TPM: Carville speaks to Josh Marshall about the Novak meltdown

[Goldmund]

Atrios has a post on his site in which he suggests that Carville's comment -- which seems on the surface not to have been something that would have generated such an over-the-top response -- may have been a reference to something more specific that only Carville and Novak or other insiders knew about.

That made a lot of sense to me. So I asked.

But Carville said, nope. Nothing more than what it seemed like on the surface. And he had no idea why it would have set Novak off. It didn't seem like a big deal to him either. "At the time I thought it was like a 2.5 . But when I heard it again later, I thought, no, it's more like a 1.5."

<snip>

What Carville did say was that the tension seemed entirely to do with Ed Henry, not with him, as many others have pointed out. And I've also learned that when the copy of Who's Who was sitting there on the table, Henry apparently had it bookmarked with a Post-It note to right about where you'd expect to find Wilson's entry.

More: http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/8/5/153130/7548

And here is the Who's Who entry on Wilson:



I'm still not understanding why the Who's Who book would have spooked him so much. Any theories?

[napi21]

1. Ahhhh, so it was about the questions Ed was going to ask!

Many here on Du have said they thought it had something to do with Novak being upset about having to testify again today, AND what Henry was going to ask him.

[Lex]

3. So the crooks and traitors don't know what to if asked REAL questions

by a reporter doing his job, or trying to anyway.

Shoot, just the BOOK on the desk scared the spineless Novak.

[Logiola]

2. I wonder..

If the show uses a teleprompter for the questions that are about to be asked.. it makes sense that maybe Bob saw the upcoming questions and they were a little more then he was willing to answer or could not find any way to spin it.. he knew they were coming, but until that point did not know exactly what they were..

[Lex]

4. I tend to think the Who's Who book on the desk, once he noticed it,

is what sent him into a hissy fit.

[Goldmund]

5. That's what Josh seems to be implying...

But why would that spook him? I'm not getting it... :shrug:

[Lex]

6. The backstory is, I think, that Novak has been telling the story that

he learned about Victoria Plame through a "Who's Who" book, and no one told him.

[Goldmund]

7. Well, the book would support that, right?

If Rove/Libby/Cheney/whoever said "Wilson's wife works at the CIA", all Novak had to do is look at Who's Who and he would have known her name. The book itself doesn't contradict Novak's claims as far as I can see.

[Lex]

8. Except if she's listed by her maiden name and not Wilson

then how would Novak have looked it up?

[Goldmund]

10. Well,

Novak did name her as "Valerie Plame". If he was told that Wilson's wife was a CIA operative, then all he had to do is look up Wilson, and there was Valerie Plame.

[Lex]

13. Except we don't know WHAT the book says . . . or what he claimed exactly

but I bet it DOESN'T add up for Novak because he FREAKED when he saw the book.

I bet it doesn't square with his story at all.

[Goldmund]

14. A scan from the book is in the OP

I added it shortly after I posted it.

[Lex]

15. Thanks . . .

I'll go back and look.

[clmbohdem]

19. Except that is a lame excuse to explain using Plame...

When writing a story about someone wife, I normally go to Whos Whos and use their madden name. What kind of excuse is that?

[Goldmund]

25. I agree, but...

...that still doesn't explain why he was intimidated that the book was on the desk.

[clmbohdem]

29. Embarrassment?

Maybe it was one of those "it sounded good at the time" excuses, but now it is really embarrassing.

It could be that everyone involved thought that "the Press do not have to reveal their sources" was where this story was going to end. When this fell apart, they was no plan 'B'. At least Novak didn't say he found it in the boys bathroom (an excuse I used in 9th grade).

[Straight Shooter]

23. It isn't a "backstory," it's a "backpedaling" story.

Remember Novak's original defense? This is what he claimed in July 2003.

Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. "I didn't dig it out, it was given to me," he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0722-04.htm

I don't see anything about reading her name/identity in Who's Who back then, do you?

[julialnyc]

16. most news shows use teleprompters

I've been in several studios and they all use them.

[Sparkle]

9. It seems Ed Henry has come a long way from being on CSPAN.

Btw I wouldn't listen to any excuse that Carville says about the incident. Not too long ago, he was saying the CIA leak thing with Rove was no big deal.

[Lex]

11. Maybe Carville was trying to minimize the Plame leak

because his evil wife is up to her neck in it.

[Goldmund]

12. I forgot about that, you're right!

Which makes me wonder whether we should put any credence in what Carville says about this whole outburst.

[Sparkle]

18. That was the point I was trying to make in my other post.

But I guess I failed. :-)

[Jack Rabbit]

17. Novak needs to get his attorney to advise him to clam up

If he didn't want to answer the questions, he could have fallen back on that. Besides, it would be good advice.

It's what Clinton should have done instead of publicly stating he "never had sex with that woman" when we all knew better.

I can understand the Novak, whether he's right or wrong, is a bit upset by this, but he could have handled it better.

[Imagevision]

20. Viva James Carvel Viva James Carvel !

[Junkdrawer]

21. "Mr. Novak, DID you learn Valerie Plame's name from Who's Who.."

You see, Novak's column was purposely ambiguous.
....

So, what was "wrong" with my column as Harlow claimed? There was nothing incorrect. He told the Post reporters he had "warned" me that if I "did write about it her name should not be revealed." That is meaningless. Once it was determined that Wilson's wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as "Valerie Plame" by reading her husband's entry in "Who's Who in America."

...

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak01.html

"she could be" identified... NOT "I" identified...

And that because Rove et al are now hanging their hats on the idea that they used "Wilson's wife" not "Valerie Plame". And so they're relying on Novak to make the jump. And Novak is saying he could have used Who's Who.

See also the DNC's statement:


If Novak had stayed, here are some of the questions Henry could have asked:

The Questions Bob Novak Thought Were Bull---t

.....

Question 4: Which one is it, Mr. Novak? Did you read it in a book? Or did you hear it from the Administration? Novak Changes His Story on How He Got Plame's Name. Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. 'I didn't dig it out, it was given to me,' he said. "They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it." But he then suggested in an op-ed that he got it from the book Who's Who in America, saying that "Once it was determined that Wilson's wife suggested the mission, she could be identified as 'Valerie Plame' by reading her husband's entry in 'Who's Who in America.'" (Newsday, 7/22/2003; Houston Chronicle, 7/31/05)

[Bumblebee]

22. This would explain "Plame"

in his column. He did look it up in "Who is Who," as he hinted in his latest piece, and used the name from there. But that's beyond the point; what's much more important is that a guy from CIA talked to him TWICE urging him not to use it, and that once someone said "Wilson's wife who works for CIA" it did not matter whether her actual name was given or not. So I am not sure what Henry was going to do with it. We'll probably never know now.

[tiptoe]

24. Maybe Novak -- on seeing the Who's Who -- began anticipating that Henry...

...on behalf of corportate CNN, would be attempting to plant doubt about the truthfulness of his assertions vs those of Rove and Libby regarding which party was the source of the name "Plame"...by confronting him -- live, on air, without legal counsel -- with the entry for Wilson in Who's Who, an information tool to which Novak and CNN reporters likely had easy access. (Maybe Novak even kept one in his office!)

While Novak had been informed the Plame investigation would be a topic on the show, the gist of the topic likely was not disclosed.

Novak saw the Who's Who -- with a bookmarking Post-It -- began putting 1-and-1 together and started suspecting his "own people" were about to set him up and use him to self-servingly advertise CNN-corporate support for the Bush team by creating doubt about his own assertions.


"I think that's B**t. I hate that"...Comments perhaps directed not to Carville but -- with head askance -- to Ed Henry (and corporate CNN)?

(I think so.)


<<what's much more important is that a guy from CIA talked to him TWICE urging him not to use it, and that once someone said "Wilson's wife who works for CIA" it did not matter whether her actual name was given or not>>

I agree.

[emdee]

26. When Novak said "Just let it go" before he walked off....

fits into the theory that he knew he was going to be asked about Plame. That "Just let it go" would not answer Carville's statements at all.

My question is why should anyone "just let it go" when speaking of the Plame outing, which amounted to treason?

emdee

[Eloriel]

27. Here's what it looked like to me, going from the clip alone

which I've seen several times now.

First, I didn't see Novak look down at any book during the clip, so I think that explanation isn't valid UNLESS he'd clearly seen it earlier and just used this opportunity to make a scene and excuse himself.

Second, it did look like it could have been staged (planned), which is something that came up on another thread I read today. I'm not sure it was, but from the body language, etc., it looked like it COULD have been.

What I would describe, again going entirely on the clip itself alone, is that after Carville's remark, Novak said "bullshit" and then said to the other guy (Henry?) something like "let's just go on" (to some other topic). He looked directly at Henry briefly, who then continued on the same line of inquiry, at which point (IOW, realizing the subject had not been changed), Novak got up and left.

[Eloriel]

28. Ed Henry apparently said he left over promised Plame questions

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1679916

from the DNC press release on the subject:

Novak got up and left the show before CNN anchor Ed Henry could ask him questions about his role in the growing scandal that has involved top White House officials, including Bush confidant Karl Rove. Henry told his audience after Novak's on-air tantrum, "Bob Novak obviously left the set a little early. I had told him in advance that we were going to ask him about the CIA leak case. He was not here for me to be able to ask him about that." "Apparently, Robert Novak was afraid to answer questions in an open forum or perhaps he had to meet with his lawyer," said Democratic National Committee Communications Director Karen Finney. "Either way, he needs to come clean about his conversations with Karl Rove, 'Scooter' Libby, and any other administration officials, and help get to the bottom of this breach of national security."

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20050805/pl_usnw/democratic_national_committee_on_the_robert_novak_incident304_xml