Viveca Novak's Story
The Viveca Novak piece is finally out in Time. Unfortunately, it's not very revealing. She says that she testified in deposition to Fitzgerald that she had told Rove's lawyer that Rove probably had a problem if he said he hadn't talked to Time's Cooper. Unfortunately, she claims she cannot remember whether this conversation took place in January, March, or May 2004. She said she thinks May is the most likely date and March the next most likely, but she's just not sure.
Apparently, Rove's lawyer,Luskin, told Fitzgerald the conversation was in January, a month before Rove testified that he had not talked to Cooper about Plame.
Subsequently, Rove changed his testimony, saying that an e-mail he had come across in a search triggered by his lawyer's conversation with Viveca refreshed his memory about the conversation with Cooper.
I'm not really clear on exactly why Luskin thinks the early date helps his client. If the conversation took place before Rove's false testimony, you'd think his lawyer would have warned him in advance. Since Rove ultimately changed his testimony, why wouldn't he have testified truthfully in the first place if he had known someone might ultimately rat on him? Since he didn't testify truthfully in the first instance, a later date for the conversation makes it look as though the conversation tipped him off that he had better fix his testimony or face the possibility of a perjury or obstruction charge.
Still,the actual date doesn't seem to settle the question in my mind. Either way, it's possible (albeit unlikely) that Rove's story is true. That is, that Viveca's conversation triggered a search for documents to confirm whether or not Rove had talked to Cooper and that the e-mail eventually turned up, leading Rove to change his testimony.
It just doesn't seem to me that this could be the pin on which Fitzgerald's decision whether or not to indict Rove hinges. He's got to have something much more substantive than this.
Viveca does say that she failed to tell Time about her discussions with Luskin and, later, Fitzgerald, until she was subpoenoed to testify in deposition. She's now on a leave of absence.
Apparently, Rove's lawyer,Luskin, told Fitzgerald the conversation was in January, a month before Rove testified that he had not talked to Cooper about Plame.
Subsequently, Rove changed his testimony, saying that an e-mail he had come across in a search triggered by his lawyer's conversation with Viveca refreshed his memory about the conversation with Cooper.
I'm not really clear on exactly why Luskin thinks the early date helps his client. If the conversation took place before Rove's false testimony, you'd think his lawyer would have warned him in advance. Since Rove ultimately changed his testimony, why wouldn't he have testified truthfully in the first place if he had known someone might ultimately rat on him? Since he didn't testify truthfully in the first instance, a later date for the conversation makes it look as though the conversation tipped him off that he had better fix his testimony or face the possibility of a perjury or obstruction charge.
Still,the actual date doesn't seem to settle the question in my mind. Either way, it's possible (albeit unlikely) that Rove's story is true. That is, that Viveca's conversation triggered a search for documents to confirm whether or not Rove had talked to Cooper and that the e-mail eventually turned up, leading Rove to change his testimony.
It just doesn't seem to me that this could be the pin on which Fitzgerald's decision whether or not to indict Rove hinges. He's got to have something much more substantive than this.
Viveca does say that she failed to tell Time about her discussions with Luskin and, later, Fitzgerald, until she was subpoenoed to testify in deposition. She's now on a leave of absence.
posted by walldon | 2:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home