Mike Allen's front page story tonight parallels the
NYT story, and it is clear from reading the two stories that the same unnamed person is driving both stories.
In the NYT lede, it says
Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser, spoke with the columnist Robert D. Novak as he was preparing an article in July 2003 that identified a C.I.A. officer who was undercover, someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said.
In the Wash Post lede, we see a little more detail aout who this source is:
White House official Karl Rove indirectly confirmed the identity of a CIA operative for Robert D. Novak the week before the columnist named her and revealed her connection to an administration critic, a lawyer involved in the case said last night.
The lawyer, who has firsthand knowledge of the conversations between Rove and prosecutors, said President Bush's deputy chief of staff has told investigators that he first learned about the operative, Valerie Plame, from a journalist.
How many lawyers would have firsthand knowledge of the conversations between Rove and prosecutors? Uh, exactly one who is not himself a "prosecutor." That would be Robert
"Gold Bars" Luskin.
When I first read the NYT story earlier, I recalled how tight a ship Fitzgerald has been running. I doubted a leak would come from his office. But Ol' Gold Bars, who talked tough in the WSJ and allowed Cooper to interpret that braggadocio as an explicit waiver, is definitely in need of some counterspin. Maybe he first learned his techniques back when DOJ's first assignment for him fresh out of law school was to put him in charge of the ABSCAM investigation.
In any event, Gold Bars Luskin seems to be playing the Reagan "I can't recall" defense here:
"I don't think that he has a clear recollection," the lawyer said. "He's told them that he believes he may have heard it from a journalist." Asked who it was, the lawyer said, "I don't think he's able to identify that, or to identify precisely when he may have heard it."
Ah, that old chestnut.
So, my conclusion for those of you fretting over the meaning or significance of this NYT story is basically this is just Gold Bars talking to reporters, and them printing what he's saying. That's meaningless, especially coming from someone whose incompetence screwed his own client in the Cooper reversal.
UPDATE: As rebellingboxer points out below, Ol' Gold Bars gave a third interview, this one to the AP. It identifies the source of info this way:
... according to a person briefed on the testimony.
The person, who works in the legal profession and spoke only on condition of anonymity because of grand jury secrecy...
The fact that there are three equally timed stroies further points to Luskin, as this person clearly has a specific information agenda. This isn't some idle chatter from someone in the prosecutor's office that one intrepid reporter managed to unprecedentedly squeeze information out of, this is someone who decided, I need to get a story out to the media, and set about calling. There can only be one attorney with "firsthand" knowledge of Rove's testimony who isn't a prosecutor: Luskin. Robert Gold Bars Luskin. Therefore all these articles are is propaganda, and ineffective propaganda at that (Rove chose confirmation over "no comment").