advocating the use of aggressive and controversial toolsagainst terror suspects. One of those techniques is known as"extraordinary rendition," in which terror suspects are taken toforeign countries, where they can be interrogated without the samelegal and human-rights protections afforded to those in U.S. custody,including the protection from torture.

Libby’s opposition to Townsend was so intense that he asked atleast two other people in the White House to obtain her personnelrecords. [my emphasis]

Now who do you think Novak might have been talking to on July 7? Who do you think might have seeded the Townsend story that she was a Democrat and shouldn’t be hired? Golly. I can’t even begin to guess. And mind you, Novak would have to have been talking to someone intimately involved in the 16 words controversy, because that’s why he brings this up in the first place. And according to his (changing) testimony, the 16 words was precisely what he spoke to Libby about.

Good thing we know that Libby and Novak would have been forthcoming about it if they had had a meeting on July 7, huh?

Two more nitpicky points. First, I’ll reiterate my point that if Novak initiated his question to Armitage by saying, "Joe Wilson never worked at the CIA," it still raises the question of why he believed that, when Wilson’s resume (or Who’s Who entry, since Novak claims to be a fan) wouldn’t be enough to make that claim. He wouldn’t know that, definitively, unless someone with clearance had told him.

And lastly, this is, necessarily, unmitigated bullshit.

When I went to my office Monday, July 7, 2003, Joe Wilson was not in the forefront of my mind. Frances Fragos Townsend was.

The reason this is clearly bullshit is because Novak is simultaneously (at least as of February) arguing that the reason he called Wilson an "asshole" to Wilson’s friend on July 8 is because he was so pissed at how rude (ha! some fierce pot-calling here) Wilson was on Meet the Press, on July 6. Novak has basically argued (for the sake of pretending he didn’t speak to someone before he spoke to Armitage) that he was obsessed with what an asshole Wilson was from the time Novak ran into him in the Green Room to the time he ran into Wilson’s friend on the street. That is, he was fuming about that asshole Joe Wilson from July 6 to July 8.

Which is it, Novak? Were you fuming for two days straight? Or did you speak to someone on July 7–someone who wanted Townsend fired, like Scooter Libby–who told you Wilson was an asshole?

  1. albert fall says:

    Could an SJC team interview Novak on these points under oath (maybe away from the cameras)?

    The call Scooter for a hearing under oath, with Fitzgerald and EW for backup.

    Either get the truth, or nail Scooter, or Novak, or both for lying to Congress.

  2. looseheadprop says:

    So, you think Novack and Scooter are hiding a conversation that WOULD make Scooter novack’s source?

    THAT would be TOO delicious.

    Oh, the irony –if only you can prove it. You know how much I love irony (the happy kind that gives me the giggles, not the bitter kind)

  3. Anonymous says:

    LHP

    It might be more complicated than that.

    We still don’t know why Mary Matalin was one of the first people called to testify at the end of January 2004. I’ve long suspected she had calls to Novak (the other people involved may have too, as Novak tried to leave messages for people).

    What would be interesting about that, though is that:

    1) Matalin called Wilson a snake–and Fitz wanted to be sure to get that into the record. She’s the only one who was caught using really nasty language about Wilson.

    2) Matalin was speaking about â€getting the whole story out†on July 10 (when she told Libby to call Russert and do so). In short, I think we might be able to prove that Matalin knew of Plame’s identity. And I wouldn’t put it beyond her to first seed the FFT smear, and to plant the seed in Novak’s head to find out why Wilson got sent.

    In any case, I’m quite certain the July 7 date is significant–it really shreds a lot of NOvak’s previously operative stories.

  8. radiofreewill says:

    EW – That makes the most sense. Matalin was ’press managing’ the torpedo piece on Townsend between Libby and Novak when Joe’s Op-Ed hit.

    After Libby and Novak put the finishing-off touches on Townsend on the 7th, Novak refers Libby to Joe’s Op-Ed (next bite of the apple for ol’ Bob, he’s always thinkin’) and they discuss the 16 Words [forgeries]. Libby says Wilson is an asshole, let’s talk again.

    Matalin’s new project becomes ’Get Joe Wilson’ – featuring veteren leakers Libby and Novak – for using his CIA wife Valerie Plame to disclose sensitive half-truths gleened from a nepotistic boondoggle she sent him on.

    If Cheney was trying to punk Valerie’s name through the press, it’s hard not to imagine Matalin involved, despite her not having a clearance.

    The first thing Cheney does the next day – 7:30am – is instruct Libby to leak ’something’ to the journalist Miller – something that Libby knew to be up-to-then-still-formally-classified.

    The next five days are a Leak-a-thon. One would think there had to be press coordination, even if the internal ’communicators’ got cut out.

  9. freepatriot says:

    why would any rational person believe a fucking word novakula says ???

    is there a player in this case with LESS credibility ???

  10. freepatriot says:

    yo, albert fall, check out Truthout

    seems that the SJC CAN and WILL have a little talk with Patrick Fitzgerald

    apparently â€old magic bullet arlen specter†isn’t much of a reader, cuz he can’t figure out what the scooter libby case is all about

    how dumb does arlen specter think we are ???

    don’t answer that …

  11. tnhblog says:

    EW, another question is why did Novak change his testimony? He previously testified that it was on July 9 that Rove confirmed. Does he have a suspicion that the feds or someone else have evidence that he spoke to Rove about Plame-Wilson on July 8? Of course, he could have spoken to Libby about Plame on July 7, as well. This was a concerted, orchestrated effort, designed to hide the perpetrators.

  12. freepatriot says:

    Micheal Moore is ripping wolf bliter a new asshole right now

    anybody think blitzy will apologize ???

  13. Ishmael says:

    EW – off topic, but something that’s been bugging me nonetheless. I was wondering why SJC contented itself with Sara Taylor, and HJC took on Harriet Miers? Clearly Harriet is the one who can pull the John Dean moment here, and the SJC people are much better equipped to question her than HJC, at least on past performance. One thing that has occurred to me, is that impeachment proceedings must begin in the House – would this have anything to do with why they zeroed in on Harriet?

  14. Frank Probst says:

    My fantasy legal ruling:

    1. Judge Walton rules that Bush has an absolute right to commute Libby’s jail sentence but leave his â€supervised release†intact.
    2. Judge Walton rules that, as part of Libby’s â€supervised releaseâ€, Walton has an absolute right to throw Libby’s ass in jail for up to a year for a variety of reasons.
    3. Judge Walton asks Libby if he’d like to express ANY remorse for his crimes.
    4. Libby says no.
    5. Walton tosses Libby in jail for a year.
    6. Walton quotes James Madison saying that the proper response for such an abuse of presidential power is impeachment and removal from office.
    7. Walton writes the whole case up and refers it to the US House of Representatives for â€further reviewâ€.

  15. Anonymous says:

    What gets me most about this issue is two things. One, you have a Beltway media that is more than willing to play its bit part in the charade just to â€get it first.†Trust me, Matalin only goes out torpedo-ing because there are all to many hacks willing to play along to get the story. Two, why can’t Democrats, who control congress, get more of a backbone. They seem to be, well, marshmellowing Bush. What are they afraid of? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a lot of love for the left side of the aisle, but I thought for sure the Dems could get something going over the recent scandals. Some argue here that the Bush Administration is robbing the till. But the Keystone cops routine that passes for the Democrats most days can’t seem to hit the softball hanging over the plate. I still have to remind my liberal friends that this is the guy who the Democrats couldn’t beat.

  16. Anonymous says:

    Ishmael

    I actually think she’d be the more interesting witness. Harriet does have a proper role in the hiring and firing of USAs. Taylor doesn’t. Furthermore, Harriet appears to have been SIGNIFICANTLY more moderate in her actions on this issue. Taylor was pushing hard for DOJ to treat Griffin as a full PATRIOT. So if someone can prove they did intend to appoint him forever, she may know it.

  17. tnhblog says:

    Another angle on this is that Rove must also have testified that he confirmed on July 9, or it wouldn’t have become public record. Both Novak and Rove must have denied speaking about Plame on July 8. So both Rove and Novak are in danger of perjury charges.

  18. undecided says:

    EW-

    Have you ever seen the picture of Townsend and Barbara Comstock having cocktails? They look rather friendly to me, especially considering Comstock’s relationship to Libby.

    Try googling it.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Bill

    You’ll find plenty here who are tired of the keystone routine, trust me. We’re doing what we can to change it.

  20. kim says:

    RE: Matalin My bias has always been that a guy would feel some qualms about going after someone’s wife in a political fight, but a woman wouldn’t.

    Imagine Fitzgerald had prosecuted Matalin instead of Libby, what a spectacle… Libby protecting Matalin with his crazy lies might make sense, also the DC press protecting Matalin and Libby, Matalin leading the Libby Defense Fund, and finally the commuted sentence.

  21. Jeff says:

    Does Novak tell us the Townsend column was written on July 7? Or only that he was reporting it – i.e. he was working on the story?

    But in any case, it would appear that Mr. Maguire needs to read a certain book a little more carefully, because it was already clear from Novak’s testimony that the story about Townsend, even if it is true that Novak and Rove discussed her on July 8 or 9, was effectively a cover story. From p. 414, the intro to Novak’s testimony:

    Novak testifies below that when he talked with Rove, he was mainly interested in Joe Wilson’s mission to Niger and asked him a number of questions about it.

    And the relevant passage from Novak’s testimony itself is on p. 417.

  22. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Novakula and Rove have shared leaks, perhaps coffins, for two decades. With Rove in the WH, as close as Cheney to the boy king, Novak would have imagined himself the most well-connected columnist in DC. But like the funeral director in The Godfather, he would have known that Rove might call on his services at any time.

    The July 9th call between Novak and Rove seems staged to deal with Townsend as an obvious topic when Joe Wilson was the hot button of the day. That call took place a month after the Kristoff column, which sparked Shrub’s, then Cheney and Libby’s interest in Wilson/Plame; and three days after the Wilson OpEd, which must have released a firestorm. Joe Wilson had publicly called the president a liar a month after his Mission Accomplished strut on the aircraft carrier. The start of the year-long 2004 presidential election season was not far off. It would have been impossible for Rove and Novak not to talk about Wilson.

    As EW and Murray Waas point out in detail, the Cheney/Libby/Addington attack on Townsend is simultaneous with the outing of Plame and uses some of the same brutal methods. Obtaining confidential or secret records and leaking items to the press in order to destroy reputations. It also illustrates Cheney/Libby/Addington’s willingness to bureaucratically geld even the president to promote their own agenda and network.

  23. Jeff says:

    Having read the Novak excerpt now, I see the suggestion that he was finished with the column on Townsend by about noon on July 8, so before his conversation with Rove. So that just means that the story that Team Rove floated to the press was even more of a cover-up than Novak’s own testimony at trial had already made clear.

  24. desertwind says:

    RE: Matalin. I always thought that using Valerie was straight out of the mean girls rulebook.

  25. R.H. Green says:

    EW,
    I’m new to writing, but have gotten the EW & coffee habit for some time now.
    I checked out your link to the old Novak. From there I linked to the Who’s Who entry that Novak would have seen. It mentions Joe Wilson’s personal data including being married to Valerie Elise Plame in 1999. This got me to thinking about something I’ve found puzzling ever since learning that J. Miller wrote Valerie Flame in her notes at the St. Regis. That something is: why leak the name of Plame? The story being sold was that Wilson was sent on a trip by his wife, whom most people would assume to be Something Wilson. That is, Wilson and Wilson, husband and wife, concocted a junket.
    I remember someone(you?)mentioning that Cheney had some occasion to encounter Valerie Plame during to Gulf war, and may have had an eye on torpedoeing her since before she became a Wilson. It seems to me that it would be and much easier to wrap her around Joe Wilson’s neck if she were simply called Valerie Wilson. Yet that wasn’t the name leaked.
    Am I getting too deep into the grass here?

  26. BillE says:

    I had read that there was a CIA liaison character to Bolton at State who knew Valerie Plame in the agency. He may have never know about marriage but knew her personally. This guy was apparently a major source of info for Bolton. Does anybody remember the name of this joker?

  27. Eve in NYC says:

    I know this is way EPU’d, but . . . does anyone have thoughts about why Mary Matalin would have agreed to be a main character in â€K Street†(that fascinating, short-lived realtiy/fiction show on HBO) if she actually was at the center of the crime right from the start? Her being a suspect in the case was a major focus on the show, while it lasted. Seems quite extraordinarily foolhardy of her. Unless she thought she could manipulate the situation somehow through the show? Or was she simply overcome by her narcissism/grandiosity? –or couldn’t say no to George Clooney?? (I see that there’s earlier discussion of that show w/r/t the Plame case in the comments at http://thenexthurrah.typepad.c…..aspe.html. But it seems even more puzzling in the new context, no?)

  28. Anonymous says:

    BillE

    That was Fred Fleitz, Bolton’s Chief of Staff and on loan from WINPAC. Last I checked, he worked for the House Intelligence Committee.

    Eve

    We’ve talked about that from time to time–it sure seems like it was intentional, doesn’t it?

    I think the correct answer is narcissism. And a feeling of power.

    I can say this, though. Her letter supporting clemency was by far the most brilliant of the whole bunch. She’s shrewd as fell.

  30. oldtree says:

    great work as usual Marcy; and I have this sneaking feeling that the bloodsucker comes to visit your site to find out who has caught him in a lie, again, and probably daily. The very idea of fat bob having fits about your destroying his less than honest journalistic career by pointing out that he is and has been nothing short of a tool, is a fitting reward to a traitor
    thanks