Recent revelations in the CIA leak investigation indicate that Time magazine Washington correspondent Viveca Novak may have injected herself in the investigation by alerting a lawyer for White House senior adviser Karl Rove in mid-2004 that her colleague, Time White House correspondent Matthew Cooper, might be forced to disclose to a grand jury what Rove had told him about then-undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame. Novak reportedly warned Rove attorney Robert Luskin that Rove could face legal scrutiny over omitting mention of the conversation with Cooper in his own grand jury testimony, thereby providing Luskin with information that might prove crucial to Rove's defense in the case. Novak never disclosed her conversation with Luskin or her knowledge of Rove's conversation with Cooper to special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald or to Time readers, despite working on several articles about the case after her reported conversation with Luskin.

The revelation in a December 2 New York Times article regarding Novak's conversation is significant for at least two reasons. First, Novak, an experienced journalist working for a prestigious publication, disclosed to Rove's lawyer information that she did not give to her readers and that Cooper would zealously try to withhold for more than a year on the basis of the purportedly sacrosanct anonymity agreement between a reporter and a source. Second, Novak may have affirmatively helped Rove -- a source the magazine covers and will continue to cover -- beat a perjury rap, not by exonerating him through a story in the course of her job, but by providing his lawyer with information in a private conversation.

According to the Times, in the “summer or early fall of 2004,” Novak informed Luskin that Rove “might face legal problems because of potential testimony from Mr. Cooper, her colleague.” In that conversation, Novak and Luskin discussed the fact that Rove and Cooper had talked about Plame shortly before Plame's identity was revealed by syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak (no relation) in a July 14, 2003, column. Luskin and Viveca Novak are “friends,” according to a November 29 Washington Post article.

As the Times noted, Fitzgerald is said to be investigating whether Rove intentionally misled FBI investigators and the grand jury when he initially omitted mention of his conversation with Cooper. According to the Times, Fitzgerald is also investigating whether it was only after learning that Cooper might be forced to testify about his conversation with Rove that Rove “altered his grand jury testimony” to include mention of that conversation. The Times reported that Rove's lawyers maintain that Rove merely forgot about his conversation with Cooper, and that Luskin's conversation with Novak prompted Rove to search for -- and discover -- an email indicating the conversation had, in fact, occurred. Reminded of the conversation with Cooper, Rove's lawyers say, Rove then went before the grand jury again, and this time, he reported having discussed Plame with Cooper.

But whether Rove is guilty of intentionally hiding his conversation with Cooper, Viveca Novak undoubtedly aided Rove's defense by telling his lawyer that inaccuracies in Rove's testimony would likely become apparent to Fitzgerald.

Novak apparently felt free to disclose to Rove's lawyer that Cooper might be compelled to testify before a grand jury about the conversation between Cooper and Rove, but she did not accord Time readers the same privilege.

At the time of Novak's conversation with Luskin in “summer or early fall of 2004,” Cooper was refusing to testify before the grand jury, citing the importance of reporters maintaining promises of confidentiality to sources, in this case Rove. Cooper was subpoenaed in May 2004 but was held in contempt in August 2004 and refused to testify until July 2005.

Novak's alleged involvement in the case did not prevent her from continuing her reporting on it, though she wrote no reports on the key information she gave Luskin. In fact, Novak contributed to an article in the July 11, 2005, edition of Time, in which editor-at-large Bill Saporito wrote that when Luskin was pressed on whether Rove had discussed Plame with Cooper, Luskin “said Cooper called Rove during the week before [Robert] Novak's story appeared but declined to say what they discussed.” The article was on Time editor-in-chief Norman Pearlstine's decision to comply with a subpoena to turn over Cooper's notes related to the story Cooper wrote days after Plame was outed.

From the July 11 article in Time:

After Time Inc. agreed to turn over the requested materials to Fitzgerald's office, speculation quickly surfaced over whose names would be identified. Much of that focused on Karl Rove, senior adviser to President George W. Bush. Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, said Cooper called Rove during the week before Novak's story appeared but declined to say what they discussed. Luskin said Rove “has never knowingly disclosed classified information.” The lawyer said he has received repeated assurances from Fitzgerald's office that Rove is not a target in the case.

Two weeks later, after Cooper had testified and Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff had publicly revealed that Cooper had learned of Plame from Rove, Viveca Novak remained silent about her involvement in the case while contributing to an article about the investigation that appeared in the July 25 edition of Time. The article reported that it was not “a mystery any longer who had a hand in revealing where Wilson's wife worked to Time White House correspondent Matthew Cooper.”

As recently as October 24, Novak co-wrote an article with Time White House correspondent Mike Allen, which reported that “Fitzgerald appears to be seriously weighing a perjury charge for Rove's failure to tell grand jurors that he talked to Time correspondent Matthew Cooper about Plame, according to a person close to Rove.” Novak wrote more generally on the Plame case for Time as recently as November 18.