Skip to main content

Saw this live as it was happening.  Looks like "Gold Bars" Luskin and Viveca Novak will both be testifying next week and that the investigation seems to have broadened and seems far from over.


BOB FRANKEN, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's very delicate. We're picking up that there could be two principals in this getting deposed next week giving sworn statements. Those two would include Karl Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin and Viveca Novak of "Time Magazine."

Now it really comes down to, when all is said and done, a question of who said what to whom when.

And the who is very important because we're being told by a variety of sources that the special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, was planning to indict Karl Rove for misrepresenting during the investigation an interview comments that he had made to a reporter. However, there was a key conversation, sources say, and there may have been a misunderstanding by the special prosecutor that a conversation that he was attributing to Rove with Viveca Novak of "Time Magazine" may, in fact, have really been held by Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin.

As we've talked many times before, you and I, and just about any reporter who's been involved in this, has had conversations on the record with Luskin.

So now comes the process where Luskin is going to be testifying under oath during this deposition then Novak. Then Fitzgerald is going to have to make a decision on whether he will change his mind about indicting Rove.

It gets kind of complicated, and it gets even more complicated when you're told by the variety of sources this will not end the investigation. This is something that could go on for a while as they'll be looking for other parties who may have had a role in all of this--Wolf.

Now the only reason I can think of that Fitzgerald would misinterpret something is if someone was lying their ass off.  I guess Luskin or one of his assistants "forgot" to mention that piece of info to Franken who seems to have developed a Isikoff-like sympathy towards Rove and his cause.

Update: Jane at Firedoglake who beat out the NYT in reporting that Viveca Novak actually was the one who "tipped of" Luskin about Cooper's source, is reporting that Franken's story is pure spin and that Woodward may be called before an actual grand jury next week.

I am hearing through sources that the Franken story is crap, 100% spin. Fitzgerald is supposedly busy right now dealing with Bob Woodward, who may have earned himself a trip to the grand jury next week for his efforts, and with Woodward's source, whoever that may turn out to be. Only then will he start dealing with Viveca Novak, and the "Fitzgerald made a mistake" rumor is pure bullshit. And nobody at this point is buying the story that Luskin himself is going in to testify.
Thanks to 2lucky for this important info.

Originally posted to dumbya on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 03:58 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  jane at fdl is saying the CNN report (4.00)
    is pure spin:

    I am hearing through sources that the Franken story is crap, 100% spin. Fitzgerald is supposedly busy right now dealing with Bob Woodward, who may have earned himself a trip to the grand jury next week for his efforts, and with Woodward's source, whoever that may turn out to be. Only then will he start dealing with Viveca Novak, and the "Fitzgerald made a mistake" rumor is pure bullshit. And nobody at this point is buying the story that Luskin himself is going in to testify.

    She had it right on the original VNovak report.

    I for one don't believe for a minute that Fitz was all "confused" as to who talked to VNovak.  That's absurd.  

    This whole thing is so strange.  

  •  Not good (4.00)
    Not at all good.  The last place you want to be when you are a defense lawyer is in the witness box. The prosecutor is not questioning you because he thinks its going to help your client.

    I'm thinking maybe that Novak's lawyer has given Fitz a preview of what Novak will say, and its inconsistent with what Luskin has told him.  

    Sometimes you cover your ass with the lame excuses you have, instead of the lame excuses you wish you had. (-3.00, -5.49)

    by litigatormom on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 04:03:10 PM PST

  •  uh? (none)
    Can Luskin be indicted somehow? Sounds weird to me that Rove's lawyer is being required to testify... this is all very weird. It's interesting to see how tightly connected all of these people are...
    •  yes, a lawyer can be indicted (4.00)
      if an attorney is found to have participated in a crime or obstruction of justice in cohoots with the defendent, lawyer-client privlige is extinguished

      If Luskin testifies, he wins this year's "World's Worst Lawyer" contest, hands down

  •  Still... (4.00)
    If he is talking to Viveca next week, he might want to talk to Luskin contemporaneously before she can relate her testimony to Luskin.

    I can just see Luskin cooling his heals in the courthouse antiroom waiting for Viveca to finish. Then he is called in after she finishes as she is escorted out the back door.

    Uh oh...

  •  Fitz "misunderstood" = Chewbacca Defense (none)

    I did not receive $ from Ketchum, U.S. Department of Ed or HHS to write this---though I wish I had.

    by Volvo Liberal on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 04:08:08 PM PST

  •  that sounds crazy (4.00)
    Totally nuts.  Fitz "misunderstood" something?  Heh.  They wish.

    This is some kind of soap opera, though.  Since baseball analogies are all the rage these days, I submit that it reminds me of the Mets/Astros 16-inning playoff game in 1986.  Just when you think it can't get any more intense, it does.

    I read the CNN transcript and was tickled by Jack Cafferty's remarks about the ethics office.  He's a hoot.

    New Orleans will never die

    by hrh on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 04:08:32 PM PST

  •  woodward? (none)
    This is all very confusing.  Didn't V.Novak write Woodward's tell-all (okay, tell-very-little) in Time after it became public that he had to testify?  Maybe they're "friends" also, in addition to V.Novak being friends with Luskin?  I wonder if somehow Woodward's testimony led Fitzgerald to V.Novak, and then her story (relayed to Fitzgerald pre-testimony through her attorney) somehow led him to question Rove's previous testimony.

    Sound like Rove said, "I forgot about the Hadley email; my conversation with V. Novak jogged my memory."

    And maybe she said,"I talked to Luskin about Matt Cooper's upcoming testimony."

    So now Fitzgerald's bringing Luskin in to get his side of it?  Though I don't know why Rove would say V.Novak talked to him rather than to Luskin.

    I don't see how any of this is good spin for Rove.... having your attorney hauled in to possibly testify against you seems pretty bad.  I wonder now why Jane's sources are saying this is spin, and that Fitzgerald's still dealing with Woodward.  Seems as though the Woodward and V.Novak sections could somehow be connected?

    My head hurts...

  •  This and the Abramoff scandal (none)
    are just too damn confusing. I'm having a hard time following either. Why couldn't these guys just get a bj from an intern. Now THAT'S a scandal!
  •  Confused in CT (none)
    as well. But let's hope the old adage is true:
    where there's smoke, there's hellfire
  •  New documents from Fitz' office just listed (none)
    Per 12/02/05 AP article Prosecutor wants some details kept secret.

    Link to the 12-page PDF file from Fitz' website.

    In court papers, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said continued secrecy is not necessary with respect to portions of a federal appeals court ruling from 10 months ago that "directly relate to Mr. Libby." Libby was indicted on Oct. 28 on five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI.   [...]

    In the months before the courts moved against Miller and Cooper, the prosecutor provided the federal judiciary detailed descriptions of the investigation's progress, and some of those details became part of Tatel's written opinion. The investigative material was removed from the opinion before it was released.

    I haven't had a chance to read it yet.

    •  Most significant statement by Fitz (none)
      The investigation is continuing.

      Sometimes you cover your ass with the lame excuses you have, instead of the lame excuses you wish you had. (-3.00, -5.49)

      by litigatormom on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 05:24:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Any thoughts on (none)
        this from p10 of the response:

        that the investigation concerning the conduct of Mr. Libby is largely concluded

        It's obvious what that means from a laymen's perspective.  Any legal relevance of any kind?

    •  Shoot. We have to wait for the judge to (none)
      rule before we see the things we didn't see in the indictment:

      4 The additional details include quotations from testimony summarized in the indictment, and the identities of certain persons who were identified in the indictment solely by job title.

      From page 9 of Fitz' response to Dow (see Terre's link above).

      Great find, Terre

  •  Luskin had another leakfest today NYT (none)
    yesterday after reading the papers, he was concerned that the story didn't come  out right in the papers.  So he had another big fakeout/anonyfest. This time he emphasized to the reporter that the supposed meeting with Ms. Novak occurred in the late summer  or early fall of 2004. So the time sequence would work better.  Originally the story went around that the meeting was in May of 2004. Of course it was Luskin's errand boy or somebody who actually talked tothe reporter, so they could play the usual bs game about who the source was or  was not. LINK

    Treason's Greetings from Karl Rove and Scooter Libby: Merry Fitzmas and Happy New Smear

    by seesdifferent on Fri Dec 02, 2005 at 06:33:23 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site