Another (One More) REAL Reason NOVAKula Faked the Walk-out

[UTUSN]

*******QUOTE*******

http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/weblogs/pressthink/2005/08/05/nvk_strm.html

Why Robert Novak Stormed Off the Set
.... Why did it go down Thursday? Because on Monday, Aug. 1, Novak violated the terms of a professional stand-off that had been keeping him just this side of legitimate in the eyes of his colleagues in Washington journalism. He had previously said that, on the advice of his lawyer, he couldn’t talk about the case, or answer any questions interviewers might put to him, until the prosecution had run its course.

But then he went ahead and talked about the case in Monday’s Chicago Sun-Times column (“Ex-CIA official’s remark is wrong”) in which he disputed the account given by Bill Harlow, the official spokesman at the CIA whom Novak called for more information about Valerie Plame.

That was the fail safe conversation. That is where the system broke down. If Novak was going to be successfully warned off the naming of Plame, it was by Harlow as spokesman for the Agency, responding to the questions of a reporter with a story. Harlow told the Washington Post last week that he warned Novak in the strongest possible terms not to name Valerie Plame. He said he told Novak that his story was wrong, and would harm U.S. interests. Harlow said he told the federal grand jury the same thing. ....

Old Novak rules: sorry fellas, can’t talk. New rules: Novak chooses when. When to take the Fifth on advice of counsel, when to ignore counsel and respond to the news with his own explanations of what happened to reveal Plame’s name.

This, I believe, is the real cause of Thursday’s break down of professional discipline on air. The legitimacy of Novak’s exemption from questioning had collapsed earlier in the week. Ed Henry knew it and was ready with that news. Novak was not ready to receive it. So he invented an out. ....

That broke the stand off. Novak knew that dodging his colleague Ed Henry was no longer going to work. He solved a problem for himself, and for CNN with his theatre of phony rage.

********UNQUOTE*******

[dogman]

1. Was a copy of Who's Who on hand?

In his explanation he claimed that he found Plame's name by looking in Who's Who. I then heard a copy was on the set that day. Was he lying and going to be asked to show where he found it? I would like to see this confirmed or debunked.

[BlueEyedSon]

8. Yes, right on the table. Bookmarked with a post-it, I believe

[Junkdrawer]

9. 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's 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.

Novak was afraid they would ask him where he did get Plame's name.

[peekaloo]

2. I've only seen the snippet that The Daily Show featured

but his "rage" did seem fake. Carville wasn't saying anything that outrageous, as far as I could tell.

I've seen the old bastard so mad on 'Crossfire' that he spit fake teeth and lost an eyebrow which is why Thursday's "outburst" seemed so tame.

Still it was good for a larf watching Jon Stewart revel in NoFact's douchebagilicous badness.

:D

[AllyCat]

3. Even the more "extended" version on Media Matters or

Crooks and Liars shows him regain his composure for about 2 seconds, like he was going to continue the conversation...then he removes his mic and gets up to leave. He doesn't even look mad, just freakish.

I'd say this is a good reason, but then, why did he even show up in the first place?

[ldf]

4. i agree that he knew ed henry was going to ask

questions he didn't want to answer.

so he threw his little hissy fit.

AND

it got him even more publicity. (falls under the "no such thing as bad publicity" rule, especially since he can't be called anything much worse than what he already has been called.)

he' playing the game.

[Pithy Cherub]

5. Would bet Novakula's attorney had a BIGGER fit

when he read that column... That was a blinding bonding of stupidity and action all out in public and for the record! The attorney is probably just now being peeled from the ceiling. The fly apart on TV nothing compared to the column's after effects. :crazy:

[UTUSN]

6. A Similar Take from Mickey KAUS

*******QUOTE*******

http://slate.msn.com/id/2123825/#running

.... Novak escaped just in time. ... ....

.... **(Why wouldn't Novak want to say whether he in fact got Plame's name from Who's Who?--ed) He might not want to get pinned down on that point, because the truthful answer would be "no." ....

.... ...use of the maiden names seems more career-damaging to Plame since more of Plame's overseas contacts as a CIA agent would have known her by that name). Intentional use of that name, then, could be seen as vindictive--evidence that either Novak's source (a) wanted to punish Plame and/or her husband or Novak himself (b) wanted to punish Plame and/or her husband (perhaps in pursuit of a pro-Bush agenda, perhaps because Novak just thinks Wilson's an "ass---"). None of these seem like lines of speculation Novak would want to encourage.

Novak wasn't especially provoked. ... And he didn't look that mad when he got up. ... More like he was slipping out! ...

********UNQUOTE*******

[UTUSN]

7. "He answers to no one..."

*******QUOTE*******

http://slate.msn.com/id/2124115/

.... "(W)hat a friggin' bizarre episode that was," writes liberal Joshua Micah Marshall at Talking Points Memo. "I've seen people storm off sound stages a few times. But there's something even weirder about it than that. A psychologist would have the appropriate terminology. But there's some element of inappropriate affect scattered through the hullabaloo. I just watched it yet again. And even now it's not quite clear to me what Novak's so upset about." Captain's Quarters' Minnesota conservative Ed Morrissey agrees that Novak's explosion outscales the provocation. "Even with the snarky reference to the WSJ editorial staff added in, nothing Carville said remotely justified either the expletive or the petulant abandonment of Ed Henry in the middle of the interview."

Others say the tensions on the set are perfectly clear. "It's really impossible to overstate the extent to which Novak has been coddled and protected for decades by the perfect set-up," submits the Washington Monthly's Amy Sullivan, guest-blogging at Political Animal. "He answers to no one—not to an editor (his column is syndicated—if papers don't like it, all they can do is drop it), not to a producer (he executive-produced his own shows), and certainly not to fellow journalists who have, out of a misguided sense of collegiality and friendship, avoided asking him tough questions." ....

********UNQUOTE*******

[ClintonTyree]

10. No doubt is was faked........

Novak is tumbling down a very slippery slope at the moment. He needed an out, a way to get his rotting corpse off CNN for a while without seeming TOO overt. Problem is, the manner in which he did it actually makes the entire story BIGGER in the long run because of his over the top dramatics.