The identity of Mr. Novak's original source for the column that triggered the entire case is still unknown, at least to the public. Mr. Novak has testified to the grand jury since Mr. Rove's last appearance in October 2005.

Gosh that is big. Had not seen it. He must have discussed the instant declassification policy of the Unitary executives. And how they essentially issued a press release on Plame. Too bad that they did not tout the power to instantly declassify to all far and wide. Libby and Rove, Hadley et al would not have had to perjure themselves. Unless it was, as Waas argues, about the 2004 election. Announcing his Kingship may not have gone over too well with the electorate. Lying and obstructing (delaying) was the far better choice for perpetuating the Empire.

Still, he did say, "If I had gone before a grand jury and taken the Fifth Amendment, Mr. Fitzgerald would have that on the street in about two minutes." "The question is, does Mr. Fitzgerald know who the source was?" Novak asked. "Of course. He's known for years who the first source is. If he knows the source, why didn't he indict him? Because no crime was committed." Novak said he doesn't believe his source violated laws forbidding the disclosure of a CIA agent's identity.

emptywheel opines:

Fitzgerald is nearly leak-proof. So how can Novak claim Fitzgerald would have leaked this news? But someone has gotten some details of Novak's testimony out to Waas. (Probably not Fitzgerald, but probably the FBI investigators working in Fall 2003.) The only way Novak can make such a complaint is if Waas' early reporting on Novak is accurate. Which would suggest his current reporting may also rely on Novak testimony. The Novak claim that Bush knew his source has always been the biggest remaining piece of evidence against Armitage as Novak's source. There's just no reason why Armitage would have told Bush of the fact. But some convoluted plot like this one might explain both the Armitage allegations, Waas' latest, and Novak's bloviating from December.

emptywheel What would we do without Waas? Not that Jeralyn, emptywheel, FDL, Swopa, Josh Marshall et al are chopped liver. Also those obsessed with Fitzgerald's every move relating to Plame, Christy Hardin Smith posts a comment from reader mamayaga who observed him during a commute from Chigaco to DC. Quite a nice read. FDL

by squeaky on Fri Apr 28, 2006 at 11:01:44 AM EST

TomPaine cites the MSM party line position today that this is all about Rove's failure to disclose the call with Cooper. I'm not buying it.

Three and a half hours spent discussing one short phone call? Who are they trying to kid?

by squeaky on Fri Apr 28, 2006 at 12:00:34 PM EST

Too bad that they did not tout the power to instantly declassify to all far and wide. Libby and Rove, Hadley et al would not have had to perjure themselves. And Judy Miller would have those three months back. For me this tears it. They let her go to jail for not revealing a source who gave her info that they NOW SAY WAS DECLASSIFIED. What a bunch of B*llsh*t.

by Che's Lounge on Fri Apr 28, 2006 at 01:32:01 PM EST

this country is as dead as it gets. so camps will be started for reeducation.

by Talkleft Visitor on Fri Apr 28, 2006 at 03:22:16 PM EST

Waas has another article today on Roveleak. Interesting point that timing of recant can do more damage than good. If Rove recanted that he told Cooper because he felt he was about to get caught it makes for proof of perjury. Waas was a bit disappointing on dates this time around. The time lag between Vivian Novak's talk with Luskin in May, where she revealed that Rove was Coopers source was, as empty wheel points out, seven months later. Rove did not change his testimony until August, Waas states only that V. Novak's incorrectly remembered speaking to Luskin later than May, when the conversation took place. Bottom line is that Rove's recant came only when he thought he would be caught. Waas via think progress

by squeaky on Fri Apr 28, 2006 at 09:18:16 PM EST

Waas was a bit disappointing on dates this time around. The time lag between Vivian Novak's talk with Luskin in May,

Oops! January was when V. Novak told Luskin about Rove. May was when she initially thought the meeting took place. FDL lays it out Waas very clearly linked text

by squeaky on Fri Apr 28, 2006 at 11:59:23 PM EST

Life was so much easier when it was just tablets of stone; let me try again.

Christ, is bumiller an embarrassment or what! What is she doing on that beat? Let her cover weddings in the Hamptons or something.

by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Apr 30, 2006 at 10:38:00 AM EST