News and events revolving around the ousting of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

Sunday, December 11, 2005

Time Reporter May Have Tipped Rove's Lawyer to Leak

By Carol D. Leonnig and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, December 12, 2005; A04

A Time magazine reporter testified in the CIA leak case that she alerted Karl Rove's lawyer in early 2004 that the top Bush adviser had leaked information to her colleague about Valerie Plame, according to a first-person account published yesterday in Time.

The reporter, Viveca Novak, did not initially tell her bosses at Time that she may have tipped off Rove's lawyer or that the special prosecutor in the CIA leak was interested in the details of her conversation with Robert D. Luskin, Rove's lawyer. As a result, she and Time editors agreed she would take a leave of absence while they contemplate her future.

The casual chat between Novak and Luskin, which took place in the first half of 2004, is now central to Rove's efforts to avoid indictment in the more than two-year-old case. Novak's account in this week's issue of Time does little to explain how a conversation over drinks between Rove's lawyer and a reporter chasing the story could help clear the senior Bush adviser. In addition to raising new questions about the role of journalists in the Plame affair, Novak's testimony provides fresh and significant insight into Rove's campaign to avoid charges in a case that threatens the man President Bush once called the "architect" of his reelection.

Rove is believed to be under investigation for providing false statements about his role in the public disclosure of Plame's employment at the CIA.

Prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald -- who charged I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney with lying and obstructing justice -- recently presented evidence to a new grand jury. Sources close to the case said one of the biggest pieces of unfinished business is whether to indict Rove -- and that a decision could come as early as this month.

The sources, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they have been urged by Fitzgerald not to discuss the case, said Luskin told the prosecutor about the Novak conversation a few days before Libby was indicted on Oct. 28.

It was only part of what the sources described as a furious, last-minute effort by Luskin to convince the prosecutor that Rove was guilty of nothing more than a bad memory -- and certainly not of trying to cover up his role in the Plame case. Of the information presented by Luskin that day, the Novak conversation is the only piece known to require additional investigation. Now that Fitzgerald has deposed Luskin and Novak, some close to the case think Rove's fate could soon be known.

Novak, according to her first-person account, testified Thursday that in early 2004 she met with Luskin. She told him that Time reporters were buzzing that Rove was one of the sources who told Matthew Cooper, a reporter at the magazine, in July 2003 that Plame worked at the CIA.

This became a big deal once Fitzgerald started investigating whether anyone in the Bush administration illegally disclosed Plame's CIA identity as part of a broader White House effort to discredit allegations made by Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, that Bush had hyped intelligence to justify the Iraq war.

According to Novak's account, she mentioned to Luskin only the speculation about the identity of Cooper's confidential source because she felt Luskin was "spinning" her. She and Luskin met for drinks occasionally after work at Cafe Deluxe on Wisconsin Avenue, and at one of those meetings, she said, Luskin insisted to her that Rove faced no legal exposure in the investigation. She said she pushed back, saying to the attorney, "Are you sure about that?" and remarked that she had heard from Time colleagues that Rove was Cooper's source for a story he did on Plame in July 2003. "He looked surprised and very serious," Novak wrote in the Time article.

It is not clear why this matters. Novak wrote that Luskin told her the tip set in motion a cycle of events that led Rove and his lawyers to search phone logs and other material to determine whether Rove had talked to Cooper -- and eventually prompted Rove to change his testimony. But another lawyer in the case said Luskin had a different strategy in mind when alerting Fitzgerald to the conversation.

Until he testified for a second time in October 2004, Rove maintained he did not recall talking to Cooper. Shortly before testifying, Luskin found an e-mail written by Rove to former deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley in July 2003 in which Rove mentioned the conversation with Cooper. Rove then testified that that e-mail jarred his memory, a lawyer close to the case said.

It appears the timing of the Luskin-Novak conversation is crucial to the Rove defense. Novak said she does not recall the precise date but said she talked with Luskin in January, March and May 2004. She wrote that she believed the talk probably took place in May.

A lawyer close to the case said Luskin has contended the conversation happened before Rove's first appearance before the grand jury in February 2004, when he testified he did not recall discussing Plame with Cooper. Luskin refused to comment. A spokesman for the Rove defense said in a statement that Rove is cooperating and that private discussions with the prosecutor will not be discussed publicly.

One possible explanation of why the date is so important is that Luskin could contend it would have been foolish for Rove to try to cover up his role when he knew -- as a result of Novak's disclosure to Luskin -- that a number of people knew he had talked to Cooper and that it probably would soon become public.

Novak is not related to Robert D. Novak, the conservative columnist who was the first person to disclose Plame's CIA employment in a July 2003 column.

Viveca Novak's standing at Time is in doubt as a result of the episode. She waited to alert her editors for nearly a month after it appeared she might become a part of the leak investigation story -- rather than a writer helping to cover it, according to the dates provided in her account.

She said she hoped she would not have to go before the grand jury. She hired a lawyer and opted not to tell her editors in hopes that she would not become a figure in the story and the subject of news accounts. But on the day she was writing a story about Washington Post reporter and Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward being deposed in the investigation, she learned Fitzgerald wanted to interview her under oath.

Time editor Jim Kelly said in an interview yesterday that he and Novak agreed in conversations Saturday evening that she needed to "take a deep breath" and Kelly needed time to deliberate about her performance and future. "Clearly there was a failure to keep her bureau chief posted about this," he said. "It's fair to say I am disturbed by that."

Kelly added, "there was no struggle" and the two agreed to temporarily part ways. "I take very seriously what's happened, and Viveca takes it very seriously, too," he said.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

Lawyer Knew Rove Was a Source, Reporter Says - New York Times

WASHINGTON, Dec. 11 - A lawyer for Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, learned in the first half of 2004 that Mr. Rove had probably been a source for the magazine's July 2003 article that mentioned the C.I.A. officer who has come to be at the heart of the C.I.A. leak case, a Time reporter wrote today.

The Time reporter, Viveca Novak, wrote in a first-person article published on the magazine's Web site that she met with Robert D. Luskin, a lawyer for Mr. Rove, on three occasions in early 2004. She said it was probably during one of these meetings that she raised the possibility that Mr. Rove had discussed the C.I.A. officer with a Time colleague, Matthew Cooper.

Ms. Novak's conversation with Mr. Luskin has been under scrutiny by the special counsel in the leak case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald. In her article, Ms. Novak wrote that the prosecutor sought to question her about the matter after Mr. Luskin told Mr. Fitzgerald of their conversation about Mr. Rove in the belief that the information would help Mr. Rove.

Ms. Novak's testimony appeared to bring Mr. Fitzgerald near to an endpoint in his deliberations about whether to charge Mr. Rove. Mr. Fitzgerald met for the first time with a new grand jury last week, although it is not known what evidence, if any, he presented to the panel.

Mr. Rove is the only person known to remain under scrutiny in the leak case. Mr. Luskin has waged what other lawyers in the case have said is a vigorous behind-the-scenes attempt to save Mr. Rove from criminal charges. Today, Mr. Luskin would not discuss the case or his conversations with Ms. Novak.

Ms. Novak wrote that she was questioned under oath last week about her conversations with Mr. Luskin and said she felt free to cooperate with the prosecutor because Mr. Luskin wanted her to testify. In her article, Ms. Novak said that she was writing about her conversation with Mr. Luskin - over his objection - because she feels "that he violated any understanding to keep our talk confidential by unilaterally going to Fitzgerald and telling him what was said."

At the time of her 2004 conversation with the lawyer, Ms. Novak wrote, Mr. Luskin seemed surprised when she told him that Mr. Cooper had spoken with Mr. Rove.

In her article, she wrote: "I remember Luskin looking at me and saying something to the effect of 'Karl doesn't have a Cooper problem. He was not a source for Matt.'

"I responded instinctively," she recalled in the article, "thinking he was trying to spin me, and said something like, 'Are you sure about that? That's not what I hear around Time'."

"He looked surprised and very serious," she wrote, recalling that Mr. Luskin said, "There's nothing in the phone logs."

It was only later disclosed in news accounts that Mr. Cooper's phone call on July 11, 2003, had been transferred to Mr. Rove via a White House switchboard, which could explain why there was no record of the call.

Ms. Novak wrote that the conversation with Mr. Luskin had occurred at any one of three meetings anywhere from January 2004 to May 2004. Although she said he believed the key conversation was more likely in May, the prosecutor asked her about a meeting with Mr. Luskin on March 1, 2004, which she had initially overlooked. She said she could not recall when the conversation about Mr. Rove and Mr. Cooper had taken place.

After her exchange with Mr. Luskin, whenever it was, Ms. Novak recalled that she felt uncomfortable thinking that she might have inadvertently disclosed information that should have been withheld from the lawyer.

"I was taken aback that he seemed so surprised," she wrote. "I had been pushing back against what I thought was his attempt to lead me astray. I hadn't believed that I was disclosing anything he didn't already know. Maybe this was a feint. Maybe his client was lying to him. But at any rate, I immediately felt uncomfortable. I hadn't intended to tip Luskin off to anything. I was supposed to be the information gatherer."

The prosecutor has focused for months on the accuracy of Mr. Rove's statements to the grand jury that he forgot about the conversation with Mr. Cooper until sometime in 2004, when he found an internal White House e-mail message addressed to Stephen J. Hadley, then the deputy national security adviser, that confirmed it.

Ms. Novak is not related to Robert Novak, the columnist who first disclosed the name of Ms. Wilson in a column on July 14, 2003. Mr. Cooper's article, which relied on Mr. Rove as a source, was published several days later and also identified Ms. Wilson by her unmarried name, Valerie Plame.

Mr. Fitzgerald has been investigating whether there was a deliberate attempt to disclose details about Ms. Wilson's employment at the C.I.A. as part of an effort by members of the Bush administration to discredit Ms. Wilson's husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador, who had complained about the government's misuse of intelligence on Iraq.

Ms. Novak said that she had not told her editors at Time about her conversation with Mr. Luskin. In addition, she said that although Mr. Luskin told her in late October that Mr. Fitzgerald might be interested in talking to her, she waited until Nov. 20, more than a week after a preliminary meeting with the prosecutor and after he had asked for her testimony under oath, to inform her editors that she had become embroiled in the case.

So far, Mr. Fitzgerald has brought one indictment, against I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. Mr. Libby was indicted on Oct. 28 on five obstruction of justice and perjury counts and immediately resigned. He has pleaded not guilty.

Even if Mr. Fitzgerald concludes his inquiry involving Mr. Rove, it may not end the criminal investigation. Bob Woodward, a reporter for The Washington Post, disclosed last month that a government official told him about Ms. Wilson in mid-June 2003, which would make Mr. Woodward the first reporter known to have been told about Ms. Wilson's C.I.A. affiliation.

Mr. Woodward wrote that he testified under oath in a deposition to Mr. Fitzgerald after his source, whom he refused to identify publicly, went to the prosecutor to disclose the conversation. It is not known what action, if any, Mr. Fitzgerald intends to take in the matter.

Ms. Novak's article was accompanied by an editor's note that said that she had taken a leave of absence.

Time's managing editor, Jim Kelly, said in a telephone interview: "I'm taking this seriously. I'm upset and she's upset," adding that her article "was full of regret about what happened."

Mr. Kelly suggested that were several issues of concern to editors, among them her failure to alert editors in a timely way about her conversation with Mr. Luskin and her dealings with the prosecutor. Mr. Kelly said that he would meet with Ms. Novak early next year to decide if further steps were warranted.

Time: Rove's Lawyer Told of Conversation - Yahoo! News

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

Months before Karl Rove corrected his statements in the Valerie Plame investigation, his lawyer was told that the president's top political adviser might have disclosed Plame's CIA status to a Time magazine reporter.

Rove says he had forgotten the conversation he had on July 11, 2003, with Time's Matt Cooper. But the magazine reported Sunday that in the first half of 2004, as President Bush's re-election campaign was heating up, Rove's lawyer got the word about a possible Rove-Cooper conversation from a second Time reporter, Viveca Novak.

Novak described her conversation with the lawyer, Robert Luskin, in a first-person account released Sunday on Time's Web site.

Luskin declined comment. Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Rove's legal team, said the deputy White House chief of staff has cooperated fully with prosecutors.

"The integrity of the investigation requires that we not discuss the substance of any communications with the special counsel," Corallo said in a statement. "Out of respect for the investigative process, we have abided by that rule and will continue to withhold comment on our interactions with the special counsel."

Six weeks ago, in a so-far successful effort to avert Rove's indictment, Luskin disclosed his conversation with Novak to the special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald. Rove remains under investigation.

In her first-person account, Novak wrote that Luskin clearly thought disclosing their discussion "was going to help Rove, perhaps by explaining why Rove hadn't told Fitzgerald or the grand jury of his conversation with my colleague Matt Cooper."

Fitzgerald questioned Novak under oath Thursday, the day after the prosecutor began presenting evidence to a new grand jury considering evidence in the leak investigation.

The prosecutor is investigating the Bush administration's leaking of Plame's CIA status to the news media in 2003, as Plame's husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the administration of manipulating prewar intelligence on Iraq.

Novak says Luskin appeared surprised when told in 2004 of a possible Rove-Cooper conversation about the CIA status of Wilson's wife.

Luskin said in effect that "Karl doesn't have a Cooper problem. He was not a source for Matt," Novak wrote. "I responded instinctively, thinking he was trying to spin me."

Novak said she told Luskin "something like, 'Are you sure about that? That's not what I hear around Time.' He looked surprised and very serious" and at the end of their discussion that day said, "Thank you. This is important."

Novak said the conversation with Luskin occurred anywhere from January 2004 to May 2004; she thinks it was perhaps in March.

It was not until October 2004 — sometime between five months and nine months after Novak's conversation with Luskin — that Rove disclosed his conversation with Cooper to the prosecutor.

Rove's disclosure followed Luskin's discovery of a White House e-mail from July 11, 2003. The message, from Rove to then-deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley, referred to Rove's conversation earlier that day with Cooper.

It is not known publicly whether Fitzgerald's investigators had the e-mail all along and simply overlooked it or whether the White House had not produced the e-mail for the prosecutor.

By the time Rove stepped forward to disclose the Cooper conversation to investigators, Cooper was under intense pressure from the prosecutor to reveal the original source of his information that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA.

Five months ago, his court appeals exhausted and after receiving a personal waiver from Rove, Cooper disclosed that his source had been the president's top political adviser.

Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, is under indictment in Fitzgerald's probe on five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to the FBI. Libby has pleaded not guilty. What Viveca Novak Told Fitzgerald -- Dec. 19, 2005 -- Page 1

It was in the midst of another Washington scandal, almost a decade ago, that I got to know Bob Luskin. He represented Mark Middleton, a minor figure in the Democratic campaign-finance scandals of 1996. Luskin kept Middleton out of the spotlight and never told me much. Still, there is the occasional source with whom one becomes friendly, and eventually Luskin was in that group.

We'd occasionally meet for a drink--he didn't like having lunch--at Cafe Deluxe on Wisconsin Avenue, near the National Cathedral and on my route home. In October 2003, as we each made our way through a glass of wine, he asked me what I was working on. I told him I was trying to get a handle on the Valerie Plame leak investigation. "Well," he said, "you're sitting next to Karl Rove's lawyer." I was genuinely surprised, since Luskin's liberal sympathies were no secret, and here he was representing the man known to many Democrats as the other side's Evil Genius. I began spending a little more time than usual with Luskin as I tried to keep track of the investigation. But how it all bought me a ticket to testify under oath to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald still floors me.

The week of Oct. 24, 2005, was Indictment Week--that Friday, the grand jury's term would expire, and it was expected that Fitzgerald would finish up his probe by then so he wouldn't have to start working with a new grand jury. It seemed clear that Scooter Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, was in deep trouble, but Rove's status was uncertain. Sometime during that week, Luskin, who was talking at length with Fitzgerald, phoned me and said he had disclosed to Fitzgerald the content of a conversation he and I had had at Cafe Deluxe more than a year earlier and that Fitzgerald might want to talk to me.

Luskin clearly thought that was going to help Rove, perhaps by explaining why Rove hadn't told Fitzgerald or the grand jury of his conversation with my colleague Matt Cooper about former Ambassador Joe Wilson's wife until well into the inquiry. I knew what Matt had been through--the unwanted celebrity, the speculation unrelated to fact, the dissection of his life and career. I didn't face the prospect of prison, since Luskin clearly wanted me to tell Fitzgerald about the incident and thus Luskin was not a source I had to protect, but no journalist wants to be part of the story. I clung to Luskin's word might, but the next week he told me Fitzgerald did indeed want to talk to me, but informally, not under oath. I hired a lawyer, Hank Schuelke, but I didn't tell anyone at TIME. Unrealistically, I hoped this would turn out to be an insignificant twist in the investigation and also figured that if people at TIME knew about it, it would be difficult to contain the information, and reporters would pounce on it--as I would have. Fitzgerald and I met in my lawyer's office on Nov. 10 for about two hours. Schuelke had told him I would discuss only my interactions with Luskin that were relevant to the conversation in question. No fishing expeditions, no questions about my other reporting or sources in the case. He agreed, telling my lawyer that he wanted to "remove the chicken bone without disturbing the body."

He asked how often Luskin and I met during the period from fall 2003 to fall 2004 (about five times), when, where and so forth. I had calendar entries that helped but weren't entirely reliable. Did I take notes at those meetings? No. Luskin was more likely to speak freely if he didn't see me committing his words to paper. Did Luskin ever talk to me about whether Rove was a source for Matt on the subject of Wilson's wife?

That was the "chicken bone" Fitzgerald had referred to, the conversation Luskin had told him about that got me dragged into the probe. Here's what happened. Toward the end of one of our meetings, I remember Luskin looking at me and saying something to the effect of "Karl doesn't have a Cooper problem. He was not a source for Matt." I responded instinctively, thinking he was trying to spin me, and said something like, "Are you sure about that? That's not what I hear around TIME." He looked surprised and very serious. "There's nothing in the phone logs," he said. In the course of the investigation, the logs of all Rove's calls around the July 2003 time period--when two stories, including Matt's, were published mentioning that Plame was Wilson's wife--had been combed, and Luskin was telling me there were no references to Matt. (Cooper called via the White House switchboard, which may be why there is no record.)

I was taken aback that he seemed so surprised. I had been pushing back against what I thought was his attempt to lead me astray. I hadn't believed that I was disclosing anything he didn't already know. Maybe this was a feint. Maybe his client was lying to him. But at any rate, I immediately felt uncomfortable. I hadn't intended to tip Luskin off to anything. I was supposed to be the information gatherer. It's true that reporters and sources often trade information, but that's not what this was about. If I could have a do-over, I would have kept my mouth shut; since I didn't, I wish I had told my bureau chief about the exchange. Luskin walked me to my car and said something like, "Thank you. This is important." Fitzgerald wanted to know when this conversation occurred. At that point I had found calendar entries showing that Luskin and I had met in January and in May. Since I couldn't remember exactly how the conversation had developed, I wasn't sure. I guessed it was more likely May.

As my meeting with Fitzgerald wrapped up, I asked what would happen next. He said he would consider whether he needed to interview me again under oath, but that if he did, he wouldn't require me to appear before the grand jury. I hoped that would be the end of it. But on Friday, Nov. 18--when I was on deadline, writing, ironically, about Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward's newly discovered role in the investigation--my lawyer called and told me Fitzgerald did indeed want me under oath. I realized that I now needed to share this information with Jay Carney, our Washington bureau chief. On Sunday, Nov. 20, I drove over to his house to tell him. He then called Jim Kelly, the managing editor. Nobody was happy about it, least of all me.

A new meeting with Fitzgerald was arranged for Dec. 8. Leaks about my role began appearing in the papers, some of them closer to the mark than others. They all made me feel physically ill. Fitzgerald had asked that I check a couple of dates in my calendar for meetings with Luskin. One of them, March 1, 2004, checked out. I hadn't found that one in my first search because I had erroneously entered it as occurring at 5 a.m., not 5 p.m.

When Fitzgerald and I met last Thursday, along with another lawyer from his team, my attorney, a lawyer from Time Inc. and the court reporter, he was more focused. The problem with the new March date was that now I was even more confused--previously I had to try to remember if the key conversation had occurred in January or May, and I thought it was more likely May. But March was close enough to May that I really didn't know. "I don't remember" is an answer that prosecutors are used to hearing, but I was mortified about how little I could recall of what occurred when.

This meeting lasted about an hour and a half. As before, Fitzgerald was extremely pleasant, very professional, and he stuck to his pledge not to wander with his questions. Does what I remembered--or more often, didn't remember--of my interactions with Luskin matter? Will it make the difference between whether Rove gets indicted or not? I have no idea. I didn't find out until this fall that, according to Luskin, my remark led him to do an intensive search for evidence that Rove and Matt had talked. That's how Luskin says he found the e-mail Rove wrote to Stephen Hadley at the National Security Council right after his conversation with Matt, saying that Matt had called about welfare reform but then switched to the subject of Iraq's alleged attempt to buy uranium yellowcake in Niger. According to Luskin, he turned the e-mail over to Fitzgerald when he found it, leading Rove to acknowledge before the grand jury in October 2004 that he had indeed spoken with Cooper.

One final note: Luskin is unhappy that I decided to write about our conversation, but I feel that he violated any understanding to keep our talk confidential by unilaterally going to Fitzgerald and telling him what was said. And, of course, anyone who testifies under oath for a grand jury (my sworn statement will be presented to the grand jury by Fitzgerald) is free to discuss that testimony afterward. The Roving Investigator -- Dec. 19, 2005 -- Page 1

In his continuing inquiry into the Valerie Plame leak, Patrick Fitzgerald questions another TIME reporter
Reporters like to be the ones asking the questions, but the Valerie Plame leak investigation just hasn't been working that way. In his quest to find out whether White House officials leaked that Plame was a cia officer as a way to punish her husband Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador and a critic of the White House case for the Iraq war, special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald has got testimony from a parade of journalists, including Judith Miller of the New York Times, Matthew Cooper of TIME, nbc's Tim Russert and Bob Woodward of the Washington Post. Now add one more to the list: TIME correspondent Viveca Novak. As TIME reported two weeks ago, Novak had recently agreed to cooperate with a request from Fitzgerald to answer questions about conversations she had had with Robert Luskin, the attorney for White House senior adviser Karl Rove. Novak cooperated because, unlike her colleague Cooper, she did not have a confidential source to protect. Last Thursday, Novak was questioned under oath by Fitzgerald for more than an hour at the Washington office of her lawyer.

What Fitzgerald wanted to know about was a conversation Novak had had over drinks with Luskin in the first half of last year. In that exchange, Luskin told Novak that Rove had not been Cooper's source for a story that Cooper had co-authored in July 2003 about how "government officials" had told TIME that Wilson's wife worked at the cia. That was in keeping with what Rove had told Fitzgerald's grand jury in February 2004. But at the restaurant that night, Novak challenged Luskin, saying she was hearing a different story around TIME's Washington bureau—namely that Rove was indeed Cooper's source. TIME editors learned about the conversation only last month, when Novak first disclosed it to the magazine's Washington bureau chief, James Carney. By then, Luskin had told Fitzgerald about the conversation, and Novak had already phoned and met with the special counsel.

Why is that conversation supposedly important? Because in October 2004, a few months after it took place, Rove made another appearance before the grand jury, saying this time that he had found an e-mail showing that he had spoken with Cooper. As Luskin tells it, his talk with Novak led him to a new search for evidence that Rove had been in contact with Cooper. That turned up an e-mail Rove had sent, shortly after speaking with Cooper, to Stephen Hadley, then Deputy National Security Adviser, telling Hadley about the conversation. Cooper later testified about his version of the chat last July, but only after receiving a specific waiver from Rove and after a costly battle by Time Inc. to keep Cooper's notes from Fitzgerald. Norman Pearlstine, Time Inc.'s editor-in-chief, relented after the Supreme Court refused to hear the company's appeal.

What will Fitzgerald do now? That's Washington's favorite parlor game. The day before he questioned Novak, the special counsel met for three hours with his new grand jury, which presumably will decide Rove's fate.