![](\"http:\/\/www.cookrepublicans.com\/content\/img\/f27545\/Republican%20Elephant.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
We’ve heard from more reporters. From Glenn Kessler [Washington Post<\/strong>], we learned that he has three children, that he is a Pulitzer Prize winner, that he talked to Scooter Libby from the Elephant House in the Washington Zoo on June 12, 2003 about something other than Valerie Plame, and that he occasionally yells at children. Then there was Evan Thomas [Newsweek<\/strong>] whose Pultitzer status wasn’t addressed and who didn’t get any phone calls from Scooter Libby on June 12, 2003 [me neither]. <\/p>\n Then we heard from Carl Ford who was working for Grossman at the C.I.A.<\/strong> during that time. These days, he has a one man consulting firm, Ford and Associates<\/strong>[?]. He was the one who Grossman had look into Wilson’s trip at Libby’s bidding. I’m not sure why he was there. The only thing that he said was that his original report was not returned for more information as Grossman reported in his testimony.<\/p>\n It was a tedious day in court. I presume that such days are common in criminal trials. The defense is picking at details. [drum roll] There were reporters Libby didn’t tell. There were minor things in previous testimony that don’t quite fit. It all sounds like blah, blah, blah to me. If Judge Walton lets it, it’s going to get worse. The defense wants to call people to testify how busy Libby was [without, it seems, ever calling Libby]. A very procedural day. Little wonder that lawyers are so expensive – combat pay fore ennui<\/strong><\/em>. At issue, will they ever mount a real defense?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" We’ve heard from more reporters. From Glenn Kessler [Washington Post], we learned that he has three children, that he is a Pulitzer Prize winner, that he talked to Scooter Libby from the Elephant House in the Washington Zoo on June 12, 2003 about something other than Valerie Plame, and that he occasionally yells at children. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-922","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/922","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=922"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/922\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=922"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=922"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=922"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Novak [no Pulitzer] was more interesting, unfortunately raising more questions than answers. First, he said that Armitage had refused to see him in the past – specifically saying he didn’t want to see him. Then, sort of out of the blue, Armitage called him and said he’s see him:<\/div>\n\n
I had been trying to get appointment with Armitage since 2001, he had declined to see me, had indicated he just didn’t want to see me. After 9\/11 I tried again, got rebuffed. At the end of June, last week of June, his office contacted me, said he’d see me. Made appointment for July 8, afternoon, his office, State. <\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nSo why, all of a sudden, did Armitage call? Novak talked about the leak from Armitage [July 8], the confirmation by Rove [July 8-9], and that there was a conversation with Libby on July 9th:<\/div>\n\n\n
Ted Wells:<\/strong> Describe your recollection of your conversation.<\/div>\nRobert Novak:<\/strong> I was trying to find out more information about Wilson’s mission to Niger and VP’s connection. Most memorable about call, I asked Libby if he might be helpful to me in establishing timeline in 16 words. When they came in, who proposed it, sort of a consecutive account that I could put in column. I interpreted him as saying he could be helpful.<\/div>\nTed Wells:<\/strong> In context of talking to Libby did Wilson’s wife come up.<\/div>\nRobert Novak:<\/strong> I don’t remember exactly, I might have raised that question, I got no help, and no confirmation on that issue. The reason I’m fuzzy is that I talk to a lot of people in govt an politics everyday and a lot of them are not very helpful and I discard unhelpful conversations in my memory bank.<\/div>\nTed Wells:<\/strong> You have a clear recollection he gave you no info about it.<\/div>\nRobert Novak:<\/strong> I’m sure he gave be no info about it.<\/div>\nTed Wells:<\/strong> You might have asked if he knew that "the wife" worked at the CIA. <\/div>\nTed Wells:<\/strong> Timeline, on July 8 you talked to Armi, then July 9, you talked to Rove, and also on July 9 you talked to Libby.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote><\/div>\nRecall that Libby claims amnesia about Plame between June 12th<\/sup> and July 10th<\/sup> when he talked to Tim Russert. So this call raises a question. Novak says "I’m sure he gave be no info about it," but it’s inconceivable that Novak wouldn’t have asked him about Wilson’s wife. That brings up two questions for me. First, Novak’s asking would have "jogged" Libby’s memory before<\/u> his conversation with Russert. Second, getting "no info" from Libby means nothing. Recall his making a big deal about telling Russert "I don’t know that" so as not to be a confirming source. But, alas, Fitzgerald didn’t ask about these things on redirect. Fitzgerald is there to try his specific case.<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\nFinally, right at the end, there’s this strange business of giving his article to a lobbyist friend, Rick Holt:<\/div>\n\n
Walton:<\/strong> Without relating what someone would have said in response to what you said. Did you, once you learned about Wilson’s wife and the fact that she worked at the CIA, did you discuss it with anyone prior to your article.<\/div>\nRobert Novak:<\/strong> Yes, I spoke to Bill Harlow.<\/div>\nPatrick Fitzgerald:<\/strong> Just the names.<\/div>\nJudge Walton:<\/strong> Harlow<\/div>\nRobert Novak:<\/strong> Spokesman for CIA. I testified that I might have asked Libby about, but I don’t have a clear recollection bc I don’t have a clear response.<\/div>\nJudge Walton:<\/strong> Rick Holt. Who is Rick Holt.<\/div>\nRobert Novak:<\/strong> A lobbyist and a close friend. I talk to him every day.<\/div>\nJudge Walton:<\/strong> did you have conversations with him about it. Did you give him a draft of the article.<\/div>\nRobert Novak:<\/strong> Yes.<\/div>\nJudge Walton:<\/strong> Mr. Holt had the article in his hand by 4:00 that day. And Holt is a lobbyist about town. Would you describe him as a gossip.
Robert Novak:<\/strong> He talks to a lot of people, even me, he’s a good news source.
Judge Walton:<\/strong> He talks to a lot of media people.
Patrick Fitzgerald:<\/strong> Did you have an understanding about what he could do with the copy of the article.
Robert Novak:<\/strong> No sir. I didn’t have an understanding with him. I had assumed he would not share it, there was not an agreement made between us.
Patrick Fitzgerald:<\/strong> one moment.
Patrick Fitzgerald:<\/strong> Did he ever tell you he had shared it
Robert Novak:<\/strong> Vague recollection that he had told the WH that there was an interesting piece coming out.
Robert Novak:<\/strong> In those conversations I had with him on Friday.
Patrick Fitzgerald:<\/strong> Your belief is that he told the WH on Friday that an interesting piece coming out.
Robert Novak:<\/strong> Yes<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\nSo, on July 11th<\/sup> he sends off his piece to his editor and<\/u> gives it to a friend who tells the White House<\/strong>. I didn’t know about that, but it seems significant in light of the 1X2X6 thesis that was hatched the next day. Did Novak’s article get to the OVP on the June 11th<\/sup>. I’d bet "yes." So many questions, so little time!<\/div>\n