One wildarsed speculation that I made about the Plame affair that has proven to be correct is that Libby and Novak had a conversation they were trying to hide. Jane S has been asking how I figured out that Libby spoke with Novak (and subsequently hid that conversation). This post lays out that story with lots of the details. By reviewing those details, I show that the hidden conversation happened before the time he claims to have learned about the Novak article from Karl Rove.
I first suspected that Libby and Novak had had an undisclosed conversation when I wrote this post. I read the Steno Sue/Pool Boy article published on the day Judy testified, and sniffed a big fat witness tampering rat--the article gave all the details Judy would need to follow Libby's grand jury lies perfectly. I explained the stinky rat in this post. The Steno Sue/Pool Boy article basically encouraged Judy to tell a story that, we now know, dramatically differs from her version of events. But it also includes a line referencing Novak.
Now we come to far and away the most curious part of this coaching session:
Libby did not talk to Novak about the case, the source said.
Is this still a message for Judy? Why would Libby's friend need to remind Judy that Libby hadn't spoken to Novak in the case? Unless she knew that he had spoken to Novak?
I think it highly possible that Libby's friend is telling Judy not to
mention the fact that she knew Libby spoke to Novak about this case.
In other words, since the rest of the account of Libby's surrogate's coaching looked like a blatant attempt to coach Judy's testimony, I figured this line was too. And that if Judy needed to be coached to say that Libby hadn't told her of Plame until after he "learned it from Russert as if it were new," then she probably needed to be coached to deny a Libby-Novak conversation.
If this premise is correct--and abundant evidence has surfaced since that this was a blatant attempt to coach Judy--then it means Libby was aware of, and trying to hide the Novak conversation, in September 2005, just as Judy was testifying.
A number of pieces of evidence came out over the course of the following year or so that reinforced my belief that Novak and Libby had a conversation. These include:
The Rove-Novak-Armitage Confusion
Jeffress once seemed to mention that Libby learned of Novak's source (Armitage) directly from Novak, and not secondhand through Rove. This happened in the February 2006 hearing on journalists--at a time, remember, when it was not yet public that Armitage was Woodward and Novak's source. At the time, Fitzgerald was still trying to protect Armitage as an innocent accused. So every mention of Armitage in court filings had been redacted. Jeffress, however, clearly knows Armitage's identity and that he's a source for both Woodward and Novak, and is pushing for discovery on it, without admitting that he knows it.
Official one -- we know of two reporters that official one talked to. And you know, and I don't mean, and by the way we talked about innocent accused. And certainly I'm not here to tell you that official one did anything wrong whatsoever. But we do know that he did discuss Ms. Wilson with at least two reporters. How many others did he discussed it with? How many others discussed it with him? We don't have a single piece of information from the government as to what official one said about that. We presume that they have interviewed official one and we presume that he has testified . But we don't know that and we don't know a single thing that he has said about that.
But then he has to admit that Libby knows of Armitage's identity. To explain how Libby learned of it, Jeffress basically conflates Libby's June 27 conversation with Bob Woodward with the Rove to Libby mention of Novak--which was, at that point, the only public mention of Libby's knowledge of the Novak article (it was in the indictment). In this passage, Jeffress tells Walton that Libby learned of Armitage's role directly from a journalist.
MR. JEFFRESS: Mr. Libby said that he had heard this. One of the reporters told Mr. Libby offical one discussed Ms. Wilson.
The government says one of those didn't tell him that. However, the government in the indictment has revealed another person who did tell him that. [emphasis mine]
Now, this could have just been Jeffress' confusion here. But he first asserts that Libby learned of Armitage's identity directly from a journalist--which would have to be either Woodward or Novak. Then concedes that the government says Libby didn't learn of it from one of the two journalists. This is a reference to the fact that Woodward testified he hadn't told Libby about Plame, much less about his source for Plame. Now, that would mean that the second journalist, Novak, did tell him. But then, as cover, Jeffress quickly shifts to saying that Libby learned of the Novak article through Karl Rove--the other person the government says that did tell Libby of hearing of Plame from reporters.
That could have been Jeffress' confusion. But look at the language Jeffress uses when Walton challenges him on how Libby knew Armitage's identity, and not just that a journalist passed on Plame's identity.
THE COURT: Do we know in what form it was where Mr. Libby says he heard? Was it at the White House?
MR. JEFFRESS: He heard it, well, what he testified that is public in the indictment but I can tell you, Your Honor, yes, he heard from another official at the White House who reported to him that a reporter told me today that he knew that Ambassador Wilson's wife worked at the CIA. That's one source from which he got it. Knew that it came from a reporter. That's one. Mr. Libby was told it came from offical one.[emphasis mine]
See the grammar? Jeffress notes that Rove told Libby that he had heard about Plame from another journalist. But he does not say that Libby learned that Armitage was the source from him. Rather, he shifts to the passive voice--Libby was told it came from official one. Taken together, Jeffress is either very confused, or he's dancing around the fact that Novak may have told Libby directly that his source was Armitage. I'll come back to this in a second, because there's some timing jujitsu going on. But for now, consider this another piece of evidence that Libby spoke to Novak at some point (though it's not clear this has to be leak weak) and the he knew about talking to Novak.
The Novak Conver-Article
Finally, there's this Freudian slip in Libby's grand jury testimony. Fitzgerald is grilling him about when Libby spoke with Cheney about the latter's belief that Wilson's trip was just one big junket. Libby is trying to argue that they didn't speak about the junket early in leak week, close to the time when Cheney cut out the Wilson op-ed and annotated it with the question, "or did his wife send him on a junket," but that they instead spoke about it at a later time, safely after the time of the Novak leak. Here's what Libby says:
I don't recall the conversation [where Cheney mused about the junket] until after the Novak piece. I don't recall it during the week of July 6. I recall it after the Novak conver -- after the Novak article appeared I recall it, and I recall being asked by the Vice President early on, you know, about this envoy, you know, who is it -- but I don't recall that early on he asked about it in connection with the wife, although he may well have given the note that I took.
And then later Libby refers to Novak and Russert conversations:
I certainly don't recall any discussion about [Plame's purported role in Wilson's trip] prior to the Russert/Novak conversations when I learned about the wife, what I thought was the first time.
Taken with the Jeffress business above, it sure seems like Libby is 'fessing up to a Novak conversation, and trying to post-date his scheming with Dick to after that conversation.
Libby and Novak Hiding under Non-Blankets
One very circumstantial piece of evidence that Libby and Novak knew about this conversation and tried to hide it is that both made the same ploy when first "cooperating" with investigators. When the FBI first asked Libby to sign waivers permitting journalists to talk, he at first refused, saying he would only sign waivers for specific journalists whom he had admitted to talking about (I need to verify, but I think he was saying he didn't talk to Novak at this point).
In 2003, Mr. Libby offered to sign confidentiality waivers that were personal to each reporter to whom he had spoken about the subject matters under investigation. The FBI refused this offer, and asked for a general blanket waiver.
Meanwhile, when Fitzgerald first contacted Novak, Novak was worried about having to testify about conversations with any official. He only agreed to testify (at first) if he could limit it to Armitage, Rove, and Harlow.
An appointment was made for Fitzgerald to interview me at Swidler Berlin on Jan. 14, 2004. The problem facing me was that the special prosecutor had obtained signed waivers from every official who might have given me information about Valerie Wilson.
That created a dilemma. I did not believe blanket waivers in any way relieved me of my journalistic responsibility to protect a source.
[snip]
But on Jan. 12, two days before my meeting with Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor informed Hamilton that he would be bringing to the Swidler Berlin offices only two waivers. One was by my principal source in the Valerie Wilson column, a source whose name has not yet been revealed. The other was by presidential adviser Karl Rove, whom I interpret as confirming my primary source's information. In other words, the special prosecutor knew the names of my sources.
When Fitzgerald arrived, he had a third waiver in hand -- from Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column confirming Mrs. Wilson's identity.
In other words, Libby and Novak both first attempted to limit journalistic testimony in such a way that Novak wouldn't have to testify about his conversation with Libby.
Curious Timing
There's a detail of timing that makes all of this very very curious.
Recall that Libby testified that he learned Novak would be writing a story from Rove (though in his GJ testimony, Libby tried to place this conversation later in the day on July 11, at a time when Rove was already on vacation):
On or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White House ("Official A") who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson’s wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson’s trip. LIBBY was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson’s wife.
Presumably, Rove testified to the same fact. Though who knows...
But here's the thing. We know that Libby spoke to Novak on July 9, clearly before this conversation is alleged to have taken place. Novak testified that Libby didn't say anything really helpful in the conversation. But are we to believe that Libby would need to be told by Rove that Novak was doing an article on July 10, when he had already been interviewed by Novak for that article on July 9?
There's clearly something that still doesn't make sense. And Rove--he of the no indictments--could be a witness that would clarify that something.