Rove has testified that he simply told the columnist that he had heard much the same information about Plame, which perhaps was nothing more than an unsubstantiated rumor. Novak's account of the July 9 call matched Rove's. Investigators were suspicious that, if this version was true, the columnist would have relied on Rove as one of his two sources to out Plame as an "agency operative."
Ashcroft was advised during the briefing that investigators had strong reservations about the veracity of the Novak and Rove accounts of the July 9 conversation.
Finally, Murray reports that Fitz remains focused on Rove's initial failure to disclose his conversation with Matt Cooper.
As Fitzgerald considers whether to bring charges against Rove, central to any final determination will be whether Rove's omissions were purposeful.
It appears Rove fully disclosed his September 29 conversation with Novak to investigators in October, 2003 and later to the grand jury. So I don't see how this adds to his legal woes, unless Fitz thinks it somehow makes a case for obstruction of justice. It may reflect more poorly on Bob Novak. Does Novak has immunity from prosecution? Does he need it? Consider Murray's statement:
A second reason that federal investigators were suspicious, sources said, is that they believed that after the September 29 call, Novak shifted his account of his July 9, 2003, conversation with Rove to show that administration officials had a passive role in leaking Plame's identity.
Does Fitz now have another witness to show collusion between Rove and Novak on the July 9 call? Does he doubt that Rove only said, "I heard that too.?" Without another witness, how would he prove it?
Novak had two sources. We still don't know who the identify of the second one , the official who first told Novak about Valerie Plame Wilson and her employment as a CIA agency operative.
Crooks and Liars thinks Rove threw Novak under the bus. More from Empty Wheel, who wants to know what date Rove disclosed the September 29 conversation to the grand jury. I suspect it was his first appearance in February, 2004, because he had already told investigators about it.
Rove, according to attorneys involved in the case, volunteered the information about the September 29 call during his initial interview with FBI agents in the fall of 2003.
One other note: I'm wondering where Stephen Hadley is in all this. He was the recipient of Rove's July 11 e-mail informing him that "he hadn't taken the bait" when speaking with Matthew Cooper that date. Rove also wrote to Hadley, "I warned him [Cooper] not to get too far out front on this." It seemed from that e-mail that Rove and Hadley had discussed Wilson's wife and her CIA employment and/or role in sending Wilson to Niger prior to then. Was Hadley privy to Rove's version of the July 9 Rove-Novak conversation? Is he cooperating with Fitzgerald? Does he support Novak's and Rove's description of July 9 call or has he provided information to make Fitz and investigators more skeptical?
Update: Mark Corallo, Karl Rove's spokesperson, has sent me this response to Murray's article:
"Karl Rove has never urged anyone, directly or indirectly, to withhold information from the Special Counsel or to testify falsely. No one has ever said or implied to Karl Rove that he intended to do so. The Special Counsel has never suggested that there is any evidence to support such an allegation. Frankly, it is hard to think of anything less reliable or less relevant than what investigators may or may not have speculated before they had started collecting evidence. Circulating such speculation now is nothing short of irresponsible."
